Whiplash

To me, Whiplash is Damien Chazelle’s most perfect film, and is one of my personal favourites; top three for sure. Many people who I have talked to describe this film as a coming-of-age story, although I thoroughly disagree. Whiplash is a tale which tells a young drummer’s pursuit for perfection, and his aspiration to be considered as “one of the greats”, while he is psychologically tortured and tormented by Fletcher (played marvelously by J K Simmons). Fletcher may initially seem to have a very antagonistic presence, but without him, our protagonist Andrew would be lost to the mundane life he was previously living and was trying to stray far from. While Simmons is easily the standout in Whiplash with his Oscar-winning performance as the vulgar and abusive Terrence Fletcher, we should not overlook any of the other actors in the film, especially Miles Teller as Andrew who gives a captivating and relatable performance.

Out of any film I have ever watched, I would say that Whiplash has resonated with me deeply and is a cinematic experience that has genuinely changed my life. One scene in particular that has personally and heavily influenced me is the “good job” scene; the writing here is superb and the logic is flawless. Not only did this scene teach me a very valuable life lesson, but it deepens Fletcher’s character tenfold; without this scene, Fletcher would have been one-dimensional, but this scene makes an iniquitous character’s motives understandable, and somewhat deserving of sympathy.

It is genuinely bewildering to me that this is only Chazelle’s second feature film. Whiplash shows absolutely no signs of being helmed by an amateur filmmaker; the cinematography and editing work so well together and the film is just technically superb. While speaking on the technical aspects of the film, I cannot go without mentioning the sound design. It is incredible. The way Fletcher’s sessions with his students snap instantly between painfully tense silences and explosive bouts of snappy jazz music works so well, almost reflecting Fletcher’s calm and subdued anger before he launches into fiery bouts of rage, screaming abuse in his student’s faces.

As this review draws to a close, it seems appropriate to discuss Whiplash’s ending. Whiplash has an emotionally striking, tension filled and awe-inspiring ending, and the final scene barely has any words spoken, and rightfully so. Although upon further inspection, it is actually a very dark ending. By succeeding, Andrew continues to be Fletcher’s slave. This ending may be inspiring and worthy of cheer and applause, but beneath the surface there stands a dark question; would it be better for Andrew to fail and return to his mundane, boring life, or succeed to be one of the greats, but forever serve the one who used him? This was the first film of Chazelle’s that I had seen, and by this point, he had certainly grabbed my attention with this powerful work of art. After Whiplash, I could not wait to view everything else he had to offer.

La La Land

La La Land is Chazelle’s third film and is yet another showcase of Chazelle’s love for jazz music. This film received many award nominations, including Oscars, and was generally well loved by many audiences. That being said, I am not lying when I say that this is easily one of the biggest cinematic let-downs I have ever experienced. The build up to this film seemed to promise a stylish homage to old-school musicals, while retaining Chazelle’s trademark love for jazz, but what I was greeted with was a moderately entertaining musical with a central romance between the characters of Mia and Seb which proves to be cute, yet as shallow as a muddy puddle.

One major problem I have, not just with La La Land, but with “homage” movies in general, is that they just do not work. I understand Chazelle has a love for jazz and musicals but trying to recapture a certain kind of magic that Hollywood musicals radiated in the 50s and 60s just comes off as redundant and flat. Speaking of flatness, I really do not buy the central romance of La La Land. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are both very talented actors and attractive people, but the writing fails to establish any real personal love between these two. There are a few scenes in which I feel like I’m just watching Gosling and Stone endlessly flirt with each other, like they presumably would do while the cameras were off, and nothing particularly special comes of the romance. Because of this, the film just feels like it has wasted my time.

There is absolutely no doubt that La La Land is technically quite marvellous, containing plenty of well shot and choreographed musical numbers, almost reminiscent of the work that Gene Kelly exhibited in Singin’ in the Rain, in which he incorporated the camera in the scene like it was its own character. Most notably is the Planetarium scene, which actually has a rather magical and touching tone which I just wish was present throughout the entire film. La La Land, like its lead actors, is handsome, pretty, and charming, but that is exactly where my problems with the film start to form. On the surface, the film is quite sweet and relatively entertaining, and even harmless, but you start to dig a little bit deeper, and you realise there is nothing really there.

