The criticism of this film as being all over the map tonally is actually quite accurate, but I'd argue it's to its benefit. As has been said, including right in the title, one can expect this to be a bit more intense than previous entries in the series, and in that regard it delivers. In fact, it's quite brutal, but luckily doesn't cross the line into sadistic territory like Rob Zombie's two stabs at the franchise, thanks to those shifts in tone that some find detrimental.
The way to lower the temperature of brutality is to find a way of balancing it with some level of humor, and if people view this film as being "awful" because of it, I have to ask if they honestly feel the filmmakers were not smart enough to understand what they were doing here? Especially when taking into account one of the writers, Danny McBride, is a comic actor and writer. Sure, their humor may not be everyone's cup of tea, but to say this film is awful because of it are missing the point. The writers and director were able to pull off scenes that were brutally over-the-top by getting us to laugh, and relieve the tension of what we're seeing on screen. To me, it was masterful making a film that was clearly intended to be - and successfully - as brutal as it is, but to also make that fun at the same time, where you don't feel the need to take a shower afterwards from all the grime and depression you've endured, as was the case with Zombie's films. This is more in line with the "popcorn movie" style of slasher, just more intense at times.
There are without question, a fair amount of miscalculations afoot here. I don't think anyone can argue that, whether they enjoyed the film or not. But I found those to be charming in the context of the majority of elements they got right, including clever kills, an immersive Halloween atmosphere, and sincere, inventive fan service. What I've always personally loved about the slasher genre is there's generally a fair amount of camp that made those films enjoyable, and even more fun as they age all these decades later. It's those imperfections that I've enjoyed, that add to the experience - not take away - and I think most fans of the genre would agree with that. That's what the filmmakers are specifically shouting out to here, which seems to me people are losing sight of. For instance one criticism is "they comically repeat EVIL DIES TONIGHT over and over, it's so ridiculous." Yes, EXACTLY! That sense of humor is what balances out the brutality you're seeing on screen. To say this is "bad writing" - it's just baffling to me people think this wasn't intentional. Do they really think the writers enjoy this 43-year-old franchise any less or differently than we do? It's a different kind of humor that may not appeal to everyone ("the peanut butter penis" from the 2018, for example), but the intention is that relief, and unlike say Busta Rhymes taking the lead in Halloween: Abomination (née Resurrection), for me it worked here. Another criticism I've seen is "this isn't Michael Myers," that he would never carry out such brutal, senseless machine-like kills as portrayed here. At the same time, the now fan-favorite Halloween II (1981) is loved because it amps up the violence - a massive tonal shift from the original - even though it's a direct, seamless continuation of the original. While I'm not a huge fan of Halloween II, I would defend it the same way I would here: view this trilogy as the one continuous story it is, one film in 3 acts: Halloween Act I, Halloween Act II, and Halloween Act III. By doing that, the tonal shifts feel more natural, and may even give one a better appreciation for Act I, which started this trilogy with a newly-escaped Myers looking to complete some unfinished business. Act II continues with Myers, well, VERY angry with the people and events getting in the way of killing his ultimate prey. No one is going to impede his mission here, and whomever tries is going to feel his wrath. It is a side/level of Myers we haven't seen before in this trilogy, but it's a natural reaction when something sets one off and suddenly they're having a Jekyll & Hyde kind of day. Luckily for most of us, it's not to the extent Myers takes it, but it's normal to experience those shifts. Just because we hadn't seen it before, doesn't mean that's the totality of his character. That point is double-downed upon rather brilliantly with the film's clever take on what it means to "reboot" a film. Instead of a strict "remake" (making an already existing franchise someone else's baby, like Zombie's Halloween and Halloween II), they've gone with the very risky approach of presenting a new perspective on what we already thought to know and understand. Going down that avenue could have destroyed this film if they hadn't pulled off the difficult task of showing a literal different angle of that fateful Halloween night in Haddonfield, and providing a fuller picture beyond what Carpenter portrayed so masterfully in 1978. There's an entire evening of events, some of which we get to see here - similar to how we see a more brutal side of Myers' personality - and it's so well-executed that it seems to be the highlight of Act II for even those that disliked the film overall. I can't stress enough how this approach could have failed and dragged the entire thing down, but they took a chance and it worked, really well in my view. Halloween Kills delivers what it promises, and with that it's a success. Whether it's your cup of tea or not is another question, but in my view the results on screen match its ambitions. Without question, this film is messy, offering so much that even when you're not sure if you're supposed to be in awe, or disgusted, or laughing - it's incredibly entertaining. It's visceral, yet fun. It's brutal, yet refreshing. The filmmakers went all in, and with this Act, I saw the love of the characters and franchise they said to have when these films were announced. To me it feels they knew their take may not gel with everyone, but if the audience is having fun, and thinking, and gasping - having a true cinema experience whether the end result was any good in their view - then it's no different than when they saw the lesser-known slashers of the genre's heyday that were, well, not very good, but still earned the respect of genre fans. We were simply thankful for the experience and for keeping the genre alive with new perspectives.
It's OK to let yourself enjoy this film. Just have fun. We could all use it these days. Even if it means a little head-twisting and an iron into the face.
Comments