Trick or Treat: 8 "Halloweens" until Halloween

[Torgo]

Welcome guys and ghouls. It's almost that time of the year again. That's right, Halloween. The day you get so stuffed up with candy that you can't sleep for a week. So gather around, because Torgo's eight day countdown starts right now!



I'm not one for the slasher genre. I think they're alright time wasters, but I don't worship them. OK, I admit to loving the Child's Play series, and watching giddily as a small doll slaughters everyone in his path. Scream was a terrific slasher satire that generated a good amount of suspense itself, and the other two films in the trilogy carried on the satire bit rathar well even if they didn't generate the same level of fright that the original did. The Nightmare on Elm Street series is fun enough, each film tried something different which I found rathar refreshing. I enjoy the first two Texas Chainsaw Massacres and the remake, but the rest can get downright painful. But for every watchable slasher movie, there's three horrible ones to counter it. I could never get into the repetitive and tiresome Friday the 13th drivel. The I Know What You Did Last Summer films were a complete mess. Urban Legend was wretched. I could go on with the countless films that tried to cash in off of the success of all of the above, but I'd rathar not because I'd be here all night.

But there's only one slasher film that I would ever consider a masterpiece in horror. John Carpenter's Halloween is a modest little independant picture from 1978 and with it's mere $300,000 budget it managed to do what few films with a Hollywood budget can, give me chills. Maybe I'm just playing to my "Fight the power," rebelious side, but come to think of it, many of my favorite horror films happened to be low budget indies, like Night of the Living Dead or the Evil Dead. The only Hollywood film I hold to high regard in this catagory is Steven Spielberg's Jaws. Why is it that people outside of "the business" seem to know what makes a genuine scare better than the big boys? How come they get paid top dollar while these people were struggling to make ends meet?

Life blows.

Halloween takes chill factor and mood and molds it into one glorious little horror movie. Any movie can have things jump out of nowhere and make you jump out of your seat, but Halloween takes a different aproach. Instead of sneaking up off screen, we usually see where the killer, Michael Myers, is lurking. Usually it's behind one of the characters, where you know if they'd just turn around they'd see the impending danger. It's much scarier knowing it's there instead and not being able to do anything about it than wondering where it is.

Donald Pleasance takes top billing as Dr. Sam Loomis. It's a small but very important role, and Donald has a creep value of his own. Often you're wondering just what exactly is going on in his head (that look he gives at the very end of the movie says it all). A young unknown named Jamie Lee Curtis gets her start in the film business as the virgin Laurie Strode, and it's obvious from the start that Jamie Lee is destined to become the scream queen she was crowned as, just like her mother Jannet Leigh in Psycho back in the 60s. Michael Myers himself is brilliantly realized by Nick Castle as a soulless being of pure evil. Of course that might have something to do with that haunting mask, staring that "blank, pale, emotionless face" in the eyes would be enough to frighten anyone. The strong main cast is backed up by a weak supporting cast, however. Many act like they've never been on film before and probably never will again. Especially one that will remain nameless, what with her overuse of the word "totally." If I had to hear her say that one more time, I would have pulled a Michael Myers myself.

I'm not a fan of John Carpenter's musical "skill." In fact, I find him overrated. His followup scores for the next two Halloween movies are horrible as is some of the ones I've heard for the other movies he's responsible for. Escape From New York for example, his music dated that as a product of the 80s forever. However, his Halloween score is undoubtably his best work. It's simple, yet effective, like the Jaws theme. The music creates a mood of it's own, adding to the terror in ways you couldn't predict.

Halloween is a spooky frightfest from beginning to end. It's a must watch annually on Halloween night and a film to be treasured as a classic for many years to come. A job well done to the entire crew for doing so much with so little.

**** out of ****

[Torgo]

Slasher franchise? You know, it just might work.

The year is 1981. The big boys in the movie serial killer industry were just getting started. Leatherface hadn't shown his ugly face since 1976. A pre-hockey mask Jason Voorhees was about to be introduced into the world with Friday the 13th Part 2. Freddy and Chucky were just mere twinkles in the eyes of their creators. Michael Myers was the one to take that daring step into sequel land. Did it pay off?

Meh.

