HAPPENING

 

When I originally watched Audrey Diwan's extraordinary film, “Happening”, earlier in the year, I immediately thought it was an important film, but never did I expect just how important it would be only a fortnight later. For those that are unaware “Happening” shows the dangers involved for a woman in seeking an abortion when such a thing is illegal. Thankfully, these are troubles from the past and we as a society have moved on and understand the importance of women having the ability to choose just what happens to their own body.....ahem.....two weeks after I watched “Happening” the United States Supreme Court voted to overturn the result of the 1973 “Roe vs Wade” case, which was historic for its recognition of an individual's right to terminate a pregnancy. That right has now been taken away from the majority of women in the USA, and the period-set “Happening” has sadly become very relevant and timely.

Anne is a bright young student with a promising future ahead of her. Her dream is to write, however those dreams are threatened when she falls pregnant in 1950's France, where abortion is illegal. Although she wants a child later in life, Anne doesn't want one now at the expense of “her” life, so resolves to act, no matter the risk, and the risks are huge.

I was totally blown away by Audrey Diwan's “Happening”; it is such a powerful film, but it is also an incredibly difficult watch. Diwan pulls no punches when it comes to showing the risks involved in obtaining an illegal abortion, including a number of very graphic and confronting scenes that will have you squinting at the screen. While these moments are full on and incredibly tough to watch, that is the whole point. The viewer needs to understand just how bad and dangerous and painful it can get for the woman, so if these scenes were watered down to make it easier on the viewer, the impact would be lost. The film is an adaptation of Annie Ernaux's autobiographical book of the same name, that deals with her own experiences with abortion back in the 1950's. Diwan and her co-screenwriter Marcia Romano have done an excellent job at adapting the book and creating a film that is filled with immediacy, tension, heart and understanding, without it making it feel like a political or “message” film. The entire film is from Anne's perspective, she is in every scene, so Diwan needed an actress with an ability to go through a large range of emotions quickly and believably and she struck gold with the casting of Anamaria Vartolomei, who is just extraordinary. In just a few short scenes she is able to project an intelligence and carefree attitude in Anne, feeling at her lightest when chatting with her friends. She is serious at her studies and determined in fulfilling her potential as a writer. This is immediately shattered the moment she hears that she is pregnant, as her focus strays from her academia and totally on to how she can terminate her pregnancy. I was particularly impressed by Vartolomei's ability to express her character's sudden lack of focus, as well as her fear which continually builds until its outright panic, as she understands just how much trouble she is in. She also does an excellent job of making us feel her isolation from the rest of her, once comfortable, world. So strong was the law on abortion that even her best friends retract in fear when Anne finally breaks down and confesses her secret, which ultimately leaves her feeling even more alone.

Diwan and her cinematographer Laurent Tangy have chosen to shoot “Happening” in the square 1.33 ratio which, as I have said on here before, is great at making dramas more intimate as the height of the frame means a facial close-up can be that much closer, exposing the intensity of emotion in the character's eyes. The majority of the film has been shot hand-held, with a large amount of the time the camera actually being behind Anne, as we follow her on her journey, which I thought was a brave choice. The colour palette leans towards cooler images, thanks largely to the fact that Anne is regularly dressed in blue. It is a beautiful looking film, but here the story is more important than a few pretty pictures. What I was impressed most by in Diwan's direction was her ability to make the audience feel exactly what Anne herself is going through. There were times when I was wincing, or closing my eyes, or even feeling physically ill (and I am a big, tough guy who never flinches whilst watching horror films!). I don't just mean the extreme scenes though, I also think Diwan does a great job of making us feel Anne's isolation and fear, while also increasing the tension in the film at the same time. While I would always describe “Happening” as an intense drama, at times it plays like a thriller (particularly as Diwan highlights regularly where exactly Anne is in her pregnancy, getting closer to when an abortion is physically impossible), with the final fifteen minutes just excruciating to sit through.

