Halloween (2018) Review

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Forty years after the original "Halloween," Michael returns to Haddonfield to kill babysitters once more.

Review: After re-watching the entire series in preparation for this installment, I'll admit, my hopes were high. AND...surprisingly, this movie mostly delivers the goods--the first legitimately, satisfying entry in 30 damn years! To quickly put things into perspective, I'd rank it alongside part 2 for different reasons, but it's nowhere near as good as the original or part 4. Essentially, there is a lot to love and appreciate here, yet, there was a lot I didn't like--things that I believe hardcore fans will also be annoyed with. Now, without further ado, let's dig into...uhh...what do we even call this movie? So we have the original, the remake, and the reboot(?) all with the same title? This isn't working for me. Fuck it...we are calling this part 11.

So what makes part 11 actually fun is seeing Michael return to classic form. And I don't mean that lightly. Mikey is straight up back to killing babysitters without abandon. None of this chasing after Laurie shit...or family members...or idiots living in his house...or babies...or working for cults...or playing on a TV at the Silver Shamrock factory. Goddamn this franchise sure lost focus over the decades! Anyway, going back to basics appears to work wonders since part 11 has successfully removed Michael's familial motive; he's simply a crazed killer again. As such, this is the best depiction of Michael since part 2. He looks perfect and moves about flawlessly. The attention to detail is quite remarkable in capturing what made the original's portrayal so iconic. And that scene when Michael gets his original mask back...wow...that was amazing. Needless to say, if you just want to see Mikey come back and slice and dice then you will not be disappointed one bit.

The other major aspect that is a success is the tone and pacing of the film. I thought the running time felt short since events move quickly. The presentation of Halloween as a holiday is a bit lacking, but it worked in a practical sense with no one paying much mind to Michael. Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the many nods to the original and toying with expectations. For example, Laurie and Michael switch roles a few times as with Laurie thinking Michael was in the closet or Laurie falling over the balcony. But it's not just in the plot details since we have little things like the Silver Shamrock masks; part 11 definitely won't be lacking replay value due to these additions. Lastly, though I do prefer the original's soundtrack, I did like these new pieces and how they enhance many of the scenes.

On to the faults. I can accept ignoring part 2 and every other sequel, however, what I can't ignore is the complete lack of resolution to the events of 1978. Uhh, you can't just say Michael was taken into custody and not explain how. Loomis shot Michael SIX TIMES, Michael ran off into the night...AND THEN...what...? It's as if the filmmakers struggled with deciding whether or not Michael is just a man or something more. Furthermore, a huge, glaring flaw created by ignoring all sequels is that Michael no longer has that allure to him. Oh, sure, the audience knows Mikey's exploits, but, in this new universe, Michael only killed a couple people total. Would he really be the subject of such fascination when you could boil him down to merely a mental patient who escaped on Halloween and killed a couple people before getting arrested? Why would anyone care about his story or still try to create a story about him 40 years later? At least with part 2 in the mix, Michael has a richer backstory and body count to warrant that kind of infamy.

More importantly, the film feels contrived. So many chance elements are occurring that force the audience to continually suspend their disbelief. Yeah, it could be implied Michael's doctor set many of the events into motion, but Michael magically went after Laurie's granddaughter and her friends on his own. And, as for that doctor, he's a lame addition to surprise the audience, yet, who couldn't tell he would be a bad guy? Plus, the doctor forcing Michael and Laurie to cross paths again kind of creates an entirely different outlook on the franchise as a whole. I mean, this really would give Michael a new motive: he just wants to perpetually recreate his first kill of a babysitter on Halloween night. That's it. He really is just crazy. and Loomis was the one who exaggerated his evil. Laurie is simply seeing what she wants, because she has failed to cope with the night after forty years. This outlook cheapens the franchise in my opinion since I think fans always defer to Loomis' description of Michael as "simply and purely evil," waiting patiently for 15 years to escape in '78.