Horror franchises weren't uncommon back in the early days of filmmaking, but they were mostly monsters. Dracula, Frankenstien, the Wolfman, Creature From the Black Lagoon, Godzilla, and so on and so on. The horror market of the 80s and 90s was dominated by the slasher. In a way, that's why it went downhill. What's a slasher except a guy who likes to kill people. With a monster you can at least be creative about it. The only slashers movies that twisted the idea were A Nightmare on Elm Street and Child's Play (and to a lesser extent the later zombie Jason Friday the 13th films, but Jason hardly changed much after that trasition). After a while, it's all been there, done that.

But back in 1981, the killer craze was just beginning, and after viewing films like Friday the 13th Part 2, My Bloody Valentine, and even Halloween II, I can't see why.

Halloween II is a promising idea bogged down by laziness. Picking up where the original left off is an exciting twist, but for a movie that has thrown us into the middle of the action, it sure is taking it's sweet time to warm up. For 2/3 of this outing Dr. Loomis is thrown back into the position he was in for half of the first movie by convincing everyone he must still look for Myers and Laurie lies in bed, whining. What's left of this is new, unknown characters talking and scenes of Myers walking around with that horrid theme song remix. I'll refrain from mentioning how understaffed the hospital is, and it's hard to believe Laurie and a couple dozen infants could be the only patients there as well (and if there were more, you'd think they'd wake up with all of Laurie's screaming and Loomis' gunshots).

Rick Rosenthal sits down in the director's chair, this time around. He does a good job of matching John Carpenter's atmosphere, but he doesn't seem to have a clue as to what made the original Halloween work so well. Michael Myers is no longer creepy. In the first film, Myers appeared soulless, with only one thing on his mind. Here, Myers, as portrayed by Dick Warlock, appears to have a stick shoved up his ass. Warlock tries a half hearted attempt at what Nick Castle achieved effortlessly in the first film, and fails miserably. Maybe I'm being to hard on Warlock. Afterall, anybody can play a faceless serial killer. But when I'm feeling underwhelmed, especially from a character who's only action is to walk, it's hard not to complain.

The music is where the film fails the most. The "new and improved" Halloween theme takes a brilliantly creepy tune and tweeks it until it becomes just plain annoying. Most of the other cues in the music are pulled off fine, but it loses more points than it could possibly make up for with the wretched theme music. And then there's the song Mr. Sandman. Most mismatched song choice EVER! What does this perky tune have to do with anything in the movie? It ruins the mood of the beginning and the end. Mr. Sandman is the ultimate symbol of how misguided this film was, and listening to it as the movie ends will leave a sour taste in your mouth.

But I will say the film does have it's charms. The acting, for the most part, is slightly better than the original. Donald Pleasance is probably what throws the curve, he gives his finest performance out of all five of the Halloween films he's starred in. His determination to catch Myers comes through loud and clear here. Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't do much but lie down and run, but she's damn good at it. The supporting players are all dull, but they're not bad with a few exceptions. SPOILER! The revelation of Myers and Laurie being brother and sister works much better than it should. It even fits nicely within the original film. END OF SPOILER! And aside from all of the above, the story of the film isn't totally blown. It's a simple story, but I've seen it done a lot worse in many other slasher films.

Halloween II is hardly the worst sequel ever made, but I don't find it as worthy of the original as many Halloween fans would claim. It's worth a gander for Donald Pleasance alone, but probably not worth a second look.

** out of ****

[Torgo]

Halloween III: Season of the Witch. A sequel that dared to be different. Unlike the first two films, this has nothing to do with Michael Myers. Also unlike the first two films, it flat out sucks.

The most offen excuse/whine I hear from defenders of this film is that "People don't like this movie only because it doesn't have Myers in it." Well, here I am. When I first saw this movie I knew Myers wasn't going to be in it. I watched this movie with an unbiased opinion, hoping it might have been a pleasant surprise, or at least an entertaining cornball cheesefest. Season of the Witch is neither.

The idea behind what Halloween III was trying to direct the Halloween series into is actually quite interesting. I love the idea of coming out with a different horror story for every movie, yet keeping the title Halloween. It's a fresh and exciting idea. But this idea was doomed from the start for two reasons. First of all, we already done Halloween II with Myers in it, which firmly establishes the franchise as a Myers series in the minds of the audience. I don't see anything wrong with leaving the original Halloween open ended. Had they started off on II, things might have worked out much differently. Second, is the actual film itself.