I’m honestly not too sure why this film has received such a spectacular reception. I like Damien Chazelle a lot and he is definitely a very talented and passionate filmmaker, but to go from an intense and emotional film with depth and layers in Whiplash, to this film which is as technically marvellous as it is completely superficial, just comes off as very disappointing. After all, one of the main reasons why I love Whiplash so much is because it delivers such a heavy emotional punch, and actually has a very appealing grungy aesthetic. La La Land, on the other hand, is just a little too glossy and lacking in any real emotionally profound message.

First Man

First Man tells the real-life story of Neil Armstrong, the first man to step foot on the moon. Once again, Chazelle has teamed up with Ryan Gosling to tell this story. Initially, I was slightly bewildered as to why Chazelle chose to direct this film; it didn’t bear much resemblance to his previous jazz-based films, so I wondered if he was going to be able to pull it off. Fortunately, one component of First Man that was present in Chazelle’s past work is the aspiration and drive of the title characters. While not aesthetically or cinematically similar to his previous work, the subtle motivations of the Chazelle’s lead character was the one consistent component that made me feel comfortable that First Man would feel like a true Damien Chazelle film. Hopefully, First Man would both continue to showcase the more significant drives of characters that Chazelle was known for, while simultaneously proving that Chazelle was developing his technical skills as a filmmaker.

Fortunately, First Man proves to be exactly this. First Man is without a doubt still a Damien Chazelle film, and vaguely similar to Whiplash beneath its surface, which is the aspect of First Man which I loved the most. Armstrong as a character, like the film itself, is appropriately subdued; he is a very stoic man with no real emotion on show, yet you can feel the true motivation behind his eyes. Specific moments throughout the film show Armstrong staring up at the moon, with separate shots showcasing the moon staring back at him, like a giant eye in the sky. Armstrong’s mission is evident, yet he barely speaks a word of it.

First Man is without a doubt a very personal tale. This is a film about Armstrong, not NASA or the USA, just a man with a personal mission. One fear I had prior to viewing this film was that it could have been an extremely patriotic film and come off as some form of glorified propaganda, but thankfully it did not come off this way at all. There are a few mentions of the space race and Russia here and there, but I only felt as if they were placed in the film for historical accuracy, and these moments never came off as overly patriotic. Even the first time Armstrong is launched into space in the Gemini project, there are no external shots of news footage or how the American public is reacting to the recent developments. The camera is placed inside the cockpit and never leaves until the scene is over, yet again highlighting Armstrong’s emotion without uttering a word. The way the metal creaks in this scene instilled a horrid sense of dread in me, and this is when I realised that Chazelle truly shines a director when there is no dialogue and he deals purely in the emotion of his characters. This is a raw form of true talent I have come to greatly appreciate in Damien Chazelle.

I was pleasantly surprised with First Man, and even felt that the dark, empty void of space was genuinely terrifying, and almost reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. While Gosling may be slightly emotionless in many scenes of the film, this was the only real flaw I could find with First Man. This only proves to me that Chazelle is a very talented filmmaker and I cannot wait to see what his next big screen project will be.

The Eddy

One thing I found to be very comforting about The Eddy is that it feels like much more of a return to form for Chazelle. While he definitely did a great job directing First Man, that film still felt slightly like Chazelle was stepping out of his comfort zone to deal with a special effect heavy biopic. The Eddy, on the other hand, sees Chazelle return to his roots, and from the offset, I was reminded of the grungy style of Whiplash that I love so much. Chazelle only directed the first two episodes of this show, so those will be the episodes I primarily focus on in this review.  

