A film marketed as a comedy by putting so much focus on its pot-headedness usually screams out the type of audience it targets: most teens and perpetual adolescents, spilling out to include the non-artistically-driven permanent potheads. This one's no exception, while it also tries to rope in none-of-the-above slasher fans who've come to accept that comedy is as agreeable as blood to the genre, it's attitude and the kills that define a slasher. So, that title, "Halloweed", and the cover art
Thinking "Halloween" spoof is normal, just dead wrong.
If you're part of the first group: It's set up to please from the get go; just a question of taste whether or not you love it.
For the potheads: Depends on what you're smoking, I suppose, but know that pot is hardly a part of the story the marketing leads on. You won't find Cheech or Chong.
If you're in the last group: Nothing to satisfy you here; nothing matching the intelligence of "Behind the mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" or the slapstick silliness of "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" though it does match its crassness and actually has a musically-denoted Benny Hill moment. Murder is part of the story, and it's handled in classic slasher fashion, this time sporting a baby-head mask, but the scenes are few and killing is just one of those things, like too many, that float in the background but never really seem to be a part of the plot, much like a "Scary Movie" spoof but, again, not.
No 80s nostalgia here, itself refreshing, and yet I was reminded of 80s fare by the generically unsophisticated absurd-is-normal plot developments, tropes, and resolution that were a hallmark of that period, right down to the caricatured baddies and the foul elderly semi- sidekick. If you were around, you'll know what I mean.
The first ten seconds past the titles establishes the vulgar humour to come, and, certainly, the mindless jokes are there and even set the pace for much of the first third but, surprisingly, never delves close to the level of gross or childish one would expect, minus one anal-cavity search. Thankfully, it manages to rise above and out of the toilet crassness after a while, offering a more pleasant level of humour that arises out of the whole rather than isolated jokes, but which never really hits the gut for anyone hoping for mature humour. Nonetheless, you're starting to care.. And that's when it strikes you: it's more enjoyable because it focuses primarily on Shannon Brown's more sympathetic Trent Modine and it's been a while since the juvenile pot- & penis-obsessed Joey (played by Simon Rex) was on screen. A rewrite that excludes this character would be easy but I'm certain fans will disagree, for, after all, there's no "teen" or "pothead" humour without him.
There's also a meta attempt that weakly rears its head at times but is so unbalanced and flat it stands out as lazy writing that adds nothing.
From what I've mentioned you may have deduced its biggest problem: It's highly uneven. In tone, in comedic approach, in structure, in focus, techniques, sound integration, and the plot is a patchwork of divergent elements with minimal significance to the running narrative or interwoven conflicts that never peak to any importance. The bigger-name stars have no real screen significance, cast simply in minor roles that don't, arguably, qualify as cameos. And pot or Halloween are hardly prominent, same for the gang/turf-war aspect or the slasher element or the serial-killer-dad past or the mayoral race or the love hurdle or
and are brothers brothers or the bad guys such bad guys once you get to know them?
Surprisingly, it all comes together; things happen and life is composed of a whole bunch of elements, some that matter more than others, sometimes not
such is life. In that sense, I honestly see no wrong with the story's direction as it is consistent throughout, often avoiding the expected in the process.
However, albeit the palatable layer that emerges, it fails to satisfy fully since, through the fog of sporadic variation it thinly coats or lumps over it, it's all too clear, title & marketing included, that the makers were more focused on trying to please as many as possible, not trying to tell a good story in a unique way. An art-house exploration of "spoof" this ain't!
That said, any reviews preaching either extreme says more about the reviewer than the film. Where in the spectrum of mediocrity you place it is up to you.