So what am I supposed to make of this anyway? Some old guy with robots somehow steals a peice of Stonehenge (I'm not even going to ask how he stole it. He says "You wouldn't believe how we did it," and I'm sure that's true), and decides to use it and an annoying television commercial to help childrens masks turn their heads into locusts that inexplicably kill everybody around them as well. What a trainwreck. And somehow this guy became the largest Halloween mask seller with only three selections (those pumpkin ones are pretty cool, though). No wonder the guy who wrote this crap didn't want his name on the final print (I don't believe that "It's too gory" story for one second). The film is directed competantly by Tommy Lee Wallace, though, to be fair.

The film is also extremely dull. Take one scene for example where a woman dials a phone and a recording tells her that her call wasn't completed. Now, watch what I assume is the movies only attempt at absolute HORROR, as she dials the damn phone again. Maybe if somebody cut her phone line, there might have been suspensful, but she actually gets through the second time. What the hell was the point of that? Even the film's sex scenes are painfully slow, which is when you know you're doing something wrong if a sex scene in a horror film fails to stimulate the viewer. But then again, it's a sex scene with Tom Atkins. I'm sure, no matter how it was filmed, it wouldn't stimulate anyone.

The final blow toward this movie is John Carpenter's score. It's dreadful. It sounds like one of those video games you put on mute so you don't have to listen to the damn thing.

Make no mistake about it, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, while an intersting experement, is terrible. It would have been terrible had Myers been in it. It would have been terrible if Myers had a small cameo. It still would be terrible if a special edition of the movie done by George Lucas had Myers digitally inserted into every shot doing a little dance and juggling bloody steak knives (although I would admit, this would be highly amusing).

To stop beating a dead horse and get straight to the point, Halloween III is terrible, with or without Myers.

1/2 out of ****

[Torgo]

You know, when I go into part 4 of a slasher series (or part 3 technically, since Halloween III is non-canon of the Michael Myers saga), I really don't expect much. I went into Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers for the first time a few years ago, expecting it to flat out suck, but rented it anyway out of an unexplainable curiosity. After all, for a movie series to go on as long as Halloween has, there has to be some kind of appeal, even in the sequels, or else, why would it thrive? But if I couldn't find the appeal in the Friday the 13th franchise, why would Halloween be any different?

Well, I guess the answer is quite simple, really. I hated the original Friday the 13th, but I loved the original Halloween. When you love a certain movie, for some strange reason you feel encouraged to check out the sequel(s), even if you know from past experiences that sequels tend to suck.

So, in I pop Halloween 4, expecting absolutly nothing but a wasted dollar. Not to my surprise, it was a flawed movie. However, to my surprise, it was actually competant and entertaining.

Halloween 4 was directed by Dwight H. Little, and he is the film's greatest asset. He delivers great atmosphere and genuine tension. The film actually has some good acting in it as well, with the exception of several minor characters anyway. George P. Wilbur plays Myers this time, and does an admiral job, even if he is a bit chunky. And Alan Howarth presents a cool score that outdoes Carpenter's work on the last two movies. Thankfully he returns the Myers theme back to it's original glory instead of that abomination from Halloween II. Most of this warrants a "give it a whirl" for horror fans.

But should I recomend this film to fans of the original Halloween is the real question. My best answer to this is that if you liked Halloween II, you probably should have no problems with 4. I tolorated II to say the least. It was OK for what it was, but it was a very clumsy horror movie. Halloween 4 is a little more steady than II, but it gets a little too hard to swallow at times. First and formost is the condition of Myers and Loomis. Myers is in a coma after being blown up in Halloween II. OK, fair enough explaination for how he survived. However, Loomis was sitting right next to the heart of the explosion and he escapes with just a few burns. Yeah right. And then there's Myers waking up from his coma right when somebody mentions his niece (or maybe he was just pretending for ten freakin' years just to get this tiny bit of info?)There's also some question as to how Myers took down an entire police station in the middle of the film, and the unshown way he caught up to that truck at the very end. This film also features one hell of a terrible ending (oh sure, Loomis' over the top "NOOOOO!" makes it almost seem worth it, but it's still pretty bad). If it weren't for this awful, awful ending, I might have bumped my rating half a star. And the cherry on top is some typical gore, thrown in most probably for the popular gruesomeness of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street at the time. Many of it is very over the top (Myers must have some muscle to impale a woman with a shotgun).

