What was so good about Halloween (1978)?

H

harmonica44

I finally saw it while I was at my friends horror movie bash for Halloween of course. I don't get why it was hailed such a classic. It did have a few moments of shock, and it was well filmed, but the story was lackluster. In between the slashing and the stalking, all of the characters were not interesting, or given much depth. The talked about boys, girls, had sex, but it felt so meh and obligatory. As if the filmmakers didn't do more than they could have that was required to develop them into the plot.

They were just sort of there cause they needed someone it felt. The most interesting characters really, were the killer and the psychologist, and their pasts. But they don't really develop that much, and leave it in the background. In the foreground is just all very average teenage life behavior. I mean if say in a movie like Seven, all Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman did all day was talk about how they thought this woman was hot, or show them get a woman into bed, with their wives for like 60% of the whole movie, without even explaining near as much of the villain, would it still be good?

Notice how what those characters do for that 60% actually matters to the plot, and it's not just there to kill time, in between murders, cause the writers couldn't think of enough to fit the running time? So what did I miss in this great classic? And for a film critic who looks for substance over style, as much as Roger Ebert, I am very surprised, he gave this a 4 out of 4 star rating.
 
Last edited:
Well, it was the first of the modern slasher genre and you're looking at it after 30+ years of development of the genre. When it came out it was something very different and pretty scary.

It was shot in 21 days; the shoot and the post was only about $325,000.

Carpenter wrote and recorded the score himself in about a week. When you hear that 5/4 piano theme you know exactly what the film is - it's a classic.

As far as the dialog it sounds like real teen-aged girls talking about real teen-aged girl things; let's face it, teenagers usually aren't very profound. I mean, come on, slasher flicks aren't supposed to be deep, they're just supposed to scare the crap out of you.

It may not be your cup of tea - I'm not into slasher pics myself - but considering the budget, time constraints and the relative inexperience of all involved it's pretty damned good. Let's see if your second budgeted project grosses $60 million - which is about $200 million in 2011 dollars.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Well, it was the first of the modern slasher genre and you're looking at it after 30+ years of development of the genre. When it came out it was something very different and pretty scary.

It was shot in 21 days; the shoot and the post was only about $325,000.

Carpenter wrote and recorded the score himself in about a week. When you hear that 5/4 piano theme you know exactly what the film is - it's a classic.

As far as the dialog it sounds like real teen-aged girls talking about real teen-aged girl things; let's face it, teenagers usually aren't very profound. I mean, come on, slasher flicks aren't supposed to be deep, they're just supposed to scare the crap out of you.

It may not be your cup of tea - I'm not into slasher pics myself - but considering the budget, time constraints and the relative inexperience of all involved it's pretty damned good. Let's see if your second budgeted project grosses $60 million - which is about $200 million in 2011 dollars.
Click to expand...

Well stated.
 
I will agree it was well made on a low budget. I don't mind a movie that's good at scaring the crap out of me, without suppose to be very deep. But this one was only able to do that a few times, and mostly in the last 30 minutes. Most of the 60 or more minutes before it, failed to produce much material, other than filler it seems. So why were teenagers often used in the genre, if they are not very profound?
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
So why were teenagers often used in the genre, if they are not very profound?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I can't believe the extent of your ignorance. Slasher pix are marketed primarily to teenagers, and teenagers would not be as interested in a bloodfest about a bunch of senior citizens, now would they?

And, once again, do you even bother to really read my posts?

Alcove Audio said:
... slasher flicks aren't supposed to be deep, they're just supposed to scare the crap out of you.
Click to expand...
 
I'll second "Oh Christ....."

Because ALL those cliches you see now in slasher movies, like the killer's POV shot, the "you think he's dead, but he isn't", the teenage girl as the victim, the mask, etc... John Carpenter basically invented them in this movie.

The Wright borother's plane isn't very advanced by today's standards either. I could build one in my garage. It's amazing because of when it was done, and because it was the first (kind of).
 
Psh... Stupid egyptian pyramids... what s so amazing about them? We could build those, like, in a week.. Big
 
Last edited:
What was so good about the telephone? People keep talking about this revolutionary device, but I can't see how that clunky corded contraption compares to today's cell phones. Please help me out here. :lol:

PS. If you did not like it or find it inspiring etc. that is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
 
Think about this, harmonica: if the film wasn't worthwhile, why was it recently remade? If you compare the modern remake with the original, you might see why the first is considered a classic, and understand why the remake is terrible.