The show begins set inside The Eddy, a jazz club owned by a character named Elliott, which resides on a street in the heart of Paris. Once again, The Eddy begins with Chazelle’s signature of a deadly quietly moment which is interrupted in a split second by a lively bout of deafening jazz. The reliable handheld camera also makes a welcomed return, only adding to the realistic feel which The Eddy provides. While I am used the Chazelle directing feature length films, The Eddy consists of eight episodes, each around an hour long. This made me feel as if I was watching a series of mini movies, as opposed to television episodes, so it was a change of pace that I did not mind all that much.

Thematically, I couldn’t feel as if this series was a little bit more dire compared to Chazelle’s other work. The characters all come off as overly mopey, but in a way which I struggled to relate to in the same way I had previously with Andrew in Whiplash. Even some moments in the first episode containing murder and assault just felt like a side of Chazelle that I wasn’t quite used to. Along a similar line of criticism, I couldn’t help but feel like this show was a bit too much? Stylistically speaking anyway. As I started watching, the aesthetic and themes of aspiring people working in a jazz club who smoke cigarettes on a street corner in Paris almost felt like a concept dreamt up by a pretentious jazz fan, which I’m sure is the exact way a few people would describe Chazelle, but it came off as almost expected. The Eddy is not a bad show by any means, and the episodes which Chazelle directs do show off his signature flair, but I think I’ll stick to Whiplash and First Man for the time being.

A Marvel film? Set in the 90’s? Brie Larson as Carol Danvers? A young Nick Fury and we learn how he lost his eye? Yes please!

The sheer thought of a Captain Marvel film got me excited; Carol Danvers is essentially Marvel’s Wonder Woman. She is one of the most powerful Marvel characters with a strong personality and a superhero that young girls can look up to and feel empowered by. She is easily one of Marvel’s greatest heroes.

I remember being sat there in the cinema after watching Infinity War, feeling absolutely defeated after the iconic “snap” moment, and anxiously waiting to see what the end-credits scene had in store for both myself, and all the other nerds sat around me. Then, it happened – Nick Fury turns to dust, dropping the device in his hands, and it displays Captain Marvel’s logo. It was happening. A Captain Marvel movie was happening. And I was excited. Now, the film has been released, I’ve watched it and I’m reviewing it.

I won’t lie, Captain Marvel was rather underwhelming. Not a terrible film, but definitely the most middling of the now 21 Marvel movies, and this was mainly due to the lack of style and the film having the inability to do anything new.

By now, I would say a standard has been set for modern Marvel films in terms of style; James Gunn’s classic soundtrack in futuristic settings combined with a great sense of humour, Taika Waititi’s bizarre comedy and stylish set pieces and costumes, the Russo brothers bringing a suitable sense of dread and hopelessness to Infinity War without it feeling overly “gritty” like many superhero films do nowadays, the list goes on. Unfortunately, Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck fail to bring anything of any real flair or flavour to this movie, making Captain Marvel feel completely bland compared to Thor: Ragnarok and Guardians of the Galaxy. The colour palette especially is very murky and just downright dark in certain scenes, making them just difficult to watch, which seems strange seeing as the protagonist represents the last source of hope for the Avengers, and literally flies around in a bright red, blue and gold costume.

Even story wise, Captain Marvel just feels like a typical fish-out-of-water, amnesiac rediscovering who she is, way more powerful than she or anyone else realises kind of film. Certain scenes act as exposition dumps where we learn anything and everything about Carol Danvers and her backstory, with even certain lines feeling like they were ripped straight out of a superhero film handbook.

Not only the lines themselves, but the way they were delivered by Brie Larson felt weirdly wooden at times, even to the point where they just feel like they were coming from the mouth of an inexperienced actor, which seems very strange to me as Brie Larson is a very talented actress.

One performance I was pleased with was Samuel L. Jackson as a younger Nick Fury, who had a larger presence in the story than I realised, but it was a welcome presence. One massive praise to this film would be the impressive work de-aging Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg, which blended nicely into the film. The special effects in general were pretty good, aside from a few shots that looked slightly bad, especially one close-up shot of a CGI Brie Larson which didn’t hold up at all.

Another compliment for this film would be the fact that I didn’t actually mind the Skrulls; the concept art for the Skrulls looked very comic accurate, and I was happy with it. Then the official set photos were released and they looked horrible. Having watched the film now, I didn’t actually mind their design and they looked pretty good with some decent prosthetic work.