Another thing Diwan excels at is exposing just how hard women have / had it in a repressed society such as France in the 1950's. When your virginity was held in the same esteem as your school scores, and anyone who may have had sex prior to marriage being stained by the “honour” of being called a slut or easy. Just imagine the outrage if they were then an unwed mother?!? Diwan makes the observation that all this repression and the social stigmas caused because of it, can only be a dangerous thing as all it leads to is a group of horny girls with no way to relieve themselves; eventually something has got to give. “Happening” also really opened my eyes as to just how dangerous, this time from a legal perspective, abortion was for women, or the people that attempted to help them. When Anne quietly pleads to her doctor for help after the initial confirmation that she is pregnant, he immediately says “You can't ask me that. You can't ask anyone that!” in a stern, serious but respectful manner. When she then tries another doctor, he is furious and does the unthinkable by giving her medication which would strengthen the embryo (thus making it harder to abort) but under the guise that it will help her menstruate. When Anne finally does find someone to help her, their meeting is so clandestine that it felt like something from the French Resistance. You cannot help but feel for poor Anne, as her situation is just horrific, and no matter which way she turns it is forever life altering.

With all the doom and gloom of the film, I want to mention the brief moment where Audrey Diwan finally (and smartly) lets the audience breathe. With Anne at rock bottom and desperate to find a solution, she receives a visit from one of her friends who admits to her that she too has had a sexual relationship, and that the only reason she isn't pregnant is because she was lucky, nothing more. It is a small moment but you can see Anne (thanks again to Vartolomei's excellent performance) feel that little bit lighter and less alone. This scene is immediately followed by a brief moment when Anne visits her parents and gets happiness out of watching them heartily laugh at something on the radio. This moment of happiness is broken when Anne is about to leave and tightly hugs her mother; straight away her mother senses that something is wrong, and from her on in, the film becomes very intense.

This now brings me to the incredibly confronting scenes of “Happening”, which there are three, but I will only talk about the first two. Due to the theme of the film, I'm sure you can probably guess what they involve, but I liked that Diwan covered both scenes differently. The first is when Anne attempts to abort the fetus herself via the use of a knitting needle. Diwan shows Anne grabbing the needle (so we have an idea of its size) and then has her examining her downstairs parts via a mirror, however she leaves the actual act to our own imagination, instead focusing entirely on the pain and apprehension on Anamaria Vartolomei's face. Combined with an effective use of sound effects, it makes the entire scene incredibly difficult to sit through. As a man I found this scene almost impossible to watch, that it makes me wonder just how hard it would be for a woman. The other scene is when Anne goes to see a black-market abortionist, and this time Diwan shoots the scene in real time, without any cuts, with most of it playing out over Anne's shoulder, as if from her point of view. You totally feel the anxiety of the moment which increases as we know she cannot make any sound for fear of being found out, while knowing just how much pain she is in during this procedure. Both these scenes are very uncomfortable viewing, but the third one is possibly the worst!

Overall, I was so impressed by Audrey Diwan's “Happening”; while it is incredibly hard to watch at times, after two viewings of the film, I think it is something of a masterpiece. Whilst it is saddening that since its release, the film has become so relevant, I loved the fact that Diwan never pulled any punches in regards to the controversial elements of the story. Through Diwan's confident but sensitive direction and Anamaria Vartolomei's impressive performance, “Happening” is able to successfully make the audience feel all of the pain, fear and isolation that Anna is going through. It is a hot-button topic, but Diwan is interested in the human element behind it all, rather than making a big political statement. Whilst it is a hard film to recommend due to how confronting it can be, personally, it is my favourite film I have seen this year up until this point. “Happening” is a brilliant and important film.

