[icon ] blenderdumbass . org [icon star] Reviews

Why "Halloween" 1978 is a classic?

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

October 09, 2025

👁 4


#halloween #horror #johncarpenter #film #review #movies #cinemastodon

[icon right] Previous
License:
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike


Compared to the contemporary slasher films ( with blood and guts displayed viscerally ) and even compared to John Carpenter's other horror classic The Thing, 1978's film Halloween is rather un-scary in comparison. Yes, it is a slasher, where a lot of teenagers die. Yes it has a lot of disturbing ideas and a lot of rather good cinematic tension. But it is weak in the blood department. Which begs the question: What's so special about this movie?

The taken out of my ass cinema theory bullshit is incoming.

After the death of Sharon Tate in 1969, the 70s films introduced the audience to a new kind of villain. A serial killer. A psychopath killer. Not somebody who kills for the cash in the your pocket. Somebody who kills because he likes it. Obviously the psycho killer was on screen before. The famous Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho was released in 1960. But the 70s saw an explosion of such films. From Steven Spielberg's Duel, through the Don Siegel's Dirty Harry and Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, to John Carpenter's Halloween and then many other crappy imitation of it.

It seems like the idea alone was foreign enough and scary enough, at the time, that people didn't need the film to have gory violence to be scary like that. Duel has no on-screen violence. Yet it is fucking nerve-racking. Dirty Harry has regular police brutality violence, not the kind of blood-porn modern horror films tend to show. Halloween does have scenes of people being stabbed to death. But the film isn't trying to show stab-wounds or rivers of blood to get the point across. The pretense of Michael Mayers ( the killer in the film ) is strong enough on its own.

What is interesting is that while technically being Independent ( with a very tiny budget ) the film pulls off some great things. First of all, the sense of imagery that Carpenter and director of photography Dean Cundey have in this film is very on point. The film looks very good despite having no money. The compositions are amazing. I really like the way certain things are framed in the film. Like the car of the psychologist character as he talks on a pay-phone outside. Really good stuff.

Carpenter uses cinema more than dialogue to communicate things in the film, making it very cinematically rich. He often will cut to a POV of the character, to let you know where everything is in relation to each other. And to build tension. In the directing department the film is stupidly well-done. Brian De Palma even steals the opening shot ( of the killer's POV ) for his film Blow Out. Now you can argue whether De Palma is better at "cinema" than Carpenter. I would suggest that the opening shot of Blow Out is a bit more fun. But there it is not trying to be serious, but rather is trying to be a kind of sort of parody of the shot in Halloween. Hell Eli Roth parodied it too in his Thanksgiving movie.

But Carpenter doesn't stop there. He isn't just writer and director of the film. No... He is also trying to de-throne John William's score for Spielberg's Jaws, by doing a hell of a horror theme, himself, in this film. If you have never heard the masterpiece, which is the musical score for the film Halloween I will ask you to go and watch the Steve Terreberry cover of it. The stupid video he did ( parodying the film ) and the Steve's guitar solo section hits even harder right after watching the film.

Carpenter did everything he could to the best of his abilities in this movie to make the best possible movie he could make, with the budget that the had. The budget didn't allow for much makeup effects. So they didn't go for ultra-gory film like the thing he did later with The Thing.

Speaking of The Thing. In 1976 when Universal Pictures already wanted to re-make The Thing, using the original novella Who Goes There? rather than the 1951 The Thing from Another World as the source material, Carpenter was approached to make the movie. But they decided against that, since Carpenter was an independent filmmaker that didn't do anything specifically amazing up to that point. But after Halloween ( an the money it made ) Universal reconsidered him. Yet I think Carpenter knew he makes Halloween to get The Thing. At some point during the movie, the characters turn on the TV and what are they watching? That's right... The Thing from Another World.

Happy Hacking!!!


[icon terminal] JSON [icon markdown] Markdown

[icon right] Previous
[icon question] Help

Subscribe RSS
[icon link] Author
[icon link] Website
Share on Mastodon


[icon question] Help


You can comment from Mastodon.










[icon reviews]Snake Eyes 1998 is De Palma's attempt at restoring his Hitch spirit

[thumbnail]

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 11 💬 2



Watching the opening scene of Brian De Palma's 1998 film Snake Eyes makes you realize that this motherfucker is trying very hard. We have 13 minutes of Nicolas Cage running around a very crowded set. The scene is clever with its camera, giving us multiple layers of exposition in the same time. Like there could be a TV on the foreground and Cage on the background. And they seem unrelated at first, but the scene establishes most of it's plot details right in this very shot. And then the shot ends ( 13 minutes later ) at the exact moment, the script drops the "inciting incident". De Palma is really trying hard to direct the shit out this movie.


#SnakeEyes #BrianDePalma #NicolasCage #film #review #movies #cinemastodon


[icon petitions]Release: Dani's Race v2025-03-17

[thumbnail]


27 / 50 Signatures

[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 336 💬 2



Dani's Race version 2025-03-17


#DanisRace #MoriasRace #Game #UPBGE #blender3d #project #petition #release


[icon articles]The Ultimate Paradox Of Freedom


[avatar]  Blender Dumbass

👁 75 💬 0



Is it freedom to be rebellious? Or is it just an uncontrollable reaction? There is this concept called Reverse Psychology which suggests that sometimes to obtain a wanted result from somebody it's better to push that somebody in the opposite direction. But reverse psychology doesn't work always. Only when the person feels like his or her freedom is at stake. For example when a parent doesn't allow a teenager to engage in a particular activity. The parent might not be an inherently evil person. He might not desire to exercise any kind of power. He maybe just really wants to protect the teenager. But the teenager feels like his or her freedom is being betrayed and taken away. So they rebel. Is it freedom to be rebellious, though? Or is it just an uncontrollable reaction? Is there freedom at all? Or is it just a big paradox?


[icon codeberg] Powered with BDServer [icon python] Plugins [icon analytics] Analytics [icon mastodon] Mastodon [icon peertube] PeerTube [icon element] Matrix
[icon user] Login