Pondering David Gordon Green's HALLOWEEN Trilogy

The trilogy that was meant to set everything right has concluded. What worked? What didn't? (!!!SPOILERS for Halloween Ends!!!)

By: Josh McCormack

1998's Halloween: H20 is still the definitive ending to the Halloween franchise.

While certainly a flawed film, that story (which still keeps the plot of 1981's Halloween II intact) finds a simple and effective way to conclude the Laurie Strode and Michael Myers' storyline. With a final brawl and a swift decapitation to her malevolent brother (well, brother in that timeline), the Laurie Strode saga should have been wrapped up right there. Alas, with a ridiculous plot twist at the start of the subsequent film, Halloween Resurrection, that "ending" was soon rendered meaningless and the series would continue to wander aimlessly through a Rob Zombie-induced haze, before deciding to scrap all but the original film with David Gordon Green's 2018 sequel/reboot, simply titled, Halloween.

I bring this up because the M.O of the new timeline that director David Gordon Green, along with his co-writer Danny McBride, created was to rid the franchise of the messiness that they believed had plagued other sequels. By getting rid of the sibling connection between Michael and Laurie, as well as any supernatural elements (ahem), the goal was to go back to the simplicity of John Carpenter's 1978 original classic. Yet, as I now look upon the three films that have come out of this new sequel trilogy (none of which I really hate, by the way), I am quite shocked at how unsuccessful they seemed to be at achieving their goals. Furthermore, I argue that some of the films that these new movies effectively retconned, actually achieve what these filmmakers are going for in more nuanced ways (a la H20).

Don't get me wrong, there's things to like in these new movies. Michael Myers actually feels like a threat in a way he hadn't since 1981's Halloween II, for example. Plus, the involvement of Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter (in particular, his wonderful scores for all three films) gives these films an admitted sense of validity and gravitas I found lacking in many of the sequels prior. However, the trilogy as a whole contains so many contradictions and baffling narrative choices that undermine not only the stated intent of the filmmakers, but also a handful of the elements that made the original film such a beloved classic.

HALLOWEEN (2018)

In October 2018, I prepared for the upcoming release of David Gordon Green's Halloween reboot by watching every single Halloween movie in reverse order until the release date of the new film. That way, I would be able to see where the franchise had gone and then view the new film as the filmmakers intended; as a direct sequel to the original movie. (Side note: You can read my reviews of each film that I chronicled during that time on this blog, but I will let you know that I don't care much for my writing at that time). As my big conclusion to the marathon, I wrote an extensive review of my thoughts of Halloween (2018). In the review, I was quite positive and have remained quite positive on that film, even as some of the die-hard fanbase have called it out for its retconning of previous entries and its over reliance on the same structure as the 1978 Halloween. However, the further I get away from the trilogy as a whole and my core problems with the material, the more I must admit that a lot of it stems from the very inception of the first 2018 reboot. 

While there are things I could nitpick, such as the younger actors and the sometimes frantic camerawork and editing Green employs, my core issue with Halloween (2018) might actually be the use of Laurie Strode. In retrospect, the idea of focusing this new trilogy on Laurie and Michael’s connection when Green and co. have chosen to take away their sibling connection is incredibly counterintuitive. I certainly am not saying I love the concept of Laurie and Michael being brother and sister, as introduced in Halloween II (another solid sequel that is sadly no longer part of the timeline), but I do admit that the familial connection gave the screenwriters less legwork to have to do in order to get the two characters to meet. For example, the controversial character of Dr. Sartain in the 2018 film really only exists to put Michael in the path of Laurie Strode, because otherwise this Michael's only connection to Laurie is that she's a random girl who stabbed him and poked his eye with a coat hanger on Halloween in 1978. 

However, my biggest issue might be the depiction of Laurie herself. While Jamie Lee Curtis undoubtedly brings her all to the proceedings, the longer time passes since this film's release, the more I find it hard to  buy that the single Myers attack in 1978 would be enough to put her on the defensive, complete with an armored house and insane weapons arsenal. Of course, there's a bit more to it than that (i.e. a failed marriage and alcoholism), but it's another example of how I believe disregarding past entries hurts this interpretation. In H20, for example, I buy that Laurie is actually struggling to escape the specter of her past, because in that timeline Halloween II exists and she not only saw three of her friends get killed, but countless others, as well. Here, though, it's harder to believe that this is the "natural" continuation of that girl we saw in 1978, especially when it was only one incident almost a lifetime prior. 

