I think people grabbed onto reductive and shallow criticism of HK, which, while imperfect, ambitiously tries to stretch what a Halloween film can be, blending in elements of Fritz Lang joints like M and Fury into its pedigree.
I haven't seen Halloween Kills, but does it really 'blend' these elements or does it simply grasp at them? Use them as camoflauge to its ultimate emptiness? And if so, is that really ambition? And if that's ambition, is it actually something to be impressed with?
It's like a punk band deciding to throw some French Horn into the mix to class up the joint. Is this them actually expanding the parameters of their sound to incorporate classical influences? Or is it simply a lazy way to roleplay taking their music 'seriously'? Because the second one is definitely worse. I'd rather a band (or a movie) just be a streamlined, stubborn genre piece than something that believes all it takes to become something better is to throw some reflexive social commentary into the mix. It isn't daring to puff your chest out and call yourself profound. Or to show that your influences are better movies.
As for the talk about what makes a great slasher, my first question would be 'was it made in the 80's'. I get what Wooly is saying about it being a basic blueprint to riff off of, like the blues, but I don't think it is something that really knows how to adapt itself very well to modern times.
What was interesting about the genre in the first place, wasn't that there were very many good movies being made with that formula. But they operate as wonderful little time capsules of what was a kind of fad filmmaking. I think it was great that the slasher opened the door for a lot of independent minded filmmakers to just get out there and make a film. It was like punk rock in that way. You didn't need much of screenplay, as these movies essentially write themselves. They could be produced cheaply and by people with little experience behind the camera. They could be extremely emotionally direct, and not concern themselves with being anything grander than what they actually were. Just a bunch of (at the best of time) exhuberant noise.
But, much like that initial glut of rudimentary punk rock, it was a genre that has mostly become redundant. There isn't much more to squeeze out of those basics. The energy can still be great, but the sound evolved from that unschooled, two chord blast of the past. And very few slasher films have found their 'post punk' mojo. Where you still harness that independent spirit, but you find stranger and stranger and more unique ways to express it. I think 'the modern slasher' skipped most of this phase and just immediatley went on the 'oldies circuit'. Selling the same old shit at an elevated price. Almost all 'modern slashers' are close to this worst shit ever made.
This is why 'is it from the 80's' has become such an important qualifier for me. Because what they operate best at is a time capsule where there was still a novelty for commodifying the most basic cinematic instincts (just give the kids what they want, who cares what it all adds up to). The 'make a quick buck 80's' were the perfect decade for this kind of grindhouse decadence invading the theaters. But once we get to around 1988...seriously, why even bother anymore?
As for recent Chainsaw, I think it is mostly a really really bad movie. But that said, it wasn't really really really really really bad as I had expected. And it does have some parts that kind of work. And the scenes in the field of sunflowers, even though completely incongruent with the look of the rest of the film, look incredibly good. But at its core, it is still operating on that horrible kind of emptiness that just drains all the life out of me while I'm in a room with it. While I was slightly impressed that it was better than almost all recent horror reboots I've seen, I mostly hated it.
Reply to Topic
Check out my podcast: 
