Monday, 14 December 2009


Halloween (1978 directed by John Carpenter) is probably the first horror film I've seen
and I enjoyed it, although it wasn't scary. Ive been comparing reviews of this version with the 2007 remake. All reviews I've looked at on the original are positive. The film utilized a lot of moving camera shots to make the viewer feel as if they are the characters creeping around corners. Even when the camera isn't moving you are sometimes looking at the film in the eye of a character. A review by Tim Dirks from, described the view of the camera as "seen from the subjective vantage point of the killer's or 'peeping tom's' eyes." This sense of spying reminds me of some of Edward Hoppers art work where the views are seen from a distance, usually divided by a window, into a place. looking at some reviews on the remake, they all seem to comment on that they gave the characters too much back story so that the mystery as to why the villain is killing is explained, which ruins the film. In a review from IGN Todd Gilchrist said that it "is about graphic brutality and absolutely nothing more."


  1. Absolutely, Ethan - in the original, the ambiguity of the stalker's intentions lends a universality to the film - that Michael Myers is just a 'shape' for the kind of bruising, awful evil that can erupt into the mundane and everyday; also, if you recall, in the scene in the classroom when Laurie first sees Michael watching her from across the road, the teacher is talking about 'Fate' as a primal force - as if Laurie's fight with evil and the existence of it, are somehow 'elemental' and therefore inevitable...

    The remake is just AWFUL! :-(

  2. also - your use of reviews to frame and quantify your observations is great - I think, perhaps, you could elaborate more and reference more - it's a great habit to get into - try gathering together a number of reviews, and then pull out the similarities and contrasts between them as part of your analysis. Very encouraging however!