However, Green sure as hell makes a satisfying third act. I vividly remember seeing the film with a very receptive audience on opening night and the reveal of Laurie's trap for the Shape and the mini-brawl that ensued caused an eruption of cheers from my theater. And during my initial watch, I really was under the impression that this was finally (finally) the bookend for Laurie Strode's story. Of course I knew that there were more sequels on the way, but I assumed we could finally give Laurie her rest after this entry. However, I was proven wrong when not one, but two more sequels were announced with Jamie Lee Curtis' involvement.

HALLOWEEN KILLS 

2021's Halloween Kills is the utter definition of a mixed bag, for me. Understandably hated by some, the film is rudderless and the bare narrative beats it does employ are pretty laughable. Taking place mere minutes after the events of the previous film, Halloween Kills works best when following our boy Michael Myers on an extended night of chaos through Haddonfield. While it's a much more chaotic and immature entry following the 2018 film, I do argue that Green's direction here is far better than that previous movie. His camerawork and editing feel more motivated and while the film's 1978 flashbacks are borderline idiotic in terms of narrative, he actually captures the original movie's filmmaking style quite well and even employs it to solid effect into later segments of the movie. A far cry from the shaky-cam and seizure inducing editing of 2018. 

One's enjoyment of Halloween Kills depends entirely on how much mileage you can get from gory set pieces, alone. The moments involving Laurie Strode and the extended town of Haddonfield feature some of the worst writing in the entire franchise. This is in part due to Green and McBride's decision to bring back familiar faces from the original film in a cavalcade of small supporting roles or pointless cameos. The references and homages are the worst kinds of fan service, relying so much on repeated lines of dialogue or utilizing the characters in similar situations that none of them feel like real people, but instead characters in a dorky Halloween inspired fanfic. The worst of the bunch is undoubtedly Anthony Michael Hall playing a grown-up version of Tommy Doyle (the kid Laurie babysat in the original Halloween, for those who don't know or simply don't care). His character somehow gets the entire town--who originally thought Laurie was a loon one movie prior--to fight by her side and then inadvertently turns them into a blood thirsty mob over the course of like two hours. These segments of mob violence seem to be aiming for some sort of social commentary ("Now he's [Michael] is turning us into monsters," says Sheriff Leigh Brackett in what could be a condemnation of MAGA fanatics or...disgustingly...BLM protesters?? What exactly are this movie's politics?) but fall so flat on their face. 

So why am I cool with this one? Because unlike the worst entries in this series (i.e. Rob Zombie's first Halloween or Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers), Halloween Kills doesn't screw with the most important ingredient; Michael Myers. While I could be nitpick-y and say that his brutal killing in Kills recalls Jason Voorhees more than it does The Shape, I must admit that I am one of those sickos that loves to see the nasty gore fx. Michael's kills here are some of the best in the series and all of them lean into his trickster element that separates him from other the other slasher villains he's inspired. Michael displays his victims in creative ways and sequences like Michael killing the old man and propping him up with a whole knife set in his back is a wonderfully gnarly reminder of that. Also, one of the things that is really important to me in a Halloween movie is how the film aesthetically utilizes the holiday. I think Kills succeeds better than both the other entries in this regard. Trick or treaters and Jack-O-Lanterns line the streets whenever we see Haddonfield, providing that cozy, seasonal vibe that I love from these movies even at their worst.

This movie is understandably considered the worst of the new trilogy by the majority of critics and I certainly prefer the 2018 film, overall. Yet, I just think the good stuff in this one resonates with me a bit more than most.

I guess this brings me to the conclusion of this sequel trilogy; Halloween Ends. Hoooo boy...

HALLOWEEN ENDS

Halloween Ends is one of the strangest entries in a four decade long franchise that is full of strange entries. What makes Ends particularly strange is its relation to the trilogy its bringing to the close. Set four years after the events of Kills, the focus has completely shifted to a new character named Corey Cunningham played by newcomer Rohan Campbell (who is actually quite good in this). Having been involved in the tragic deadly accident of a young boy, Corey has become something of an outsider in the town of Haddonfield. He then comes face-to-face with Michael Myers--who has been hiding in the sewers for the past four years--and the evil Michael exudes somehow proves to be infectious, causing Corey to become a killer himself. 

