Watched Rob Zombie's Halloween last night and really enjoyed it. I think it helped that I was already aware the film attempts to "explain" Michael Myers to a degree. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie but it was well made and mostly worked. Tonight I'll watch the sequel.

I also have to rewatch the original soon, because I have a strong memory of Laurie being a much stronger character in the original. I felt like she was smart and badass in the original, whereas she doesn't make the best decisions in this one.

Watched Halloween 2 (2009) tonight. Hey, now I know what that White Horse line was about! Mixed feelings about this one. Felt quite different than the first. This was much more dreamlike but also much more brutal and grimy.

There's some interesting things going on in here, but I'm not sure they entirely work for me. Definitely worth watching overall, especially for fans of the series, but doesn't seem to match my memory of the first film. I'll be watching that one tomorrow!

Last night I watched Halloween and Halloween 2 from John Carpenter. I really liked both. It's clearly been awhile since I've seen the first Halloween since I somehow didn't notice how much Rob Zombie's version pays homage. This was my first time watching Halloween 2 though.

Going back to RZ's films for a moment, I do think he did a good job of the remake for the most part. Laurie isn't substantially stronger in Carpenter's version, but I do feel like she's more fleshed out as a character. And while I like the mystery surrounding Michael in

Carpenter's version, I feel like the backstory RZ created, assuming that is all his own and not part of some later film I haven't yet seen, is interesting. I actually really like how RZ's Pt 2 was essentially part ghost story, even if I don't think it fully worked.

All that said, the RZ's films are Halloween only in the sense that they're remakes of the films called Halloween. The first RZ Halloween had like 2 trick or treaters iirc. Carpenter's version had plenty of them, plus jack o lanterns, old scary movies, crunchy fall leaves,

even what appeared to be a kid who got injured from what appeared to be some Halloween treat. Carpenter's version is steeped in the atmosphere of the holiday Halloween, whereas RZ's version largely ignores that in favor of retelling the story and adding a mythos of sorts.

Which is better? That's personal preference. I think both have their positives and negatives. It is interesting to me that after following the original so closely in his first film, Zombie veered in a far different direction for his sequel. Or maybe that was causal?

Either way, both approaches are valid. Zombie wanted to tell a complete story, he had his own vision and wanted to flesh out his tale. Conversely I think Carpenter (now just a writer for p2) was essentially finishing an "episode" of what was originally meant to be an anthology.

As for p2 (1981), I liked the film but it felt like an extended epilogue more than a separate film. We're kind of just following the action, and though we still have some decent atmosphere there's a world of difference between Carpenter and Rosenthal.

This is really the film where Michael Myers changes from a creepy guy in a mask to an actual monster in the supernatural sense. It's also where we first see the hint of a mythos - just enough to be creepy. I'll be watching p3 next obviously, looking forward to it!

I watched Halloween 3 the other night and I really enjoyed it! It's creepy and campy and fun, and in the overall franchise it's a breath of fresh air. The movie starts off with a man being pursued by creepy pasty strangers but as the film progresses there are more & more layers

I am pretty confident in saying this is the most fun Halloween film, and that's thanks in no small part to Tom Atkins and Dan O'Herlihy. Atkins plays the womanizing father of a broken family who inserts himself into a strange conspiracy seemingly just to get laid.

O'Herlihy is the jovial yet menacing head of the factory that produces mysterious masks that all the kids love. Interestingly, O'Herlihy played Grig in The Last Starfighter alongside Lance Guest who was in Halloween 2. You may also know him as Andrew Packard in Twin Peaks.

This film is also a departure in that, although there is a nice holiday feel about the film it isn't really about the kids. Instead, the adults get a chance to take center stage. Beyond that, there's no mythos to worry about or remember and no singular monster to take down.

Some may see that as a detraction but I feel just the opposite. This is a great standalone story with a creepy vibe that oddly makes me think of things like Something Wicked This Way Comes or Invaders from Mars (the only film to give me nightmares as a child)

I've also watched Halloween 4-6 recently but I'm not sure I have as much to say about those. With these films I am already starting to see diminishing returns - especially on 6 - but there are still things to like.