Halloween 4 is generic and silly, but if you can look past that, you might find it a pleasant surprise. It actually tries to be a decent sequel, maybe a little too hard, but it has it's heart in the right place.

** out of ****

[Torgo]

So, Halloween 4 was alright. It's time to move on to Halloween 5 (or Revenge of Michael Myers as it was advertised on posters and video covers, but the final film drops the subtitle). I'd like to say that Halloween 5 is decent, but I really just can't. For what it's worth, I guess it's OK, but why this film simply doesn't work goes much deeper than what appears onscreen.

Imagine yourself as a Halloween fan back in 1989. Michael Myers is coming back the big screen and you couldn't be more excited. You sit back and watch Halloween 5, and instead of getting Halloween 5, you get a rehash of Halloween 4 and an hour and a half of set up for Halloween 6. I'd be pissed. I'd be even more pissed if I learned Halloween 6 wouldn't be for another six years.

This is what I hated about the first series of sequels to Halloween (which Halloween fans call the Thorn series, for reasons learned in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers). Each film was so busy cleaning up each others messes that they never had time to develope a decent sequel on it's own. Halloween 5 was the heart of the problem. In it, they play around with Halloween 4's awful ending and give Michael some sort of psychic link to his neice, Jamie. OK, sure. It's a silly horror movie, I guess I can deal with that. But this link isn't used as well as it probably could have been. By the end, it was damn near pointless. But I guessed they covered up their own little mistake, even if rather hastily. If Halloween 5 didn't fall into that exact same shortcoming itself, it might have been just as decent as II and 4. Instead, they decide to raise more questions. The mysteries of Myers' tatoo and the man in black (Tommy Lee Jones? Will Smith? No such luck) are shoved in our faces and given absolutly no resolution. The filmmakers themselves admited they had no clue what they were doing with them at the time. Here's my question, what is the damn point of doing it in the first place then?

But I guess Halloween 5 has several things going for it. It has a cool opening sequence with somebody swinging a butcher knife while carving a pumpkin. Dominique Othenin-Girard's direction and Alan Howarth's score are both passable (even though I liked his score for 4 better). Danielle Harris was actually a pretty good child actor too (and grew up to be quite the fox). Donald L. Shanks did an alright job as Myers, even though the guy is freakin' huge. He probably would have made a better Jason. There's even a well done scene toward the end of the film where Myers takes off his mask for Jamie and for a second seems to consider sparing her life, like they made a connection from neice to uncle. But this is a horror film, after all, so moments like that don't last long.

But the film does have it's fair share of problems as well. Right off the bat, we are presented with Myers' worst mask to date. It's supposedly supposed to be the same one the character wore in 4, but it looks nothing like it. It would probably help if Shanks wasn't so damn lazy and tuck the damn thing's neck in. They also start off with the death of Rachel, who was probably the most likable character in the franchise. In her place we get your typical horror film teenagers. The most dominate one being Tina, who is annoying to no end. She does get some sort of redemption by sacrificing herself at the end (I spoiled nothing. You know this chick is going to be worm food the minute she opens her mouth), which is rare in a horror movie. Every one else is just as generic, although the blonde was cute. Plus, that Myers house is HUGE! A small, yet homey, little shack on the outside, but a mansion on the inside.

I guess the point of all my ramblings is that Halloween 5 is watchable, it's just what it represents makes it terrible. Half assed ideas thrown at the audience without resolution is inexcusable.

* out of ****

[Torgo]

I need to still get a hold of the DVDs for them. I've been putting it off way too long. I guess I've been holding out for a widescreen edition of the original, but if they didn't put one out for the release of Seed, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

I do have a review typed up for Seed though. It's somewhere amung the many pages of the DVD section of MJ's board, though.

Long story short, all five of them are a blast to me and are the most rewatchable slasher movies of all time, IMO.