I guess too much of part 11 feels like a more brutal version of "H20." And rather than Laurie and Michael clashing naturally, we come to find out Michael is sort of single-minded, Laurie is the one obsessed, and their paths only cross due to outside forces making it happen. The way the events unfold is satisfying, including Michael's defeat, but you have to ignore the way fate goes out the window and that Michael's "pure evil" is in doubt. I think the problem with every sequel is that the filmmakers constantly write it with an ending that leaves Michael potentially dead or alive based on the box office numbers. This is why part 4 works better still since it's the only entry to imply Michael won in a way. I would have liked this installment to have went further with this idea that Laurie is a monster too--maybe making her the one to break Michael out in the first place. Oh well. Just sucks that they didn't create the ultimate fan service and cast Danielle Harris as Laurie's daughter. Then we could almost tie everything together with part 3's anthology concept except we are seeing alternate realities of Michael Myers and crew. Man, oh man, that would have been awesome.

Overall, part 11 is pretty good, but I can see it being divisive--erasing so much of the existing lore while still trying to depict Michael in his iconic state despite stripping him of everything. The look, tone, score, cinematography, and general presentation of Michael is excellent. The other characters can be hit or miss with too many comedic-types chiming in. Likewise, some characters are introduced only to be written out which is some sloppy editing. The pacing is solid and keeps the audience fully engaged, however, you may find yourself further removed the more you realize everything we've come to know about Michael and the franchise is altered now. Nevertheless, I'd still recommend going out and watching this entry this Halloween...maybe marathon all the movies!

Notable Moment: When Michael puts back on the mask after all those years. This was done incredibly well and felt powerful.

Final Rating: 6.5/10

Updated Review #26: Halloween II (2009 Remake)

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Rob Zombie is at it again...ruining iconic characters from the "Halloween" franchise.

Review: You'd think after the divisive reception to the first remake that the studio would try to reel Rob Zombie in, but, nope, he is let entirely off the leash. Now, when I said I hate the first remake the most that didn't mean I don't still loathe this installment too. Oh no, you better believe this terrible movie makes my blood boil! After all, rarely have we seen a filmmaker offered the chance to bastardize an iconic film series twice. Come to think of it, what kind of clowns were working over at Dimension Films? They're responsible for entries 6-10 which were all fucking shit!

Kicking things off, Rob Zombie decided to waste 25 minutes of the audience's time with pretentious bullshit, a flashback, and a dream sequence. Considering we need context to the ending of the last movie, it would help to know which parts of that stupid dream were real. Was the cow real?! Good grief. Concluding that he didn't screw up the characters enough, Rob Zombie decided to change Laurie into an insufferable, whiny bitch who screams the majority of her dialogue. Try and tell me you weren't cheering to see Laurie die? Next, instead of Loomis crusading to stop Michael, Rob Zombie felt Loomis worked better as an egotistical sellout who will stoop to any low to make a buck and increase his fame. Gimme a break, dude. At this rate we might as well have Rob Zombie write and direct the next Disney "Star Wars" movie.

If you thought Michael couldn't be ruined any further, well, wait, there's more! Not bothering to explain how Michael survived the bullet to the head, Rob Zombie felt the best way to depict Mikey this time around would be to make him look more like Rob Zombie himself--a hobo-looking retard obsessed with his wife...I mean, mommy. Forget wearing the mask. Forget including the iconic music. Forget everything. Now Mikey can lift cars, speak, and grunt and groan with each pointless kill all the while imagining his mom who is the true brains of this operation. IT'S COOL! Making things worse is the pretentious way the scenes are constructed as if Mikey is this complex villain. Rob Zombie then proceeded to rip off other installments to create a psychic connection between Michael and Laurie that is senseless. It worked before, right? Right?!