Halloween 4 is the first film where we see a psychic link between characters, something that would come into play once more in Rob Zombie's Halloween 2. I felt like this was rather clumsily added at the end of 4 with no real buildup, meant mainly to setup the next film

There were some nice callbacks to the first film and I feel like Danielle Harris was just as good of a protagonist as Jamie Lee Curtis despite her young age. Loomis is back and crazier than ever, having been scarred badly in the aftermath of Halloween 2

There is a nice moment where Loomis is given a ride into Haddenfield by and old man played by Carmen Filpi, a man who seems to have built a career around being "crazy old man," and you see both men are obsessed and on some crazy quest. It's a brief scene but I liked it.

Halloween 5 is mostly a continuation of 4, much as 2 was a continuation of 1. These sequels within the franchise were probably great at the time, with a cliffhanger leaving people talking and theorizing, but watching them in a row it's not hard to see they're a step down.

In this film we see a sudden change in Loomis, who is kind of an asshole for a majority of the film, actually yelling at Jamie on several occasions. In a way this explains why Zombie had Loomis act shitty in his sequel, maybe he was pointing out the strange mood swing of part 5.

Danielle Harris gets more chances to shine in this film, with her character in a fragile mental state that's constantly being bombarded with violent imagery due to her connection with Michael. And that's about all I can say about this one, unfortunately.

Most of the characters who take up the majority of this film are largely forgettable. Characters don't seem to notice when their best friends suddenly go missing and a lot of cliche slasher things happen.

The main thing 5 has going for it, aside from Donald Pleasance and Danielle Harris, is the mysterious man in black who shows up here and there. Unfortunately that is once again another random thing crammed into the story to setup the sequel.

An then there was Halloween 6. The Curse of Michael Myers. Before I started watching this film, I had no idea it had something of a reputation. I haven't watched all of the Halloween films so I can't yet comment on whether it is the worst.

This film does have something all other Halloween films lack: Paul Rudd. You can't go wrong w Paul Rudd, generally speaking. He's great in this. He even drives a little jeep which made me think of Clueless. And he's playing Tommy Doyle so hey, nice callback to the original.

Donald Pleasance is back again as Loomis in what would be his final performance in the franchise and one of his final performances ever. Apparently they bring back the character for H20 which I feel is tacky but I'll reserve judgement til I actually see it.

Loomis is very soft spoken and understated in this film, a far cry from his crazed antics in 5. In the story of the franchise he's been retired for awhile, so perhaps retirement softened him slightly.

There is probably a great film hidden somewhere in Halloween 6. If they had made it campy, I bet it would have been much better. Instead they tried way too hard to be serious, had cheap jump scares that weren't even slightly scary, and a plot that made no sense.

The best thing about Halloween 6 is it doesn't really end with a cliffhanger. Or at least, not one that makes any kind of sense, so it's pretty easy to ignore. I have heard mostly good things about H20 so I'm looking forward to checking that out next!

Oh I totally forgot to talk about the Bizarro-Strode family in 6. The dad is a mean drunk, the mom is super meek, and the brother is a total moron. Such a strange dynamic. I'm not sure it even added anything to the film except fodder for the monster.

That said it is interesting that all these films have either damaged or separated families. Laurie is a foster kid. Laurie's daughter, Jamie, is a foster kid. The family in 3 is split up. The family in 6 is abusive and broken. I wonder if this theme continues...

And yeah Zombie's films definitely continued the abuse, separated families, and absentee parenting that is apparently a hallmark of this series. Anyway, 3 films to go!

Halloween H20 (1998) started off pretty good, until I realized it not-so-subtly ripped off the opening of another certain Dimension Films horror flick from around that time. This film is a direct sequel to Halloween 2 (1981).

Overall I thought this film did a good job introducing a somewhat interesting cast of characters. There are some pretty big names here, with Hartnett, LL Cool J, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Michelle Williams, and Adam Arkin.

Jodi Lyn O'Keefe was probably somewhat popular at the time because of Nash Bridges, and Adam Hann-Byrd played the creepy brother in The Ice Storm just a year earlier. Overall, pretty much a who's who of late 90s actors.

I feel like the production was also better in this film, with everything just having a better sheen to it. That said, much like a lot of horror films around that time, the influence of a certain other franchise could not be ignored.

