Do you like it? Not like it? What are your thoughts?

I just watched this film today and I’ve seen it at least once before. I think for it’s small budget, it’s pretty well done. I think Carpenter’s score for the film is pretty good as well. Very minimalist film and doesn’t have a lot of flourishes, but I think that’s what makes the movie work. Very good use of camera shots such as Michael Myers POV shots as well as shots where people like the Jamie Leigh Curtis character see’s something somewhere and when they look again, what they saw is gone, basically referring to seeing shots with Michael Myers in them. So, what are your thoughts? Like it? Not like it?

Here’s a wikipedia article on the film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(1978_film)

Here

If more people would like to leave comments about the film, please feel free. Thanks Dennis Brian for the link!

I haven’t seen this in ages, but it was effective when I saw it (somewhere in my pre-teen years; not sure if I saw it since that time). I agree with what you said. I would also say that even though Psycho preceding the film is presenting the “slasher” archetype, this film seems to have solidified and influenced other the slashers that followed. The one difference the film introduced is the super-natural (read: indestructible) element to the archetype. (I believe Friday the 13th came out after this film.)

Friday the 13th did follow Halloween and Halloween was, to the best of my knowledge, the first incarnation of the indestructible antagonist as Jazz already mentioned. What makes the original so great though IMO, is that there’s no context or reason for why Michael Myers is so seemingly omnipresent. Of course, we get into the whole supernatural element in the later sequels, but the first one is just a vague supposition on the part of Loomis, who could have very well (in all reality) been the paranoid insane one. That was my first impression of seeing the film at a very young age anyway and is rather unfounded, but it’s an interesting initial reaction. Carpenter plays with these suppositions, creating a wonderful ambiguous mystery. I do regard the film as rather flawed though and, while the music is impeccable, there’s some flow problems not to mention some of the acting. The composition of the shots though, as Matt mentioned, are typical of Carpenter … in other words, captivating. :D

what about Black Christmas? When Bob Clark wrapped Black he was going to make a similar film based on Halloween, he went and did something else first and Carpenter beat him to the punch with a Halloween film

Oh, yeah, Black Christmas is terrific in its own way, though Clark was never quite the stylist that Carpenter is (and sooner or later Joks will pop in to correct me to “Carpenter was”).

(and Clark got to Christmas first, Den ;) )

^^nah, i won’t correct you. You know the truth ;-)

Black Christmas is great. Wish i saw it when i was younger though, but it did have a big effect on me when i first saw it in the early 00’s. and yeah, Clark wasn’t the stylist Carpenter was, but the original Black Christmas looks great.

Anyhoo, some of my favourite images from Halloween. Carpenter and Cundey did a superb job(obviously)

sorry I meant beat him to the punch with a Halloween film

I don’t really understand the constant comparisons between Halloween and Black Christmas. Sure, there are vague slasher connections and yes, Black Christmas was first, but the style of the directors are completely different.

^^plus the slasher killer P.O.V effect.

They are different films, but when putting the genre in a historical context, we tend to look for what came first, or what was possibly influential, in a post-Psycho horror world.

Argento’s The Bird with the Crystal Plumage was released in 1970; a slasher film with the POV effect. Black Christmas didn’t come along until ‘74. So, isn’t that technically the first slasher film post-Psycho?

Peeping Tom, 1960—Had many of these same elements. I’d consider it the first.

Psycho came out a few months before Peeping Tom so…..

I’d agree with that Leaves, forgot about that one.

We’re talking post-Psycho, Ben.

i don’t know, to me Peeping Tom seems to have more of an agenda, which was lacking from most typical slasher films.

I haven’t seen Bird With The Crystal Plumage in years.

IMO Halloween is one of the greatest horror films ever made,ill take this over Texas chainsaw massacre(kinda over hyped2 me) anyday.

@Dennis

I was about 2 bring up Black Christmas,I believe he tells that story on the extras(a Q&A session with fans 4 a anniversary screening of the film) 4 the last dvd of it that came out.BC don’t get enough respect outside of certain circles……….but fuck that remake,lol that shits is just so wack its hilarious…..only thing cool/good I thing in it is the one girl with her voice and the way she looks and a few scares involving her and the way the film was lit,the rest was just “troll feces” IMO

^^the remake was terrible. i kind of expected something decent from it, because i thought Morgan handled Williard ok, but it was really bad. even he knows it’s bad.

yup the remake is shit but so is the Halloween remake imo

^^yep, and they both suffer from the same problems too. i.e the inclusion of backstory, motives etc etc.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre is every bit as stylish as Halloween; it’s certainly much more horrific. I regard TCM as a more effective horror film overall despite my unabashed love for Carpenter’s work, I just can’t deny TCM is epic horror … truly epic.

the last time motives worked decently were in the Saw pictures most horror can do without em

You mention of omnipresence of Meyers above Deckard. That is exactly what makes him so frightening and any exploration of such mystique not only ruins the suspense but the entire film as well (In my opinion at least.). Surely something that is so devoid of humanity is something to be truly feared but would you really want to know what causes it? Horror that cannot be understood rationally is always the scariest and certainly the most effective (Again in my opinion).

“That is exactly what makes him so frightening and any exploration of such mystique not only ruins the suspense but the entire film as well.”

Rob Zombie obviously didn’t understand what made the original work. either that, or he was just trying to pander to what he thinks audiences want to see today.

Either way, the film only really appeals to excessive style freaks like Jack Leh! ;-)

The rest of us see it for the turd it is.

I agree, Ben, I’ve never supported elaborate motives for killers in horror films. I was praising the original film’s ambiguity in my earlier post.

^^yeah, too bad they had to explain it in the sequel ;-)

I saw that.

Omnipresence is quite frightening when done correctly but can be ruined I feel if a character is given to much motive as you stated above.

I also think one of the great accomplished (Although it may have something to do with the budget.) was what Carpenter accomplished without gore. Shadows hide particularly gruesome acts ( Who can forget that scene in the car?) and accomplish something all together tasteful and frightening at the same time.

Some people think Suspira has the greatest opening 2 a horror film,as much as I am a big fan of that film and that opening sequence I myself would prob say that halloween for me(from the iconic music 2 the transition of the credits,2 the children’s reciting the lyrics 2 that trick or treat song that is sung and then abruptly ended with a vary distict cow bell 2 the opening of the film from P.o.V. Of the killer and its in 1 take(until the mask is removed. then we finally r shown that it was a child eyes we were looking through).

It’s a pile of garbage with perhaps the worst last ten minutes of any movie ever.

Well, thanks for playing.