Captain Marvel also contains some nice humour sprinkled throughout, often involving Nick Fury or Goose the cat (who was a nice addition to the film) and there were a few scenes that actually made me laugh, as opposed to a small chuckle here and there which Marvel films are guilty of. However, there are a few revelations in the film which were sacrificed for comedy, and this is now a trend in Marvel films that is actually starting to get annoying. Without spoilers, this film basically reveals how something came to be in the Marvel Universe; this scene could have had some dramatic heft, and instead it was sacrificed for a quick joke, which was one of my least favourite moments in any Marvel film.

Despite having some enjoyable moments and some decent twists here and there, Captain Marvel comes off as a bland origin tale which only exists so we know who “that one” is when Endgame comes out. Despite not being Thor: The Dark World levels of bad, Captain Marvel is one of the franchises’ most disappointing ventures, and wastes a lot of potential it had.

Ridley Scott’s classic sci-fi horror Alien is one of my all time favourites, and I would even argue to be one of the best films of all time, mainly due to its interesting yet very unsettling themes of sexual aggression and forced pregnancy, its subversion of expectations and the sense of sheer terror I felt the first time I watched it.

From the opening scene alone, I knew what I was in for; the shots of empty seats, hallways and helmets set up an eerie atmosphere that lingered even far after the crew awakens and start to wander the ship. This unsettling feeling was only heightened when the crew discover the eggs and unknowingly bring back what would lead the majority of them to their doom.

Horror, in my opinion, should be the seemingly contradictory mix of realisation and confusion, and Alien does this perfectly; we know the Xenomorph is lurking somewhere, we just don’t know where that somewhere actually is. In one of the most tense parts of the film, Dallas enters the shadowed vents of the ship to search for the Xenomorph. Both us as the audience and Dallas know that the alien is in the vents with him, yet we have no idea where. This scene stills makes me shiver, and leaves me with a chilled dread after the alien eventually leaps from the shadows, taking Dallas to his fate.

The dark themes that Alien manages to paint across itself are some of the most fascinating yet horrifying uses of symbolism I have ever seen put to film. From the phallic shape of the Xenomorph, to the horrendous way that the Facehuggers plant their young inside their victims, Alien touches its audience on a deep, psychological level to further enhance the dread that the film was already achieving,  and to also ensure that the film sticks with the viewer long after they have stopped watching the film, like only the best horrors can do.

Speaking of which, the iconic Chestburster scene is one of the best feats of film-making I have ever watched; down to John Hurt’s convincing performance, the rapid angles and editing heightening the sense of  panic as the crew scramble to save him, even the great use of props. Not to mention the fact that nobody told the cast that this would even happen, with the script simply stating “the alien emerges” in order to have the actors’ genuine reactions captured on camera. Sly? Maybe, but effective without a doubt.

One of the best things that Alien has to offer is the way it subverts the expectations of its viewer; typically, the rugged, handsome male figure is usually the one who is the main protagonist of the film, the one who leads everyone to safety and protects them from danger. This is not the case in Alien, as the previously mentioned Dallas meets his demise relatively early on, leaving the other members of the crew lacking a leader. This is when Sigourney Weaver steps in, in what is her best role, hands down. Alien provides us with a strong female lead played by the perfect actor, and Weaver really does play this role excellently. She is vulnerable enough to be feel human, but not so much to the point where we see her as being weak, yet she is tough enough to push herself through the horrid scenarios she is put through. The character of Ellen Ripley has aged very well, with many being able to look up to her even today. I can imagine typical audiences sat in the cinema in 1979, simply expecting someone like Dallas to spring to action and save the day, only for this to be taken away from them, and instead have a strong female lead take the reins instead.

Another performance in this film that has stuck with me ever since I saw Alien for the first time is Ian Holm as Ash. This man is unnerving to say the least, a strange presence who is always silently lingering, just waiting for the right opportunity and unafraid to stab his fellow crew in the back. The close-up shot of Ash’s face with the white fluid dripping past his eye, revealing him to have been an android has always given me chills and was a shot that was as simple as it was effective.