Child's Play *** 1/2
Child's Play 2 ***
Child's Play 3 *** 1/2
Bride of Chucky *** 1/2
Seed of Chucky ** 1/2

[Torgo]

admin said:

I doubt we'll ever see Wide Screen version of the original. It's not all that popular compared to most horror film franchises, and MGM doesn't give a movie much attention unless it's a classic.

But didn't MGM get bought out recently? I remember hearing all that rumbling about the next Bond film being under a different company.

[Rodimus Convoy]

Hey Sabrina, any chance you'll be reviewing both editions of "HalloweeN: The Curse of Michael Myers", or merely the theatical release?

[Torgo]

rodimusconvoy said:

Hey Sabrina, any chance you'll be reviewing both editions of "HalloweeN: The Curse of Michael Myers", or merely the theatical release?

I've only got access to the theatrical. Never seen the infamous producer's cut.

[Torgo]

I'm sitting here thinking of what I should type up for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, and I'm drawing a blank. What should I say about what is widely considered to be the worst Halloween film (that is, by those who don't already consider III the worst)?

Curse is an interesting entry for me. It is so ineptly made and poorly edited, yet for some reason I enjoy it. My feelings` toward this film are so complicated I'm not even sure I understand them. This isn't the black and white feeling about a bad yet entertaining film like Resident Evil. You either found it fun or you didn't. Curse, on the other hand, is a terrible movie that thinks it's good, yet I still found it more satisfying than the last four sequels.

So, I guess I'll just have to list off the aspects of the film I found less than thrilling. Most of all, the acting is atrocious. These are, by far, the worst actors of the entire series. The editing is a disjointed mess, as well. Joe Chappelle (whom I assume is related to Dave Chappelle, which would probably explain his laughable directing career, including the Skulls II and Phantoms. And no, Affleck was not the bomb in Phantoms, yo) directs this entry in the series, and while he's got a good mood going, he can't seem to work up anything else. In addition to the poor acting and editing, his infamous conflict with the producers has numbed the the film down to almost total incoherancy (why Myers attacks those doctors at the end is never explained, and put in that long list of things in movies that make you go "...the hell?"). We also see Jamie Lloyd again, who has grown up to be either Winona Ryder of Keira Knightley, I can't tell (or maybe a lost love child named J.C. Brandy), as the character comes to a distastful and sickening end, one that even those who thought Rachel's death in 5 was uncalled for wince.

Yet, I enjoyed it.

I'm trying to think of one thing that redemes this movie as a whole, and I can't. I thought it was built around an interesting idea, one that gave an explaination to why Myers murders the people in his family and those who get in his way. And considering this idea came from cleaning up the mess that Halloween 5 left, I think they did alright with it. The film's plot was also much more unique than any other in the series, which kept it from feeling "been there, done that." The return of Tommy Doyle was a pleasant little homage to the original film. Alan Howarth once again scores, and once again does a good job. Looking chunkier than ever, George P. Wilbur is the only person to play Michael Myers twice to date (as he previously played the role in 4), and pulls it off just as well as he did last time. And finally, we have Donald Pleasance in one of his final film roles and final time playing Dr. Sam Loomis.

But all of these should mean nothing if they can't do it all well. But, the other sequels weren't exactly the pick of the litter either. I found Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to be a breath of fresh air compaired to the last three Myers movies. Someone pickier than I am will probably tear this movie a new one, but I'll let it off the hook.

** 1/2 out of ****

[Torgo]

I must claim false advertisement here. This movie has nothing to do with water. What does some guy wearing a white mask trying to kill his sister have anything to do with that wonderful liquid that gives life?

Oh wait...Halloween...20 Years Later...I get it. Cute. I guess.

But the makers' impeding court date aside, Halloween H20: 20 Years Later is unquestionably the best sequel of the series. I see no way anybody could argue this. Sure, the movie scraps every movie made after II and starts fresh, but the film makers dug themselves into a nasty hole. Instead of doing the Homer Simpson thing and try to "dig their way out," they just climbed out of the hole. One particular basher of this film and a praiser of the past sequels I once talked to claimed "If you're going to restart the series, just remake the first movie." I rolled my eyes. Why fix something that isn't broken? The sequels were the ones that were broken, fix them! I would have prefered if they gotten rid of II, since it was the start of the first sloppy series, but getting rid of the whole Thorn bit alone is a major step in the right direction.