Look at Carpenter's composition, editing rhythm, lighting; there's much more going on there than you give the film credit for. Carpenter knows how to create suspense. He knows that if you reveal too much you undermine the horror.

And finally, context is everything. If you read up on your film history, and really follow the evolution of the horror genre by watching all of the great films associated with it, you'll be able to answer your own question.
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
Think about this, harmonica: if the film wasn't worthwhile, why was it recently remade? If you compare the modern remake with the original, you might see why the first is considered a classic, and understand why the remake is terrible.

Look at Carpenter's composition, editing rhythm, lighting; there's much more going on there than you give the film credit for. Carpenter knows how to create suspense. He knows that if you reveal too much you undermine the horror.

And finally, context is everything. If you read up on your film history, and really follow the evolution of the horror genre by watching all of the great films associated with it, you'll be able to answer your own question.
Click to expand...


Both versions are AMAZING. Rob Zombie's version was stellar in a completely different way.
 
DirtyPicturesTV said:
Think about this, harmonica: if the film wasn't worthwhile, why was it recently remade?
Click to expand...

This one, unfortunately, has a different answer: the movie industry pumps out so much unprofitable crap these days that they'd rather go with something that already has name recognition (to make it stand out), rather than risk an unknown.

For example, the only reason Nolan got the funding to make Inception is that the studio needed him to make his third has-name-recognition Batman movie and Inception was incentive they tossed at him to make sure he'd work on their most-likely-to-turn-a-profit project.

Sad and depressing, but true.
 
I thought Inception was Nolan's script, and not 'there' project. And to answer Alcove, yes I do read your posts, it's just I was mislead into thinking there was something deep in Halloween since it's such an acclaimed classic with a 93% on rottentomatoes. So how come no one had a problem with 60 minutes of scenes with the teens where nothing significant was developed? I recall the scene where the two girls smoked pot and not trying to be caught by their dad. Scenes like that just didn't seem relevant, and if the heroes did that in other movies, it would be considered an irrelevant depthless scene, that should be deleted. Even though Halloween started the genre, the genre was greatly improved after it seemed. Compared to a movie like say, Jaws or Seven, where the originals are still considered the best, compared to their copycats.
 
Last edited:
harmonica44 said:
I thought Inception was Nolan's script, and not 'there' project.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the point. Normally, a movie like Inception would never be funded because it's expensive yet doesn't have any kind of name recognition. Studios see that as a huge risk, but they let Nolan make it to keep him happy so he'd stick around and make them their third Batman movie which (with Nolan attached) is guaranteed to make the studio boatloads of money.
 
harmonica44 said:
I thought Inception was Nolan's script, and not 'there' project. And to answer Alcove, yes I do read your posts, it's just I was mislead into thinking there was something deep in Halloween since it's such an acclaimed classic with a 93% on rottentomatoes. So how come no one had a problem with 60 minutes of scenes with the teens where nothing significant was developed? I recall the scene where the two girls smoked pot and not trying to be caught by their dad. Scenes like that just didn't seem relevant, and if the heroes did that in other movies, it would be considered an irrelevant depthless scene, that should be deleted. Even though Halloween started the genre, the genre was greatly improved after it seemed. Compared to a movie like say, Jaws or Seven, where the originals are still considered the best, compared to their copycats.
Click to expand...
Now you're repeating yourself. So you don't like it. That's the beauty of filmmaking, we all have our own influences. Find yours, and don't worry so much about why others are influenced by what they are influenced by.
 
harmonica44 said:
Even though Halloween started the genre, the genre was greatly improved after it seemed.
Click to expand...

Says who?! I disagree with this, very strongly. In my book, "Halloween" is still the greatest slasher flick of all time. If you consider the entire horror genre, I personally would only put "28 Days Later" ahead of it. Modern horror movies are pure crap, for the most part.

I think Carpenter did an incredible job creating an unending sense of unease, coupled with a great deal of nail-biting suspense.

Also, even if you don't agree that it holds up against time, there is no denying the fact that it is a trailblazer, and the entire genre owes a lot to it.

IT & dlevanchuck, the telephone and pyramid analogies were perfect!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top