What is any of this building toward? Is there a payoff? Of course not. C'mon. Mikey captures Laurie, kills Loomis, and then is shot by the police. Then Laurie seemingly dies too and goes to white horsey hell. Ugh. Soooo...why do I hate this installment less when most fans, even defenders of the remake, seem to hate this one the most? I suppose, on some level, I can respect what Rob Zombie tried to do and his attempt to include originality with the characters. I'm not saying it worked--far from it--however there are a few interesting ideas presented. The production is on the same level as the first remake which is acceptable. I did like the hospital sequence when hoping we'd get a proper remake of that scenario. Finally, I always appreciate the inclusion of my dear Danielle Harris; this was probably the lone, genuinely intelligent decision during either film's production.

In the end, I could go on and on with how shitty the writing is and how poorly these films come together, but I'll spare you. Needless to say, this entry is only a hair better than the previous remake. Neither film has any reason to exist, did nothing creative, and failed miserably to give fans a story of any merit. The main offense at hand is a general disrespect for everything fans know and love about the series. Rob Zombie ruins the characters, setting, and story to the point that it is unrecognizable and then acts like you're the asshole for not understanding his pathetic vision. Please, don't waste your time this Halloween, or any other, on these shit movies.

Notable Moment: While I do like the costumes Laurie and her friends wear, I think the cow scene has officially taken the cake here. I'm sure someone has proposed that this needs to be akin to jumping the shark--hitting the cow or something. Argh. Just utterly painful.

Final Rating: 3.5/10

Updated Review #25: Halloween (2007 Remake)

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Rob Zombie proudly presents: the worst Halloween entry in the franchise!

Review: Most people probably hate Rob Zombie's second remake most, or maybe "Halloween: Resurrection," but I hate this entry more than any other by a significant margin. I keep promising to never watch this piece of shit again, yet, here we are once more. Ugh, I need to stop torturing myself. Well, the positives for this movie are few and far between so it won't take long to list those off. Obviously, bringing back Danielle Harris as Annie works wonders for me; her character is annoying, as are all the characters, but at least Danielle is there. They included my favorite musical piece, "Air," by Bach. Umm, the overall look and style to the cinematography is pretty good considering the lack of direction or clear vision. Uhhh...I think I've run out of positive things to say already...

Okay, let's go over the tremendous amount of things that do not work. Starting with Michael himself: now cast as an emo, whiny little girl-boy, we spend more than 50 minutes of an overblown run time going over what makes Michael kill. Cute. This is especially frustrating given that Michael's lack of motive was what made him scary in the original. And was any of this backstory worth it? Of course not! Michael comes from a cartoonishly dysfunctional family, and he's now the kind of kid who tortures small animals. Uh huh. He loves masks for unknown reasons and is a momma's boy who appears to love Laurie all of a sudden. The more you try to make sense of the stupid decisions, the more the migraine develops so don't even bother. Making matters worse, however, is that adult Michael becomes a fucking giant out of nowhere and lacks any kind of mystique or nuance. Instead of "inhumanly patient" and waiting for the right time to strike, Michael escapes due to rapist orderlies messing with him. Whaaaaaat? And once Mikey has escaped he simply wants to get his mask back--that he magically hid under floorboards fifteen years ago--and wants to reunite with Laurie by killing her friends and family. Again, whaaaaat? And that's the new take on Michael Myers, ladies and gentleman.

As for the other characters, they're also pitifully constructed and presented. In fairness, the actors are decent in their roles but had a weak script to work with. I will acknowledge Laurie is okay here...when I mentioned her as the second most annoying character in the franchise I meant her second remake incarnation. Loomis is probably the other character altered the most. We are meant to see his failure to rehabilitate and reach Michael followed by seeing his fear and realization that Michael is truly evil. Instead, we get none of that. What we do get is Loomis saying Michael is his best friend in one breath and then Loomis saying Michael is an evil psychopath moments later. Ironic that a film dedicated to showing would still end up relying on telling the audience everything! You fucking imbecile, Rob Zombie.