However, it is obvious that H20 started off as a sequel to the first series. Some obvious left overs being Dr. Loomis surviving the explosion in II, even though Donald Pleasance didn't appear in the movie, seeing how he was dead at the time. Another left over being the way Laurie faked her death was exactly the same as the way she supposedly died in between II and 4. But it's obvious from many of the conversations in this movie that 4, 5, and Curse are erased from existance.

So, now that the major problem has been rectified, what do we do with it? The afore mentioned Donald Pleasance is dead, and after all those sequels it's hard to think about a Halloween movie without ol' Donald in it. Wasn't there a chick in that first movie? Can we get her? Of course we can. Jamie Lee Curtis is back as Laurie Strode ladies and gentlemen, she's 20 years wiser and not willing to take crap from that stick-up-his-ass, homicidal brother of hers. I declare that her picking up an ax and screaming "Michael!" must be the ultimate geek moment for those who loved the original, seeing that scared little virgin ready to kick some ass.

Jamie Lee hardly goes at it alone. In his first major film role (whether it's unfortunate or not is up to you to decide), Josh Hartnett plays her son John and his girlfriend by the adorable Michelle Williams. LL Cool J even gets a little bit of action as, of all things, a security guard who aspires to write romance novels. Joseph Gordon-Levett even has a small role, as does Jamie Lee's mother, Janet Leigh (AKA Psycho chick). The mask, this time, is passed on to Chris Durand, who does very well. They are all directed by Steve Miner, who has previous horror experience with Friday the 13th Parts 2 and 3, and after those, who knew the son of a bitch could actually direct?

Top it off on a cool all orchestra version of the Myers theme by John Ottman, and we have one cool little slasher flick.

I guess some could call this movie a bit too "Scream Generation," but I fail to see what is wrong with that. Scream is a good movie, and so is Halloween H20. It's a sequel that actually does the original proud. H20 may skimp out on the details (like how Myers survived the fire from II and got out of there unnoticed), but it hardly faulters the movie. It's enjoyable and fun, something not many 7th entries can hold their heads high and say. Especially not 7th entries in a horror series.

*** out of ****

[Torgo]

No! No! The horror! Ahhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! It's Busta Rhymes, AND HE'S TRYING TO ACT!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

But the movie's major fright factor aside, I have one question. Why call your movie Halloween: Resurrection if no actual resurrection takes place? To my understanding, the reason the title of this movie changed from Halloween: The Homecoming was that the studio wanted to let the public know that Michael Myers was still alive after his appearantly difinitive death in H20. This was idiotic. Look up the definition of "resurrection" in the damn dictionary. You can't be resurrected, if you're not dead in the first place! OK, you could cheat a little and say the very end was a resurrection of some kind, but hell, it's not like that death never happened to Michael Myers before. If it didn't get him down in Halloween II, chances are he's going to get back up again.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Homecoming was a much better title.

But onto the actual film itself. It was an interesting experiment for a horror film in many ways. First of all, the film sort of acts as a satire of America's sudden obsession with reality television and the internet, with the main story covering a bunch of college students exploring the Myers house looking for answers of why little Michael murdered his sister way back in 1963. This provides quite a few fresh pieces added to the Halloween series that are rare, even for a horror film. First of all, most of the characters are equiped with head cams, which means the audience can see things from their points of view. In a way, it's like see through the eyes of the victim as Myers comes after them and slays them one by one. This also allows the movie to provide it's own audience with a group of teenagers at a party watching the whole thing on the computer. We watch them laugh at the deaths (just like one would do at a horror movie) and when they begin to realize it's all real, they scream at the screen, calling the characters idiots and telling them what to do, even though they can't hear them (once again, just like at a horror movie). But one actually does manage to communicate with our young heroine later in the movie and manages to get her out safely, so in a cool way the audience helped save the day. On the DVD of this movie, there's an interesting feature actually playing with these ideas. You can watch most of the Myers house portion of this movie from the cameras set up in the house and watch just as if you were watching from the internet at home.