One tiny complaint I have about Alien are that a few shots involving props have not aged particularly well. One of which being a shot of the alien walking towards a member of the crew which looked as if the alien was being pushed along on an unseen trolley, nothing looking particularly natural about the way it was moving. Another shot being that of Ash’s decapitated head on the table which keeps switching back between a prop and Ian Holm’s actual head, and it takes some of the believably away from this moment.

Despite a tiny minor complaint, Alien is nearly a flawless film in my opinion. It is a significant and revolutionary piece of film for horror and film in general. I often wish I was around to watch Alien when it first came out in cinemas, and be overtaken by the amazing feeling of dread in a dark cinema room. That would be an amazing experience.

Creed 2 is the sequel to Creed which was the reboot of the classic Rocky franchise. Bit of a mouthful really. I found the first Creed film to be a decent installment in the franchise, adding a nice modern feel to the Rocky formula; nicely blending current and classic. Steven Caple Jr. takes the reins now, as opposed to Ryan Coogler.

Generally speaking, Creed 2 rides the same wave as its predecessor; a boxing film similar in story to previous Rocky films, but with a lot of heart and well-rounded characters played by the perfect actors. As usual, Michael B Jordan proves to be one of the most talented actors of his generation, and his abilities are tested even more so than the previous film. Many emotions are put on display from Jordan here; anger, confusion, frustration, but also sheer happiness, even some scenes showing a more vulnerable side to the character of Adonis Creed, including scenes in which he breaks down in tears, or even acting slightly awkward (humourously so) as he is unable to handle certain situations with his girlfriend.

The supporting cast are also excellent. Stallone and Tessa Thompson return to their roles and provide Creed with something to fight for, a reminder of why he boxes which only drives him more towards succeeding, therefore providing some much needed motivation for him to beat his opponent.

Speaking of which, the part of this film I was most interested to see was the revenge element of the story; Creed faces off against the son of the man who killed Creed’s father. Purely based off this information alone, you would assume that the fights would carry a lot of emotional weight, therefore making what happens inside the ring a lot more meaningful than a standard boxing match; if Creed wins the fight against Drago, he may finally feel some form of closure after losing his father. Unfortunately, I felt this aspect of the film to be surprisingly unexplored. Aside from a few lines here and there, the whole revenge element which I was almost certain would be the driving force of Creed wanting to win the match is almost absent, and the fights feel almost standard due to this.

Florian Munteanu plays the son of Ivan Drago, and he fits the character just fine. Nothing particularly special is brought to the table with this character, but Florian manages to play the role of an insanely muscular and brooding thug with ease. One thing I found to be rather unbelievable was the fact that these two opponents were actually able to box each other seeing as Drago looks to be about two weight classes heavier than Creed. Even a small scene that takes place during the weigh-in seems to gloss over this plot hole.

A nice surprise that this film delivered was that it actually delves into the domestic side of the Drago’s life, and really hits home that their lives aren’t very easy, or filled with much father-son respect or love. This was a pleasant change which I thoroughly enjoyed watching, seeing as many previous Rocky antagonists are simply just men with muscles who want the glory of winning, so have some antagonists that felt like actual humans was very nice to see.

The first Creed film contained one of the best fights I think was ever put to film, all edited and filmed to look like one single shot, and it was astounding. I hoped that this film would find a way to somehow top that, though it doesn’t. The fights are still spectacular though; brutal and hard-hitting, I swear I could almost feel some of the hits landing with the impact of a wrecking ball. I was even reduced to taking up an old habit of biting my nails due to how intense some moments were during these fights. When Creed was up against the ropes being pummeled by Drago, I very nearly looked away.

Despite following some of the same beats as its predecessors (training montages, motivational speeches, etc.), Creed 2 manages to add something that does feel slightly more fresh, and that is mainly due to Jordan’s fantastic performance, showcasing just how wide his range is, with help from some fantastic supporting characters, brutal fights and a decent opponent. Although some aspects of the film were not explored as much as I personally would have liked them to have been, Creed 2 is one of the better films in this franchise and was a blast to watch.