The opening scene poetically captures the horrific and misguided vision of Rob Zombie. From the dialogue to the seizure-inducing editing, everything the film does is poorly executed. Rather than using the iconic "Halloweeen" themes, we get the usage of a cliched soundtrack with many misplaced songs that only add to the bizarre nature of the production. Worse, when we do get the main theme proper it is ill-timed and sporadic. Good job. All the failures and idiocy fall at his feet. He claimed to be a big "Halloween" fan, but nothing in this movie would imply that love; just the opposite really. To put it succinctly, Rob Zombie completely fucked up EVERYTHING. I can't make it more clear than that...this movie is terrible in, virtually, every regard.

I watched this movie eleven years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no editing, no characters, no understanding of even the most rudimentary sense of film making, good or bad writing. I was met with this blank, pale, emotionless story, and the dumbest direction, a moron's direction. I spent five years warning people not to watch this shit and another six avoiding it altogether because I realized the ego working behind that camera was purely and simply retarded.

Notable Moment: I think the scene that truly illustrates Rob Zombie's lack of understanding is when Michael is screaming in the bathroom. "I'm not listening. AHHHHHHHH!" Genius.

Final Rating: 3/10

Updated Review #24: Halloween: Resurrection

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: After finally killing Laurie, Michael goes home to rest when he is disturbed by an internet show trying to film at his house.

Review: Ironic really that a film titled "Resurrection" would lead to the death of the franchise. I don't know what the fuck they were thinking. This entry is more comical than serious, but I suppose, under the right light, this could be viewed as so bad it's good. I mean, just about every scene is laced with stupidity and poor decisions. No wonder they had to go the remake route after this abomination. Oh, sure, I do get a certain guilty pleasure from this entry, but I would never try to defend this trash. The only true positives I'd propose are the somewhat creative way of explaining away Michael's death in "H20," and the novelty to displaying characters who have no connection with Michael for the first time since (sort of) part 1. Other than these aspects, the lighting is decent inside the Myers house...but that's about it toward the positives.

So this movie made a huge ass mistake from the beginning by killing off Laurie in the opening act. One could claim she wasn't confirmed dead, but, still, this is moronic on multiple levels. Besides, why would Michael kill Laurie the day BEFORE Halloween?! That's not how Mikey works, people. And why did Michael wait a couple years again? They don't even bother acknowledging Laurie's son which is for the best, because did anyone really want Josh Hartnett to come back? This time around, we have an entire cast of Jar Jars running around that you will want to see die immediately. I feel as though many of these characters were created specifically to cater to the pothead crowd and other retards who would cheer seeing the cook guy try to fight Michael as well as the torturous Freddie character. And, goddamn, the Freddie character could be the worst character in this franchise which is saying something! He's so unbelievably annoying and idiotic--able to fight Michael fucking Myers because...he watches Kung Fu movies? Whaaaaat? To shamefully allow this character to not only survive but to be the one who defeats Michael is a disgrace to the entire "Halloween" legacy! You know what, fuck it...yes, Freddie is worse than Rob Zombie's Laurie. Freddie IS the worst character in the series. So there you go...trick or treat, MOTHER FUCKER!

It's tough to efficiently word why this trash is such shit except to say it looks and feels nothing like "Halloween." The story is flimsy with the internet show at the Myers house, yet, it could have worked on some level. Maybe if the show was set up by someone to actually trap and capture Michael with video evidence. Instead, the contrived nature of the story is painful with Michael seemingly about to take a vacation before idiots crash his party. Though, it is amusing that it took this godawful entry to try and explain Michael's whereabouts between 1978 and 1998 that "H20" couldn't be bothered to think up! Embarrassing.

I once heard that there was a plan to reveal the Sara character was actually Jamie and that all the sequels would become connected, but that would only create more plot holes. As it stands, this entry is terrible from start to finish. It MIGHT not be the worst entry in the series, but it sure as hell is a shitty movie and right at the bottom. The Freddie character is insufferable and ruins every scene he is in. The story is cookie-cutter with predictable outcomes and shenanigans that are not fun. While I do appreciate a few things others do not, and can see merit in trying to do something different with the series, this was not the right direction to go in. Again, as a friendly reminder, if you have that second case from the Blu-ray collection, be sure to throw it in the trash.