Dimension Films was banking so hard on people loving a certain other franchise that they actually had characters in this film watching the sequel to that other franchise. Anyway, on its own merits this film is fine. I think the best parts of the film are in the setup.

The film lets you get to know Laurie's new situation and her relationship with her son and his group of friends. Once Michael shows up the film moves pretty quickly. It's funny because despite this seeming like a big movie, it's actually pretty small.

There really aren't many people around once Michael shows up. Within the franchise this is probably the tamest film, as there are opportunities for Michael to kill that he just passes up completely.

The ending of the film probably seemed badass and awesome to people at the time, and it would be except they of course found a way to reverse it immediately in the next film, Halloween Resurrection.

Both Laurie and Michael return in Halloween Resurrection (2002) but I don't think that part of the film is even worth mentioning. Mostly this film is a strange mix of Haunted House and Reality TV aesthetic. This actually reminded me of House on Haunted Hill (1999) a bit.

I think everyone in this film played their roles well. Busta Rhymes was the clear standout imo, but pretty much everyone had fun or funny little moments. I don't really have much else to say about this one.

except that "Happy Halloween, motherfucker!" is one of the best lines in the franchise.

We didn't get another Halloween movie for 16 years after that. In 2018 Blumhouse released Halloween, marking the third film with that exact title and no subtitle (1978, 2007, and 2018). While I found some of the previous subtitles a bit tiresome, at least they tried :P

That said, honestly I really loved this film. There were even one or two moments I felt a little suspenseful. There was a really nice creepy vibe throughout the film. It doesn't have that Carpenter atmosphere I loved from the first couple films, but it was pretty good.

The Laurie Strode in this film is different than we saw in 98/2002, and for good reason - this is a direct sequel to the FIRST Halloween film, ignoring everything that came after. And that was kind of necessary for reasons I won't spoil.

I never watched H20 when it came out, but I seem to recall a lot of marketing that implied this was a new, badass Laurie and she wasn't going to take Michael's shit anymore. After watching that one recently, I'm not sure it fully succeeded. Laurie was pretty broken in that film

She had been hiding, had changed her name, and when Michael returned most of the film felt like a frantic attempt to escape him. She did manage to confront him at the end, however, but the way they ended things felt incongruous with the rest of the film.

But the 2018 film finds a very different Laurie. One who survived an attack from a crazy man, but still just a man. Since most of the mythos and unkillable moments in the franchise didn't start until the 1981 film, the lack of those here made a different Laurie.

I definitely find it interesting to see this sort of alternate reality, the branching paths of what-ifs we have seen throughout the Halloween films as different directors give their take on the mythos.

And I really think this is one of the best films in the series thus far. Everyone in the film is giving great performances, Jamie Lee Curtis especially is great as the grisled, weary mother/grandmother. It's very Sarah Connor tbh, but I didn't even feel like it was a ripoff.

There are some great references to the previous films, too. There's a moment that echoes the ending of the 78 film. There are kids using the masks from Halloween 3. There's a new Dr who says he was a student of Loomis. Laurie evn calls him "the new Loomis" which made me laugh

There is a nice moment where the new Sheriff, played by Will Patton, and New Loomis are talking about Michael as they hunt him down. It's clear they're on opposite sides concerning how to handle Michael. Somehow that scene just stood out for me.

And there are some really nice set pieces in the finale, which I felt was a pretty strong "final stand" against Michael (final for now anyway). Michael clearly put a lot of time and effort into his Jack O Lantern.

Overall, really nice film. I know there are two more on the way (from the same director, I think?) and I'm looking forward to them.

Here's my ranking no one asked for:
1, 3, 9, 2, 4, 7, 8, 5, 6
I'm not including the Zombie films in the ranking because they're their own thing imo, and also because ranking is difficult and I'm lazy and tired.

I do think the Zombie films are good on their own merits. There isn't much originality to them but they're basically well made and I wouldn't say no to a rewatch. In fact I would rewatch any of these, even 6.

Every one of these films had something good in them, something that makes them worth watching. For 6, that'd be Paul Rudd by a mile. It's by no means his best role, but his presence elevates the film possibly more than it even deserves.

So that's it, I watched every Halloween movie. I look forward to more of them down the road, maybe I'll remember this thread when I do but probably not. If you read all of this, you deserve a medal of some kind. I hope it wasn't too spoilery.