I remember the first time I heard the rumour that a Queen biopic was in development and I could not have been happier. As a big fan of Freddie Mercury and the iconic music he and his band managed to craft, the thought of seeing the life of this flamboyant rock star on the big screen sounded like an ideal film.

Having watched Bohemian Rhapsody twice at this point, I can say that I did enjoy watching the film much more the second time around. During my first viewing, I found some scenes to drag, and found most of the entertainment in the scenes involving the performances, but now I find much more enjoyment in the scenes that involve Queen collaborating and sharing their ideas to craft what we now know to be classic songs. Whether it be the band fighting to have Bohemian Rhapsody as their lead single or Brian May being astounded at how good John Deacon’s riff to Another One Bites the Dust sounds, the band here feel real, like a group of friends who simply just want to make good music and perform, yet still have their share of bickering like a real group of friends do.

All the actors play their parts incredibly well, with not only having great personal performances, but also managing to sell authenticity by having great chemistry together. It also helps how the chosen cast look almost exactly like the band members they play, almost to a scarily realistic degree. Although May, Taylor and Deacon are all portrayed by great actors giving it their all, the standout of this film is Rami Malek as the one and only Freddie Mercury. Malek manages to perfectly capture Mercury in his portrayal of him, almost as if he was possessed while on set. Every detail from his movements to his speech and the way he interacts with other people (both who he likes and dislikes), even the amazing costumes all come together to showcase the side of Freddie that was flashy and visually arrogant; sticking to himself and his ideas and not budging from any criticism or hate that came his way.

Obviously, Mercury’s life was not all fun. He had his share of frustrations, heartbreaks and generally depressing moments in life. These elements are captured in Bohemian Rhapsody, and upon first viewing, I was not a fan of this aspect of the film. This was mainly because I thought the entire film was going to be about the more electrifying and raunchy side of Queen, so when Mercury stands outside in the rain at midnight, glaring down at the floor, I thought it completely spoiled this aspect of the film. However, upon reflection, I now appreciate (most of) these more emotional moments now, as if highlights the paradoxical life of Freddie. Yes, he had fun, he did drugs, he drank and partied and participated in many risqué ventures and was a flashy performer, but there was a darker and more depressed side of Mercury who was back-stabbed, heart broken and depressed, all of which is mostly captured well within Bohemian Rhapsody .

I say mostly as there are a few scenes that should have had more of an emotional impact than I feel like they actually had. The previously mentioned scene where Freddie stands outside in the rain just came off as one big flavourless cliche, and to me, it was even slightly humourous. Despite a couple of scenes like this, there were a few tears shed throughout this film. For example, Freddie revealing his diagnosis to the other band members was emotionally wrenching, but preceded one of the best scenes I have viewed in any film that came out in 2018.

The final Live Aid performance was absolutely astounding and an incredible feat of acting on Malek’s part; every single tiny movement of the actual performance was placed into the film to make it feel scarily realistic, and I appreciated this scene all the more for it. I even almost had to restrain myself from standing up and dancing along to the music, so I simply settled for head-nodding and tapping my feet.

By the time the credits hit, I appreciated Queen much more, and this film has solidified my love for Queen and their tracks. Despite some scenes that didn’t pack as much of a punch as they should have, and some events and people either being completely scrapped, made up or shuffled around for the sake of making the film more dramatic, Bohemian Rhapsody was an enjoyable and fun biopic that gave an insight into the life of who I would argue to be the greatest singer of all time.

John Carpenter’s 1978 horror classic “Halloween” is one of my favourite horror films of all time, and a film that inspired me due to how Carpenter managed to achieve so much with so little. Because of this, I was naturally intrigued by the trailer to this 2018 sequel (strangely adopting the same title as its predecessor) mainly because it showed glimpses of greatness, and seemingly straying away from the tropes of modern horror. So, did this film satisfy my twisted needs of wanting to see my favourite masked, knife-wielding psycho? Yes, but also no.

