There's a Razor-Thin Line Between What is & Perception!

By Renae Richardson

Halloween, a work of John Carpenter, premiered in 1978, mere days before the season it celebrates. While Halloween wasn’t the first popular horror film of the time, it was indeed an original. Carpenter’s work was preceded by more than a few films that became classics. That list includes horror favorites, The Birds, released in 1963, and The Exorcist, which premiered in 1973. The original thriller Psycho made its debut in 1970. And the iconic horror film Night of the Living Dead was released in 1968. Despite all the heavy hitter features previously released, Halloween paved its own success. The film was so well received that it revolutionized horror. As Paste confirmed, “Halloween was unquestionably the film that popularized the slasher subgenre.” However, much of the film’s success was predicated on Michael Myers; he was terrifying.

What Makes a Spine Tingler

When determining what was truly terrifying about Michael Meyers, a salient point would be his presence. He was evil to the core, but audiences had no idea how he came to be that way or why he continued that pursuit. Michael Myers was a stone-cold irrational killer and the mask added to that mystique. It gave him a supernatural aura. That was only solidified by the fact that fans rarely saw him unmasked. The mask symbolized the ever-present evil and only increased the intensity of his horrifying nature.

Every Story Needs Balance

There must be a balance in the narrative to keep fans invested. There was little understanding of the root of Myers’ evil. But viewers got the instrumental nature of adding a protagonist or necessary obstacles in setting up the story. Essentially there needed to be something to counter Myers’ evil. Balance is restorative. Lori Strode provided that balance. She had the passion and purpose to take down the monster, something to give him pause. When looking at the film through a bigger lens Halloween was a horrifying game of cat and mouse. Unfortunately, everything between Myers and his objective got the business.

Vacillating Madness

As the years passed and sequel after sequel was released, the films became hit or miss. The novelty was worn away by formula, and explorations of origins added extra layers of befuddlement. Then there was the ongoing argument of precisely how Myers could be defined. Was he superhuman or supernatural?

Some films seemed to humanize him, while others seemed to create him in the image of an invincible phantom. Whatever the case, Myers was always front and center.

Article Continues Below

Passion Forward with Cat Hostick on DTL

Halloween Ends: Is it a Disgrace?

There have been more than a few critics who deem Halloween Ends as a disgrace to the franchise. And the disdain reached a fever pitch when some fans petitioned for a redo. Such behavior begs one to question if Halloween Ends was that bad.

The answer is complex and utterly dependent on who you are. It would be easy to dismiss the sentiments as baseless arguments because it’s a movie for entertainment. Fundamentally, it had to be ended somehow. And take it or leave it, David Gordon Green did his job. He delivered what was promised, added more humanism to Myers, sought to define the root of Myer’s evil, and finally destroyed him by ensuring he was publicly dismembered and mulched. Indeed, one can’t get any more dead than that.

Why All the Hate?

There will always be a critic. One of the primary criticisms of Halloween Ends was the tone. For many, it didn’t feel like a Halloween movie. Michael Myers wasn’t quite himself; he was culled. And there was a lot less of him in the film. He didn’t make an appearance until the end. The fact that over 50% of the movie focused on a new character ruffled some feathers. They wanted a Halloween movie with Myers and it’s easy to understand their position. Furthermore, they wanted more of what Michael was good at – racking up bodies. Halloween Ends didn’t have that.

The Other Side of The Coin

Reason would contend that the lack of Myers in the film doesn’t make it a bad movie. It is a different movie, yes, but not a bad movie. Besides, if the point of a film is to show that evil passes on and never dies, it’s necessary to show how that works. As noted in a Deadline article, Green, later on, said that the film’s premise is to see the development of evil and “what a community that neglects the well-being of their own can unleash on themselves in a way that they didn’t intend.” To accomplish this would mean shifting focus. And, for Myers to die, he had to become more human. His defeat had to be believable. Finally, fans had to understand that Lori had to take him down and be capable of the task. Honestly, she had tried several times prior and couldn’t do it. So to keep Myers superpowered would debunk the ideology that there could be an end.

Was it that bad? No, it was not. It was different, unexpected, and not what fans imagined. Nevertheless, it was one of the best ways to end a monster. This is especially true for Myers, who had been supercharged beyond belief for years without rational justification. Green worked with what he had, and he did a good job.

This movie is a perfect example of fandom running amok. One will only satisfy some. And in aiming to tell a story, one must do their best to tell the story one desires to. That doesn’t mean not considering your audience. But it does mean sticking true to your vision and reasoning. Because if a creator were to bend to every viewer’s whim, they would never make a film of any substance.