But the crown jewel of this horror movie is actually it's routine horror movie first fifteen minutes, in which Jamie Lee Curtis provides her swan song as Laurie Strode and has her final confrontation with her brother, Michael. It also provides us with the non-resurrection reason as to how Michael is still alive, and surprisingly it's logical and very clever. This movie's beginning is amung the most well scripted, well filmed, and intense of the entire series.

For the first time in the Halloween series, a director from a previous movie has actually returned, Rick Rosenthal from Halloween II is back. I wasn't too fond of his direction in II, but he seems to have corrected those mistakes in the 21 years since that film. Sadly, he makes all new ones. First of all, there are many scenes that are just way too over the top. One moment in the film, a character gets their head sliced off with one swipe of Myers butcher knife. That's one hell of a clean cut. Michael himself is has also become very superhuman. Part of his charm was that he was actually quite human, which would have been proved by his "death" in H20 until this movie came around and mucked it up (no matter how cleverly they did it). In the original, Myers fell to the ground in pain when Laurie stuck a knitting needle in his neck, in Resurrection, Sara attacks slices him in the chest with a chainsaw and he isn't even phased (hell, his overalls aren't even cut). I might as well been watching a Jason movie. And finally, the casting of Busta Rhymes. I lived with LL Cool J in H20 because he's actually a decent actor, but Busta is loud, obnoxious, and, quite frankly, not a very good actor. I could have lived without seeing him howl while doing kirate moves on Myers.

Some of the less foul casting choices include a surprisingly well known cast, including supermodel Tyra Banks, American Pie's Thomas Ian Nicholas (and if you didn't care for that movie like I did, don't worry, he gets his), and Katee Shackhoff, who is currently enjoying sci-fi stardom in the updated version of Battlestar Galactica. The Myers overalls are worn by Brad Loree this time, and he is quite simply the best Myers since Nick Castle. He's got the moves and the intimidation. Should a Halloween 9 surface some day, I hope he comes back.

Top it all off with a score by Danny Lux, who you might be familiar with from his work on television, including the X-Files and Sliders. He pulls off eerie quite well and has does a great job with the Myers theme.

I'm not going to pretend this is some horror movie classic, it's way too uneven for that and compared to H20 this is a major disappointment, but it's a fun little romp with some neat ideas. My only regret is that Busta didn't die a slow and painful death. Hunt him down Michael, and cherish every minute of it.

** 1/2 out of ****

[donmac]

Good review series. A couple of questions...

- What do you think about the opening credits for Halloween II with the skull appearing in the Jack-o-Lantern? (I personally thought it was the only thing in the movie that improved on the original, although I don't have any problems with Alan Howarth's orchestrated version of John Carpenter's original theme.)

- And do any of the sequels explain how Michael Myers can see, given that his eyes were shot out at the end of Halloween II, or do they just pretend that it never happened?

--

(P.S. Danny Lux didn't write music for The X-Files - Mark Snow did.)

[Torgo]

donmac said:

Good review series. A couple of questions...

- What do you think about the opening credits for Halloween II with the skull appearing in the Jack-o-Lantern? (I personally thought it was the only thing in the movie that improved on the original, although I don't have any problems with Alan Howarth's orchestrated version of John Carpenter's original theme.)

I thought that was actually pretty cool. I still like that simple little pumpkin at the beginning of the original though, because it says so much with so little.

- And do any of the sequels explain how Michael Myers can see, given that his eyes were shot out at the end of Halloween II, or do they just pretend that it never happened?

Completly ignored. Maybe the bullets didn't hit his eyes at all? His eyebrow maybe? Maybe he developed superhuman senses like Daredevil?

(P.S. Danny Lux didn't write music for The X-Files - Mark Snow did.)

Well, I'll be damned. I could have sworn I saw his name in the opening credits for some episodes. I must be losing my mind.

[Melting Manos]

torgo said:

The Myers overalls are worn by Brad Loree this time and he is quite simply the best Myers since Nick Castle. He's got the moves and the intimidation. Should a Halloween 9 surface some day, I hope he comes back.


** 1/2 out of ****

I completely agree. This is actually my third favorite film in the Halloween series (Behind the original and H2O) and I think that has a LOT to do with Brad's chilling performance as Michael. As far as him being in part 9, he seems to be very interested in doing it according to this interview here.

www.iconsoffright.com/IV_Brad.htm