 

4.5 Stars.  

 

PEARL

 

Shot back-to-back with “X”, Ti West surprised the film world when he revealed (via an end of credits teaser) that he had already completed a prequel to the film, this time focused on the early years of “X's” villain, which was to be appropriately titled “Pearl”. In today's world of twenty four hour information, it is increasingly rare for filmmakers to pull off a surprise such as this without it being leaked. The story goes that while in their compulsory two week quarantine period before being allowed to enter New Zealand to shoot “X”, Mia Goth and director Ti West came up with a prequel story while communicating daily via Skype. They were so pleased with the results that they decided to speak to A24 and propose the idea of shooting both films back-to-back, which the production house agreed to.

Imdb describes “Pearl” like so: “Trapped on her family's isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father and overbearing watch of her devout mother. Lusting for a more glamorous life like she's seen in the movies, Pearl finds her ambitions, temptations and repressions all colliding in this origin story of “X's” iconic villain”.

Right off the top, you should know that “Pearl” is nothing like its predecessor, “X”. In that earlier film, director Ti West came up with a dirty, grimy grindhouse slasher, whereas with “Pearl” he has created a very dark character study of a dreamer and the darkness that forms within her when her dreams are ultimately crushed. While still very much a horror film, “Pearl” plays out more like a deranged drama – and it is absolutely glorious! The best word to describe “Pearl” is disturbing; it really burrows in deep and gets under your skin, but rarely in an aggressive fashion. The fact that the majority of the film is done in a quiet manner makes it all the more disturbing, because when it does explode in brief flashes of violence or intense verbal altercations, these moments hit that much harder.

Stylistically the film is also completely different to “X”. Gone are the grainy grindhouse aesthetics, replaced by a bright, bold Technicolor look reminiscent of those large Hollywood movies from the 30's and 40's such as “The Wizard of Oz” or “Gone With The Wind”. This time around Ti West is aping the look of those big budget Hollywood melodramas, with “Pearl” bursting with colour from start to finish. West and his cinematographer Eliot Rockett have created a stunningly beautiful film here, filled with perfectly composed widescreen images. It is quite a trick showing the same locations of a previous film and making it look and feel so different, but with the red barn, yellow corn fields, bright blue sky and green grass combined, it creates eye candy for the viewer, while never looking anything like something from “X” (despite being the exact same place). The only negative I have about the look of “Pearl” (and I say this with tongue planted firmly in my cheek) is that with the story taking place in 1918, the movie era that West is imitating is clearly not of this period, and it really should have been shot as a silent film, but I am sure there is no way A24 would have green lit this film if that was the case, as it would've been commercial suicide. Besides, who really cares when the end result that we have onscreen is so bloody impressive!

Whilst the film is filled with a number of interesting characters, this time around the focus of “Pearl” is really on one character, with Mia Goth once again excelling above and beyond with the younger rendition of her titular character. I thought she was fantastic in “X” but she is next-level good here in “Pearl”, so much so that if the Academy Award members had any balls, I think she deserves to at least be nominated for her performance here. Goth has an uncanny ability in giving Pearl a naivety or innocence to her and then turning the mood towards the disturbing or sinister in a second. It doesn't even have to be via an aggressive action (which does happen on occasion too) but rather by a certain look or a simple inflection in her voice while delivering a line. The best example of this is when she is talking to her friend, who works as a cinema projectionist, and who is trying to convince Pearl to follow her dreams because “we only get one go at life”. Pearl absentmindedly replies “...if only they would just die”, talking about her parents and unconsciously revealing her true feelings, before she catches herself, so when he says “Pardon?”, she follows up with the most innocent of deliveries of the word “nothing”. Different from “X”, “Pearl” requires a more internal performance from Goth this time around, due to the fact that she is so often alone, fantasising or living in her dreams, and she has no problem at all at delivering this.

West gives Goth so many moments to shine in “Pearl” such as her brilliant dance with a scarecrow which starts out innocently enough before suddenly turning much more sexual and disturbing. It is a telling moment, which exposes just how messed up Pearl may be, and the thoughts that her repressed mind is constantly fighting against. Her big audition scene, which is probably the most important for her character in finally achieving her dream or failing altogether, is presented as a fantasy vs reality situation as the scene is inter-cut with how Pearl imagines her audition is going (which, unsurprisingly, is like a big budget Hollywood musical), with exactly how it is, and it ends on the most heartbreaking, guttural reaction from Goth. The way West has put together this scene, combining the energy, fun and intense movement of a musical, and then ending it on the saddest, most soul-crushing note, is simply phenomenal.