Notable Moment: When Freddie delivers that wonderful line, "Trick or treat, mother fucker!" Gotta say it every Halloween.

Final Rating: 4/10

Updated Review #23: Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Ignoring the events of parts 4-6, Michael has miraculously returned after twenty years to kill Laurie.

Review: Just let that full title sink in for a second...Halloween Halloween 20: 20 Years Later. What the fuck? I get that this film has its defenders and fans alike, however, I am not one of them. Rather than trying to be a legitimate sequel to the franchise, "H20" is closer to a "Scream" clone than anything. Hell, they even did a nod whereby they're watching "Halloween" in "Scream," and the characters here are watching "Scream 2." This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the filmmakers used the same writing and filming techniques of the "Scream" series to create "H20." My main gripes this time around are that Michael does little and the story is nonsensical. Oh, sure, other installments introduced fantastical plot lines that were stupid, but "H20" pulled the same bullshit while claiming to go back to basics. Yeaaaah, okaaaay.

Despite the cornball nature of the opening act, I do like the initial kills, Michael searching for Laurie's whereabouts, and the proper tribute to Loomis. The first time I saw "H20" I thought it would be something extraordinary since it started off strongly. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long for the story to spiral into idiocy. Laurie being traumatized from the events of parts 1 and 2 is reasonable, and her gaining the courage to face Michael is an interesting direction to take the story. While the final confrontation against Mikey is lackluster, Laurie going apeshit at the end works well. Likewise, her cutting off Michael's head would have served for a fitting and definitive defeat for Michael; though, part 2 was still infinitely better. Other than these positives, all I can add is that the general production is competent enough.

As for "H20's" failings? Oh, baby, where to even begin?! Most importantly, where the hell has Michael been for 20 years? Part 4 required you to suspend your disbelief as it were--to believe that Michael and Loomis survived the explosion in part 2, but there were consequences to that. Here, Michael is completely unharmed and has seemingly been biding his time for TWENTY years doing...what...? The other entries, for better or worse, explained where Michael has been all the time, but "H20" says nope. Other than that, Michael simply isn't himself--he doesn't lurk in the shadows or even really kill anyone for that matter. The hair on his mask makes him appear like a clown and becomes CGI for one, horrific scene. Come to think of it...didn't Mikey wear the mechanic's suit and Shatner mask out of necessity? Why would he still be wearing the same outfit if, in this timeline, Mikey magically survived the fire of part 2? AND...has he been wearing it everyday for twenty years straight?!!! Finally, the filmmakers act like they removed all the supernatural shit while Mikey is doing impossible feats like slowly lowering himself from the ceiling with one hand. I mean, if he's that strong why can't he just rip Laurie limb from limb? And, if he can regrow his eyes and have no burns whatsoever from part 2, couldn't we assume he could regenerate his head after a decapitation anyhow? I'd say Michael could possibly be more powerful in this entry than any other which contradicts everything the filmmakers were trying to depict. Way to go.

Besides screwing up Michael, the characters here are just plain annoying. Laurie is acceptable, but did we really need three--yup, count 'em, THREE--horny characters? Oddly enough, they're the only characters who die outside of the opening act. But they aren't the only pains in the ass. I hate Josh Hartnett in everything, and he's a whiny bitch in this entry. Finally, the Ronny character is such a Scream-inspired creation it's painful to behold. This is not how you do a reboot.

Honestly, other than establishing the Michael vs Laurie plot line, "H20" is mediocre and fails to capture the essence of the franchise; and I don't even like Michael against Laurie as it is. While the movie starts off with potential, it goes downhill quickly. The running time is short which only highlights the lack of ideas presented. While I can overlook not continuing on after part 6 due to the zany antics, "H20" inadvertently creates an even more unbelievable version of Michael. The ending is decent with a final defeat of Michael, however, it felt unearned with "H20" never doing Michael justice or adequately building up to that kind of epic finale. I do understand why fans might enjoy this installment, and it does have its positives, but it does nothing special and acts too much like all the other ripoffs of "Scream" from this era. It's better than part 5 on a technical front, but I'd say they're on the same level from a story perspective.

