我的觀影體驗基本如下：

一個得了老年癡呆癥的變態(tài)殺人狂的萬圣節(jié)輕松撿人頭的福利路人局，和一個逃命像躲貓貓并帶著矜持的大齡處女之連續(xù)三次反殺變態(tài)殺人狂的故事。

誰能告訴我，女主反殺的基本盤在哪？相比起便當領得麻溜的配角，女主優(yōu)勢基本就頂著主角光環(huán)，以致于反派每次暗中動手都是沖著衣服和沙發(fā)去的。幾個路人配角死得可真是太冤枉了。

反派沒超能力？其他細節(jié)我就不說了，光是被女主捅了這么多次，尤其脖子這種致命部位，最后身中數槍從二樓摔下、還能瞬間悄咪咪逃走的玩意兒，你跟我說沒超能力？

手段新穎開創(chuàng)性？對不起，本片可能，，，，也就是占了拍得早的先機罷了。就像房價瘋漲之前入手的嘲笑后面買不起房的不夠努力一樣。這些花招就算沒在1978年被拍出來，遲早也會被后來者踏足并發(fā)揚光大。

至于那兩個小孩，我看著基本就是烘托氛圍的工具孩，對劇情推進可以說是幾乎毫無影響（說得好像本片有什么劇情一樣）。在這恐怖片里算敗筆，換其他親戚一樣可以，交代好性格就可以。孩子在萬圣節(jié)能發(fā)揮的恐怖氛圍渲染作用，本片卻一點都沒把握住。。。。。

PS：

已知：反派七八歲被抓進精神病院，15年后靠著工具路人送的轎車逃跑了。

問題：反派去哪學的車？？？？？

本系列一集棄，2018新版暫時也不會看了。

最近心情焦慮，看不進書也看不進電影，甚至到了看見電影就頭疼的程度。此種狀態(tài)下，我隨意打開了《月光光心慌慌》。這是我很長一段時間內都沒有涉及的恐怖類型片。但在看到它的一瞬間，我被一陣豁然襲來，我突然意識到自己當初不可控制地愛上電影這個東西時，就是受到了恐怖片的影響，是恐怖片將我引進了電影世界。

可以簡單粗暴的說，恐怖片是以一種極簡主義的粗糙美學闡釋了觀影者對于影像的本質需求和心理構筑。我對于它能夠提供這樣的窺視機制，為偷窺者（我）創(chuàng)造一個不受理性控制的灰色地帶，發(fā)泄自身變態(tài)的心理欲望的特點表現出了極大興趣。 回到《月光光》這部作品上，影片利用大量主觀鏡頭展現一個視域受限的世界，客觀環(huán)境被抹除的同時是主觀視角的全然代入，我們看不到殺手面具下的實體，卻能夠感受到他的呼吸，進而意識到他的無處不在。而這個與自我想象形象匹配的潛在認知，正是我們作為觀者在銀幕上的能指。我們就是殺死角色的兇手——這樣一個被構建的“游戲世界”的虛擬獲勝者（也就能解釋在影片最后，殺手被射殺后的無故消失）。人性之惡在“窺視”的原始視覺快感中得到釋放，而此種暴力的根源正是來自觀者強烈的憤世嫉俗感以及對現實的逃避。甚至可以基此認為，《月光光》創(chuàng)造了一種新型敘事，此類恐怖片一定程度上是以“前互動式電影”的形式作為數字語境下交互模式的早期溯源。

其次，“暴力”常與“色情”同構，殺手恐怖片抓住觀者對于凌辱施虐的癖好將色情元素編碼進敘事，將“窺視”轉化為“窺淫”（窺視的極端化），在獵奇敘事景觀之中將受害者（尤其是女性受害者）與淫欲捆綁在一起，例如本片中一位女性以穿著敞開襯衫，袒胸露乳的情況下以吊詭且極具父性隱喻意味的方式被吊死，希區(qū)柯克的《電話謀殺案》以及邁克爾鮑威爾的《偷窺狂》中也使用了同樣的，以迎合男性視線的手段“處死”女性。在賽博空間肆意延展的當下，此種對于展現在影像上的特定行為會逐步強化性別的異質性。

最后，卡朋特在電影敘事中大量、泛濫的運用驚悚音樂為整體影像塑造“時間的景深感”，先于畫面出現的音樂參與心理敘事，將關鍵信息前置，成為影片恐懼情緒升級的“標記點”，由此在觀者觀影時反射性地觸發(fā)心理預期機制。在聲效系統(tǒng)日趨完善的電影制作之中，此片的嘗試不失為具有前瞻性的寓言。

言而總之，在大批量的任務型觀影中偶爾涉及恐怖驚悚類電影，還是能召回我對于電影最初的，本真的熱愛——一種對官能刺激的純粹享受，以及對于電影本質的淺嘗。

John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN is a seminal low-budget slasher that spawns an ever-growing horror franchise, 40 years after its genesis, as the genre’s spooky ropes become proverbial, it is inexorable that its gripping and scary quotients are considerably blunted for new audience. But since it is such a money-spinner, one of the most successful independent movie ever, so that it obtains a Teflon shield owing to its capitalist high-water mark.

One of its most innovative esthetics is the perverse use of subjective POV, prominently in the prologue, when a cold-blooded murder is seamlessly edited from the unseen executor’s chilling viewpoint on a Halloween night, with a shocking reveal that the perpetrator is a six-year-old “bad seed”.

15 years later, another Halloween day, after escaping from the sanatorium he has been incarcerated ever since, the said “bad seed” Michael Myers (Castle) is back in the sleepy town Haddonfield, Illinois, and his new target is a bookish high school girl Laurie Strode (Curtis) and her two more world-savvy friends Lynda (Soles) and Annie (Kyes), the ensuing suspense is conjured up by rote, and Carpenter archly teases us when and how Myers’ unwitting victims will meet their makers, and knowingly refrains from producing a gory fest, blood is rarely shed, and everything looks more sinister under the Stygian lighting and Panavision expansion, in a forlorn suburbia, all Carpenter needs is two houses across each other and a thickset, silent man wearing a white mask to give audience the creeps we are craving for.

The usual trappings of the genre, like gratuitous nudity, misogynist whiff, teenager lust and angst, are all prescribed in right dosage, plus the moral yardstick, Laurie is the final girl mostly because she is not sexed up like her two ill-fated friends, yet amidst the ludicrousness of screaming, panicking and stabbing, it is rather bathetic she doesn’t emerge eventually as the savior herself (she has to leave the sharp knife beside a seemingly unconscious Myers not once but twice, turns her back to him and weep instead), it is a man who comes to her rescue in the person of Dr. Sam Loomis (Pleasence), Myers’ psychiatrist, ok, baby steps, a heroine’s self-making would run through the entire franchise for our scream queen Ms. Curtis, sinking her teeth in her very first movie.

As yours truly sees it, HALLOWEEN’s undimmed renown is more rooted in that it is a de facto exemplar of shoestring filmmaking that hits the jackpot, than its artistic value or cinematic flourishes, it is a no-frills, bantamweight horror/thriller, an archetypal adrenaline generator, and more than anything, bequeaths its unsettling, plonking theme strains to the posterity, invoking the eternal haunting of a creepy, preposterously bulletproof bogeyman.

referential entries: Carpenter’s THE THING (1982, 7.3/10); Alfred Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (1960, 9.2/10).