The above scenes are fantastic but no doubt the stand out scene of the film is Pearl's already famous six minute monologue, which Mia Goth performs in a single unbroken take, during the film's finale. In the scene, Pearl is persuaded by her sister-in-law to take down those walls, confide in her and finally talk about how she “really” feels, after Pearl makes the brave admission to her that she “thinks something is real wrong with me”. Pearl is hesitant at first, unsure how her sister-in-law will react, but she relaxes into it the more she goes on, finally lifting this heavy emotional burden she has been carrying for so long. However, it turns out that Pearl is truly messed up and the things she talks about and the things she has done are horrific. West never takes his camera off of Goth's face as Pearl goes through a number of different emotional states while talking. The brilliance of this scene though is because we never leave Pearl, we are not privy to the reaction from the listener of her story, which can only be one of shock, horror, repulsion and fear. This creates an amazing level of suspense because you sense that everything will change from this moment on, and not for the good of anyone not named Pearl. It is a brilliant, brilliant scene that also ends on a chilling line from Pearl: “it's not about what I want anymore, it's about making the best of what I've got”, which may not sound like much, but in the state of mind Pearl is in, and the context of how she says it, it is downright scary.

Besides the total brilliance of Mia Goth, there is still so much more that I love in “Pearl”, not least the inclusion of the Spanish Flu pandemic into the storyline, which makes historical sense with the events of the film taking place in 1918, but which also gives audiences a reference point to hold on to and understand after our own recent pandemic, with numerous characters wearing masks when out in public due to the fear of catching the disease. Like “X”, this is a well acted film across the board, but I was most impressed by Tandi Wright who plays Ruth, Pearl's very strict and domineering German mother. Wright delivers the majority of her dialogue in German, which apparently was a language she didn't speak a word of prior to shooting the film, but you wouldn't know it, as she is so commanding in the role. She is so believable and importantly has the ability to go toe-to-toe with Goth and not be overpowered by her in their scenes together. Another thing that I loved was the demented final family dinner scene, although I will admit that this kind of thing is becoming a little cliched now in horror films. Speaking of the finale, Ti West ends “Pearl” on a single shot of Mia Goth smiling while the credits roll. However the shot is not freeze framed, rather West has Goth hold her smile throughout the whole shot, which makes the effect more and more messed up and creepy the longer it goes on.

While “Pearl” is a prequel to “X”, you do not need to have seen the previous film to enjoy it, however after watching “Pearl”, it does makes “X” a much richer film, as little details or moments that occur in “Pearl” are actually referenced later in “X” (such as the submerged car, or the reason why Pearl hates blondes), but which mean nothing until you have seen “Pearl”. One aspect that I loved that Ti West included was a connection to pornography which plays so much importance in “X”, as Pearl is shown an illegal stag film by her projectionist friend. When Pearl asks if such a thing is legal, he says “one day it will be”.

Overall, I absolutely loved “Pearl” and thought it was a fantastically disturbing character study about a very sad character, exposing the dark side of the “American Dream”. Ti West has created his best film yet, with Mia Goth giving an Academy Award worthy performance (truly!), whilst visually “Pearl” is absolutely stunning. I was so impressed by the way West was able to create two films in the same “universe” and make them so different from one another, whilst still keeping them connected. It is a stunning achievement, and I've got good company in my praise as none other than Martin Scorsese himself recently spoke off just how effective “Pearl” was, and that days after seeing it, he was still thinking about it. Since “Pearl” was released, Ti West and A24 have announced that they are making a third part of this story, this time titled “MaXXXine”, and focusing on Mia Goth's character from “X”, with West promising it to be done in a completely different visual style again from the first two films. Unfortunately, “MaXXXine” has yet to be made, but after the outstanding success that is “Pearl”, I cannot wait.

4 Stars.

(with the caveat that I have only watched “Pearl” the once so far, and expect that on a re-watch that this score may increase to 4.5 Stars.)

 

X

 

Seemingly coming out of nowhere, “X” is director Ti West's brand new film, his first in six years. Personally I am a huge fan of West's slow burn horror films, particularly “The House of the Devil”, so when I learned he had made a new feature, it went straight to my most anticipated list of 2022. Thankfully (and somewhat surprisingly) “X” made it onto cinema screens here in Australia earlier in the year, which is where I saw the film, but sadly the screening was poorly attended with only myself and a few other patrons in the cinema. However I am happy to say that the poor attendance is not indicative of the quality of “X” as a film, as it is another very well made and disturbing horror picture that fits comfortably within Ti West's filmography.

The imdb describes “X” like so: “Set in 1979, a group of young filmmakers set out to make an adult film in rural Texas, but when their reclusive, elderly hosts catch them in the act, the cast and crew find themselves fighting for their lives”.

Typical of the previous horror films directed by West, “X” has a long and slowly paced set-up where we meet all of the characters, as well as get to know their characteristics and start to care for them before the horror elements kick in. The first hour of “X” is predominately filled with fun and frivolity as a group of friends set out to make a really good dirty movie. Thankfully West has filled the film with a bunch of enjoyable characters who have great rapport with one another, so it is no chore being in their company for the entirety of the film. Getting us to really care for each of these characters is one of West's strengths and paramount so the impact of the film's final half an hour hits that much stronger when they are all in trouble.

Whilst a large chunk of this opening hour consists of the group making their porno, I would never call “X” a sleazy film. West handles the adult material maturely and with the respect the subject deserves, while never skimping on either the sex or nudity. This is a film for adults, no doubt, but it is not a vehicle for some sleazy T and A, although both do feature heavily. There is almost a naivety amongst the group during the making of their porno, as this is before the over-saturation of the market, thanks to the advent of the video-cassette, when adult films actually did have some artistic merit to them. That said, it is also very funny as the dialogue they shoot is filled with all the usual innuendo-filled cliches you would expect to find in a porn film made in the 70's.

The cast of “X” has been put together perfectly, both in looking the part and of the period, and in the chemistry they have together as a group. It is a surprisingly very well acted film with Brittany Snow shedding her good girl persona from the “Pitch Perfect” franchise to become the sexy and sultry Bobby-Lynne, while Scott Mescudi impresses as Jackson, her on and off-screen partner and ex-Vietnam vet. The big surprise of the cast is Jenna Ortega, in her most adult role to date, playing the shy sound recordist of the porn film, who finds herself more turned on and drawn into the making of the film than she initially expected. She is excellent, as usual, but really, this is Mia Goth's film! She is an absolute superstar in “X”, not least because she does double duty here, playing two completely different roles, both with extreme gusto. Firstly, she plays Maxine, a girl who believes she is destined for stardom and who is obsessed with becoming a star, convinced that this porn film is the first step towards that success. Goth infuses her with so much energy, grit and determination, with Maxine coming across like a female Dirk Diggler. The other role Goth plays is of the elderly and dangerous woman, Pearl, who is the owner of the ranch house that the group are renting. Pearl is such an interesting character and one that gives “X” a layer of sadness to it, as she is someone pining for her lost youth and beauty, while being melancholic over the fact that old age has robbed her and her husband of their sexuality. When Pearl comes across Maxine, she sees something in the young girl that reminds her of herself at a similar age, and this is when Pearl becomes dangerous and “X” starts to get really creepy. In fact I would define “X” as a whole as more of a creepy experience rather than a scary one. To be honest, I am not really sure why West chose Mia Goth to play Pearl too, but she is heart-breakingly (and terrifyingly) good in the role, but with the fact that Pearl predominately interacts with Goth's other character Maxine, it seems like it would have been that much harder to shoot, but it all works out very well.

I keep saying how “X” is “unexpectedly” good in a number of areas, which is rather unfair, but I mean in terms of what people may be expecting from the type of film it is: a 1970's set grindhouse slasher film. “X” is an extremely well made film that gets its 1970's production and costume design on point, whilst also aping the visual style of those gritty 70's grindhouse films I love so much. It has that dirty “Texas Chain Saw Massacre” feel about it, which is an impressive feat as “X” was shot in New Zealand. I also think Ti West's direction is very sharp resulting in his best film since “The House of the Devil”. I think the aspect of the film that I was most impressed by though was the editing, particularly a number of excellent and clever scene transitions. Ti West edits his own films (although this time he had help from David Kashevaroff) and he is quite playful in his approach using swipes, match-cuts, split-screen and numerous other period-specific techniques. Right from the very impressive opening shot, I knew West was on top of his game with “X”. He gives the appearance that he is shooting in the 1.33 square ratio, focusing on Pearl's farmhouse, before the camera moves forward which opens the image wider, revealing to the viewer that we are actually inside the barn, and what initially looked like a movie frame, was actually the doors of the barn itself; very clever. West and his cinematographer Eliot Rockett have created a beautiful, yet grungy looking film in “X”, which is filled with fantastic shot selections and shot designs, whilst never looking too perfect. The colours have that 1970's washed out feel to them, and the image quality feels rough. It definitely feels of the era, but comes across as being from the more high-end of the grindhouse film market.

In regards to the horror of “X”, just as how West didn't hold back with the sexual nature of the film early on, he likewise isn't afraid to spray the red stuff around in the final half an hour too. It takes awhile to get there, but once the horror kicks in, “X” becomes a total bloodbath which doesn't let up until the credits roll. I was super impressed by the quick changing of tones in the film, as the first instance of violence happens so quick and is so brutal that it is as if West is alerting the audience that fun time is over, and this is what you are getting from now until the end. From this moment, the fun immediately stops, and the terror begins. Thankfully the majority of the gore is done practically and I got amusement out of how each death scene was somewhat prophesized by dialogue spoken earlier in the film. An example of this is when one character states “their eyes are going to pop out of their damn skulls when they see this” in reference to the adult film they are shooting – this character then dies via a pitchfork through the eyes. The deaths occur via all manner of gruesomeness such as knife slashings, shotgun wounds, alligator attacks, graphic hand trauma, car trampling and it is all glorious stuff.

Overall, I had a lot of fun with “X” and thought it was great to have Ti West handling another horror film again. The man is certainly a talent in the genre and it had been too long since his previous horror movie (2013's “The Sacrament”). It is an incredibly well made film that has been well cast and acted by everyone, but Mia Goth steals the show here! She is outstanding and has created TWO iconic characters in “X” with both the star-driven Maxine, and particularly the elderly and demented Pearl. Some people may struggle with the “long” set-up before the horror, but I thought it added to the film immensely.

3.5 Stars.

 

HALLOWEEN ENDS

 

“Halloween Ends” is the final entry of the most recent trilogy which began back in 2018 with the imaginatively titled “Halloween”. To say that it is an odd entry in this long running and convoluted saga is an understatement. Nothing seems to gel together with separate storylines feeling like they have come from completely different films. This results in a “final” chapter that feels unsatisfactory, or worse, half-arsed. I should warn upfront that this review will have plenty of SPOILERS so if you want to watch “Halloween Ends” without knowing key plot points, please read this review AFTER you have seen the film.

The film takes place four years after the brutal 2018 Halloween night rampage of Michael Myers, seen in “Halloween Kills”. During this time, Michael has disappeared whilst Laurie has got her life back on track again, moving houses, this time without all the hidden traps, gadgets and weapons. She is focused on looking forward and enjoying her life with her granddaughter Allison, rather than looking back to the past and at the pain caused by Michael. However, as Halloween approaches, evil once again rears its ugly head in Haddonfield, but this time it may not be Michael Myers the residents should fear the most.

The opening scene of “Halloween Ends” immediately indicates that this new film is going to be a very different “Halloween” experience. Rather than focusing on anything to do with either Michael or Laurie, this opening scene instead depicts a devastating babysitting job gone wrong when local teenager, Corey Cunningham, accidentally kills the young boy he is looking after during a game the two were playing together. Although an accident, Corey is forever tainted by the incident with locals turning on him and treating him as if he is some evil being who had committed a deliberate act of violence. There are some sympathetic members within the community (including, surprisingly, the young victim's father), but Corey suddenly finds himself a pariah of Haddonfield, both isolated and bullied in equal measure.

The tone of this opening is completely different to that of any “Halloween” film before. I regularly bemoan the fact that films are all the same lately, so initially I actually really liked that this “Halloween” sequel was going in a different direction than all the others, but after an hour or so, the film lost it's way and became very messy. One of the greatest missed opportunities of the “Halloween” series was not following up on the fantastic ending of “Halloween 4” which saw Michael Myers passing on his evil legacy to his niece Jamie Lloyd. Inexplicably they did not follow through with this at the beginning of “Halloween 5”, basically ignoring that ending totally. It would've seen the franchise go in a bold, new direction, but it was like the producers were scared of straying from a winning formula. “Halloween Ends” is brave enough to try and head down this lost path, as after the anger, pain and frustration has built up to boiling point in Corey, Michael Myers transmits some of his pure evil into the boy which sees him follow down the same murderous path. I was thrilled to see David Gordon Green and his writers attempt this neglected narrative, however sadly, they ended up fumbling the ball and didn't make any of this new material count. It ended up having no impact in the over-riding arch of the whole story, which deemed it all pointless and worse, another totally wasted opportunity. Corey steals Michael's mask from him (I mean, what the !?!) and goes on his own murderous rampage, killing the bullies that tormented him before heading after his girlfriend's grandmother, one Laurie Strode. After a brief fight and cat and mouse chase between the two, Laurie ends up getting the upper hand, before Corey's life is extinguished (I will leave how he dies a secret). Hooray! The bad guy is dead, except it makes everything that has come before it in “Halloween Ends” feel entirely pointless! All the building up of Corey as a sympathetic character, seeing him turned towards evil, and then the importance of his accepting of Michael's evil and becoming the “new” big bad; it is all for nought as it goes nowhere. Even Corey's death itself has no impact; it has a matter of fact quality to it – it just seems to happen, no one really cares and we move on. To be totally honest, I always thought that Corey was going to be a red herring and that the real person that was going to take over Michael's mantle was Allison, Corey's girlfriend and Laurie's granddaughter. We see her totally change in character (and quickly) over the course of the film, where her good-girl persona is replaced by the frustration and anger in how Corey is treated, not to mention the way everyone looks down on their relationship, to the point of her being on the outs with her grandmother over this. Sadly, once again director David Gordon Green (or his producers) failed to follow through on this more interesting plot, instead retreating to the safeness of the same-old, same-old.

This brings me to another point of what is wrong with “Halloween Ends” and that's the unrealistic changes in the characters between the previous film, “Halloween Kills”, and “Halloween Ends”. At the end of “Halloween Kills”, Laurie's daughter / Allison's mother Karen is violently killed by Michael and yet at the beginning of “Halloween Ends” both characters have moved on, and Laurie particularly has changed her outlook on life from the negative to the positive. Whilst it is great having the more carefree and loving Laurie of the original 1978 film back, it really doesn't make much sense from a narrative perspective as we never know what causes this change, and thus feels false because of this. From what we have seen of Laurie in the previous two films, the death of her daughter should've sent her spiralling further down a dark path, particularly in regards to her relationship with Michael. As for Allison, she has always been a bit of a blank void, so a gauge on how she should react after the death of her mother is hard to accurately predict and I guess it has been four years since her demise, so it is conceivable that Allison has grieved and moved on naturally in this time. However within “Halloween Ends” Allison goes through massive character swings that never feel real due to how quickly they occur. From good-girl to Corey's bad-girl companion, it all happens way too fast, but it is even worse when she realises that Corey is a bad egg and reverts back to good immediately, just in time to save Laurie from him. The worst example though is in the treatment of the character of Michael Myers himself. At the end of “Halloween Kills” Michael had essentially massacred half of Haddonfield in brutal, bloody fashion, looking as if he was unable to be killed. However four years later when this movie begins, Michael is a decrepit old man, hiding in the sewers, too weak even to pick up his knife or fight off Corey when he steals his mask from him (did I mention, what the !?!). In fact David Gordon Green's treatment of this iconic character is deplorable. I understand wanting to move away from Michael Myers, but treat the character with some respect and let him go out in style. The “Halloween Ends” version of Michael Myers is like a Covid variant as he spends most of the film isolating from everyone in the sewers (not showing up until forty minutes in) while being weak, struggling to breathe and losing his strength before he eventually dies. There is a loose thread from “Halloween Kills” where it hints that Michael needs to kill to gain his strength which is very briefly explored here, but we never find out why Michael stopped killing for four years which is just lazy screenwriting. David Gordon Green does eventually let Michael loose with his knife, but once again it feels half-arsed especially when one of the series' most iconic kills is repeated here but isn't anywhere near as effective. Do not get me wrong, what few kills there are, they are very violent and well executed but they just do not hold the same weight anymore.

This brings me to the Laurie Strode vs. Michael Myers finale which sadly feels like nothing more than an afterthought. After all the effort of building the Corey Cunningham story arc, the final ten minutes of “Halloween Ends” is all we get for the climactic face off. It never feels organic to the rest of the film and totally feels tacked on or worse, a contracted obligation to had to be included. The battle itself is short, but personally, I actually liked it and liked the fact that Laurie came out triumphant; it would've been sad after everything she had been through to become just another of Michael's victims. However the slow way of killing Michael, by opening his veins in his wrist and neck and letting him bleed out, well that felt a little underwhelming. Personally, it doesn't hold a candle to the fantastic and satisfying ending of “Halloween: H20” which saw Laurie decapitating Michael before John Carpenter's “Halloween” theme pumps throughout the end-credits. “Halloween Ends” has been promoted as the “final” battle between Michael and Laurie and to keep true to this claim, Green has Laurie tear Michael's body to pieces by throwing him into a metal shredder. It's an unceremonious end to an iconic character, and in a sense makes the character lose most of his aura, especially because we know that he will be back in some form or another; whilst we saw his body destroyed, he never see what happens to his infamous mask. Trust me, Michael WILL return!

From a filmmaking perspective, I also felt like David Gordon Green's direction wasn't as tight as the previous instalments, to the point that it now feels like he really had nothing left to say after his 2018 version of “Halloween”; that due to the money that film made, the trilogy was essentially forced upon him, as each new feature has had diminishing returns (from an artistic perspective). In this instalment the writing was very sloppy, the cinematography was less inspired, and even John Carpenter and co.'s music score was nothing special this time. It just feels like no-one's heart was truly into the making of “Halloween Ends” with the exception of Jamie Lee Curtis who is once again great as Laurie, and James Jude Courtney who continues to be an excellent Michael Myers, although has limited opportunities here.

Overall this was a disappointing end to a trilogy that started so strongly back in 2018. The filmmakers appear to have run out of things to say and have lost their passion for Michael Myers. I didn't hate “Halloween Ends”, but it has too many problems to ignore. I initially loved the fact that it didn't travel down the same weary “Halloween” path but was disheartened when they totally wasted its potential and then tacked on the unsatisfying Michael vs. Laurie final fight. It is a very odd entry in the “Halloween” franchise and bound to be polarising, with most people falling on the negative side I feel, but I think most would agree that “Halloween Ends” is definitely a disappointment.

2.5 Stars.