Notable Moment: When we get the opening credit sequence with Loomis giving his classic lines. It wasn't actually Donald Pleasence, but I do appreciate this acknowledgement to the importance of Loomis in the series. Too bad the rest of this movie wasn't as respectful to the lore and characters.

Final Rating: 5.5/10

Updated Review #22: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Michael is back...again...chasing a baby (sigh) after disappearing six years ago with Jamie.

Review: As many fans know, this entry had the most troubled production in the series with two major cuts of the film out there. Surprise, they both are trash, however, the Producer's Cut (as it's known) is somewhat watchable. For the most part, I will acknowledge the theatrical cut when discussing this abomination. Anyway, part 6 pretty much killed the franchise from a writing perspective. I already discussed part 5's involvement in fucking everything up, but, with six years to work things out, the filmmakers could have delivered something worthwhile. Instead, we get one of the worst entries in the series.

From the start, what always killed this movie for me was replacing Danielle Harris as Jamie and then killing her off unceremoniously. Jamie was a critical character and the main protagonist in the last two films...you don't just carelessly throw away a character that fans cared about. On top of that, who thought it would be smart to make her final plot line revolve around giving birth to Michael's incestuous son?! Good lord. At least in the theatrical cut this isn't as clear, but it's pretty damn obvious in the Producer's Cut. Also keep in mind that Jamie is only 15 in the continuity which was already screwed up by part 5 adding a year; in actuality, Jamie was supposed to be 14. Who thinks this shit up?

In the Producer's Cut we at least get an explanation for everything which shows that after the events of part 5, some thorn cult (as they're known), along with the man in black, freed Michael, captured Jamie, and blew up that police station to leave all of their whereabouts unknown. The theatrical cut doesn't explain any of this shit so you have no idea how Jamie is captured nor how she was pregnant in the first place. None of this matters since part 6 is such a mess with it's story that you will hardly understand the point or reason for anything.

On the positive side, Loomis has been brought back to life again, however, this would sadly be Donald Pleasence's last film, and the filmmakers had to perform re-shoots without him. This is a large reason why the editing for this entry is particularly painful to behold. Don't let that be an excuse though...the editing is shit regardless especially in the theatrical cut. One super annoying thing unique to the theatrical cut is the worst rendition of the "Halloween" theme in the entire franchise! The stupid electric guitar riffs felt so '90s, and this entry feels dated compared to the others. I mean, part 4 holds up incredibly well in style and structure in comparison.

As for all the wonderful twists and turns we come to learn...Michael is really just a pawn of this cult. The man in black is Dr. Wynn from the original "Halloween," and he leads this cult, manipulating Michael to...stop chaos...or something...maybe. I don't fucking know! Great, now Michael is just a crony in his own series. This feels like they tried connecting it to part 3 or some shit with the star alignments. I don't even know which is worse: in the Producer's Cut Mikey can be stopped by retarded runes or the theatrical cut where Mikey goes apeshit out of nowhere, killing everyone, making you question how he was ever controlled over the years. Don't forget Michael bleeds green slime now! This movie is one big eye roll.

Lastly, I'm just going to talk about random, stupid shit that happens. Why is Michael killing the Strode family? He thinks they have the incest baby...why? By the way, the Strode family are all idiots and unlikable. Can't forget all this nonsense with the Danny-boy character and "the voice." Gimme a break, dude. I don't mind bringing back the Tommy Doyle character, but his portrayal by Paul Rudd is horrendous. Kind of surprised Mr. Rudd had a career after this pitiful performance. They act like Halloween is banned in Haddonfield yet proceed to show us people trick-or-treating and decorations up. Okaaaay. The two different endings are laughable. In the theatrical cut we just have Michael missing and Loomis screaming after a terrible edit to everyone safe; the Producer's Cut has Michael dressed as the man in black and Loomis is cursed to have that thorn symbol now? Huh?