Oh, also Laurie Strode is here.

For all of my problems I have with Halloween Ends (and believe me, I have PROBLEMS with this movie), I do have to give credit to the filmmakers for really taking a big swing with this entry. Michael Myers does not show up for nearly an hour into this film, and while I'm certainly not saying I appreciate that choice, the decision to not lead the film with his iconic image and instead have the movie march to the beat of its own drum is rare not only for this trilogy, but for modern-day franchise filmmaking. I also have to admit that I often found myself getting a kick out of the idea of Michael inspiring a town weirdo to assist him and then attempt to overthrow him as Haddonfield's new Boogeyman. While Green has pointed to films like My Bodyguard and John Carpenter's Christine as major influences to this film, I actually got hints of the sleazy and subversive elements that perpetuate Friday the 13th: A New Beginning.  In Ends' third act, Green finally takes full advantage of this premise, allowing for Corey to go full psycho and the results are ridiculous fun. 

However, for all of these interesting ideas, it's the execution that just proves to be so laughable. Corey Cunningham is a brand new character being introduced in the final installment to a trilogy and it means his arc from introduction to becoming Michael 2.0 is so incredibly rushed.  More detrimentally, however, is that Green has to find a way to connect the Corey storyline with the previously established stories of not only Laurie Strode, but her granddaughter Allyson, (played by Andi Matichak in all three films) and the results are catastrophic. Somewhere along the lines, Halloween Ends feels the need to throw in some sort of Lynch-ian, doomed romance at the center and it is absolutely embarrassing. Positioning Corey as a love interest for Allyson is the most baffling choice amongst a cavalcade of baffling choices. I certainly am not protective of Allyson as a character, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that a character who has experienced so much loss at the hands of a serial killer in the past two films would somehow be turned on by the prospect of dating an admitted killer. It's all punctuated by truly cringe-worthy dialogue between the two of them. 

Halloween Ends eventually makes good on its promise of a final battle between Michael and Laurie, albeit at what feels like the last possible second. The fight is initially satisfying, but then winds up being unintentionally hilarious when Laurie decides to lead some sort of procession through Haddonfield, with Michael's body atop her car. The image of her dramatically feeding Michael's body into a car scrapper amongst a sea of sullen Haddonfield inhabitants was enough to make me laugh out loud in the theater. It's so overkill and the seemingly sincere approach that Green is trying give the moment just comes off goofy. I couldn't help but think about how simple and low-key that original 1978 film was when witnessing this movie's overblown final moments, especially when the filmmakers were so intent on making this trilogy feel like such a "natural continuation" of that narrative. 

I think it's clear that Green and co. are much more interested in the new Corey/Michael storyline as opposed to rehashing the Laurie Strode storyline that they are obligated to conclude. So why, might I ask, are the elements that build up to Michael's influence of evil--such as Sartain in the 2018 film and the mob violence in Kills--pushed to the periphery of both of those films when that seems to be the thesis statement you want to make with Corey Cunningham in Halloween Ends? I guess it goes back to my initial problem of trying to fit Laurie Strode into this trilogy when the filmmakers have other goals in mind that aren't very welcoming of her presence. 

Perhaps most of my criticisms on Halloween Ends are based more on how it functions within the trilogy as opposed to my feelings on the movie's own merits. I admit that I would have enjoyed it a lot more as a standalone film about Corey Cunningham and Michael Myers. However, it *is* a trilogy capper and was promoted as such, so I find it hard to look at it as anything else. And while I completely understand the positive response from critics I admire on the film's idiosyncrasies, especially compared to the rather rote storytelling of the past two movies, I still can't help but point out the hypocrisy of Green's intention to undermine decades of other sequels only to make the same mistakes many of those lesser films did.

Of course, I don't hate any of these movies. None of them are even close to the worst of this franchise. Yet, I still don't think they are as engaging as movies like Halloween II, Halloween 4, or H20. With a creative team as talented as David Gordon Green and Danny McBride, it is a bit sad that they can't even clear that low bar set by other Halloween sequels.