If there is one thing that this film does right, it would be Michael Myers; he is the same entity from the original movie, and despite the fact that he has aged 40 years, he still feels like the same old Michael, which I loved, as it made him seem almost impervious to his own age, and his need for blood just keeps him pushing forwards. His mask finally looks great, after so many horrid versions of it in the past, and his slow, robot-like movements are just as creepy as they were in the 70’s. Unlike the Halloween sequels that portray Michael as someone who is downright invincible, Michael is rather an unstoppable force that just keeps taking damage but carries on getting back up and moving forward; he is the boogieman, not a god, which is the way he should be.

Another returning character from the original Halloween is Laurie Strode, played excellently once again by Jamie Lee Curtis. This is not the same Laurie from 40 years ago; here she is damaged, mentally and physically scarred and preparing for the inevitable. Her progression as a character is realistic, transgressing from the sweet teenage victim to the paranoid but tactical woman who’s skills as a predator are almost level with Michael himself.

As for the other members of the Strode family, I was not too impressed. The granddaughter of Laurie had no purpose, other than screaming and running; while the actress did a fine job, I believed her to be terribly written. Interestingly,  I had the opposite opinion of Laurie’s daughter who had a fairly decent backstory and a handful of memorable moments, but Judy Greer often flipped between being satisfactory, and sometimes downright terrible. In one scene in particular where she talks about her childhood, her line delivery was so stale that I was genuinely convinced that an outtake had been edited into the film. As for Laurie’s son-in-law played by Toby Huss, he was easily one of the most out of place characters in the movie, mainly due to his cringe-worthy jokes that just stuck out like a sore thumb.

Speaking of things feeling out of place, this movie is filled with entire scenes that don’t feel like they belong in the Halloween franchise. Not to give any spoilers, but three specific scenes got under my skin; one of which takes place at a party that contained teenage relationship drama and bright flashing lights. When I think of Halloween films, these things do not come to mind. Another scene happens in a police car with two officers making jokes about what they are eating. Nothing significant happens in this scene and its only purpose is to provide comedy, which is just unwanted. Both of these scenes make the tone feel inconsistent. The 1978 Halloween had a very consistent tone, giving creepy reminders that Michael was lurking and that his intentions were deadly, making the audience feel unnerved at the thought that the masked antagonist could appear at virtually any time to end lives. The trouble with this movie’s tone is that police officers making jokes about sandwiches and chocolate pudding makes me forget about Michael, and make me wonder if I’m watching a comedy, which is clearly a huge problem. Again, without spoiling anything, but by far the most infuriating scene is a downright stupid twist that occurs just before the final act of the film. This twist was just so illogical that I sat with a furrowed brow and gaping mouth. Not even was this twist a foolish decision to make, but it was instantly forgotten about, and the film just continues like it did not even happen.

While there may be moments that feel unsuitable, others brought a pleased smile to my face as they gave a nice nod to the previous film. Some small elements such as a scar on Laurie’s shoulder that came as a result of Michael slashing her 40 years ago was a small but pleasing detail, as well as a brief glimpse at Michael’s blinded eye, caused by Laurie jabbing him with a coat hanger. Some camera shots also acted as callbacks to the original, along with the opening credits, which were orange and slightly blurry, alongside a reversed shot of a decaying pumpkin. Small details like these helped to emphasise the link between this installment and John Carpenter’s classic, even if they do contrast with the strange humour sprinkled throughout.

Halloween 2018 reminds me of Star Wars: The Last Jedi in a way; upon first viewing, I thought it was a fairly good and entertaining film that definitely had some problems, but problems that I was willing to look past for the sake of appreciating the movie. However, the more I think about the increasingly apparent downsides of this film, the more I dislike it. I do not hate this film by any means; Michael and Laurie are easily the highlights, with there being some lovely gory moments and nods to the original film, but there is still a bucket load of problems that are massively harmful to both tone and characters. Although this film may be standalone, the ending hints at a sequel, so I’m just hoping these problems are resolved so that we can be treated to a solid Halloween film again.

 

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton