Do you think Halloween (1978) holds up? (Spoilers)

Oh well I definitely saw the spider walk one then. Why wouldn't the filmmakers want that walk in the theatrical release!?

I only can guess that a) it was too disturbing for audiences given the decade it was released but then they had that other disturbing scene with the crusifix....not sure if that was extended. B) maybe the effect didn’t look right because I believe they touched it up with computer effects by inserting blood. So maybe without computer tech it would have been odd. C) the director thought it was jarring or something.

Just guessing here.

Pretty sure I read its B. Also I believe they felt the placement of the scdne didnt work like it was too much early on.

Goodness gracious God no!

The Excorcist is in a COMPLETELY different league than Halloween, in virtually every way possible.

It's kind of hard to compare though, since one is a slasher and the other is a supernatural, but The Excorcist is the more profound, better done work of art.

As for the movie itself, I'll say til I'm blue in the face that Halloween has always been overrated.

Black Christmas is a similar slasher flick that's better by far.

Black Christmas IS superior. But The Exorcist is still very overrated and has not aged well at all, sorry.

How has the Exorcist aged worse than Halloween? I dont find either scary (movies generally dont scare me) but I find the exorcist much more intense and engaging. Ofcourse I can see why some people find parts goofy and laughable but I can see the same with Halloween.

To answer the original question...yes and no.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think it has. What's aged about Halloween? Other than the 70s setting, nothing. But many of the vaunted effects in The Exorcist just look silly now.

You dont think the kills in Halloween look a bit silly?

The opening kill in Halloween looked silly, and Nancy's did as well, but I think her death was suppose to look intentionally silly, as it was during a phone call, where the person on the other end, thought something else was going on, and it was played for dark humor, and was intentional.... I think.

Everything after the sleepover begins? Solid.
Everything before the sleepover? Eh.

I mean, I know movies were slow like that around that time. But it really drags. Last time I watched it, I enjoyed it and was surprised by how much as I'd last viewed it much earlier in life. But first half is a struggle. The mythos of Michael is a can of worms, so I won't delve into that. It's done well enough.

__________________
"They knew and they let it happen! To kids!"-Spotlight
https://tinyurl.com/ruffalospotlight

It holds up well simply because of a brilliant director in john carpenter who really is always ahead one step when it comes to thrills, but anw the character of micheal myers is a bit over the top when it comes to some silly supernatural moves he does

This, and I suppose the visible wires wouldn't have been too good either but at the time of DC they were able to remove them digitally.

Personally I don't agree with "too much too early" philosophy and it's actually one of the horror cliches that annoy me. Why would all these supernatural threats always choose to gradually increase their displays of power. I like how the spider walk breaks that rhythm.

P.S. Haven't seen Halloween in ages but based on current recollections I'm in the way overrated camp. The Exorcist is, to me, superior in all ways.

I mean I can forgive Nancys kill but the first one really ruined what was an otherwise perfect beginning for me.

I'm glad they decided to restore the spiderwalk in the director's cut. I can't imagine The Exorcist without it, it's one of the scariest shots in a horror movie I've ever seen.