What can I say? They should have just scrapped everything and started over in my opinion. I don't entirely fault the filmmakers after they were left a mess to clean up from part 5, however, I do believe the story could have been salvaged. The attempts to explain Michael only ruined things further and made the story overly convoluted. Killing off Jamie after replacing my dear Danielle Harris was an insult to audiences who had followed her struggle the last two movies. Part 6 lacks proper direction and has horrendous editing made worse by stupid ideas. Looking at the 10 disc, Blu-ray set, I realize they have the first 5 films in one case and the second 5 in another. Yeah...you can just go ahead and throw that second case in the trash.

Notable Moment: Although I do love seeing Paul Rudd twitching to this horrible version of the "Halloween" theme, I'd say the head explosion is the most ridiculous.

Final Rating: (Theatrical Cut) 4/10 / (Producer's Cut) 5/10

Updated Review #21: Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Michael Myers is at it again...and, no, "they're" definitely NOT ready and neither was this script.

Review: Over the years I've come to the epiphany that this entry is the cause for everything going wrong with the "Halloween" series. Oh, sure, part 6 is much worse, however, it's part 5 that dropped the ball in the first place. This led to the stupidity of part 6 which, in turn, led to the first reboot with "H20," which led to further cash grabs, destroying the franchise, and allowing a dumbass like Rob Zombie to remake the franchise with the worst entries! With that said, I still find merit enough in part 5 to deem it watchable. There are good ideas here, but the execution is absolutely atrocious and the new characters are insufferable. For every interesting concept part 5 imagines there is a corresponding, stupid idea that makes you wonder what the fuck the filmmakers were thinking when rushing this film into production; and, yes, part 5 was foolishly rushed into production and it shows.

I'll start with what worked first. I'd say the best aspect is that parts 4 and 5 sync together quite well. You still have Jamie, played by my dear Danielle Harris, and Loomis obsessed with Michael. Jamie is further tormented making her that much more sympathetic, and Loomis has gone far off the deep end in his pursuit of Michael. I don't necessarily like this crazier version of Loomis, yet, it could have built toward something impressive if Loomis had to, say, eventually get arrested himself for his antics. Another thing that impressed me at the time was the inclusion of the man in black. This mysterious character following Michael around--eventually breaking Mikey out of jail--added something new and unexpected to the franchise. Unfortunately, we'd be forced to wait 6 years for an unsatisfying reveal, but that's neither here nor there. Anyway, the man in black served as a great sequel-bait concept, and that haunting ending of Jamie realizing Michael is on the loose was fantastic. Lastly, I do want to acknowledge how much of this film is carried on Danielle's shoulders; she deserves much praise for this role.

Note: since people seem to search for the answer without wanting to torture themselves with part 6...the man in black is Dr. Wynn--the guy that was talking to Loomis at Smith's Grove in the original "Halloween."

The man in black.

Where the film goes wrong? Well...it's a fucking mess! From the onset, having Michael magically escape his defeat in part 4 is weak. Then Mikey just lives with an old guy in the woods for a year? WHAAAAT?! As much as I hate the Rob Zombie entries with a burning rage, this might actually be the single most retarded moment of the entire franchise! Not only does something this stupid occur without explanation, but the movie just breezes right over it like it's nothing to think about. Uh, why didn't this guy get help? Was Michael comatose the whole time? Was he being fed and taken care of or was he supernaturally kept alive? If so, why didn't this old guy think anything was weird? Was Mikey earning his keep and doing chores around the cabin? Did the two become great friends and go on adventures?! My goodness. Worse yet, part 5 decides to completely drop the story line about Jamie becoming a killer. Argh. It's as if the filmmakers were actively trying to destroy all the ideas part 4 established.

Poor Jamie. I'd be crying too if I had to witness them ruin all the good faith created by part 4.

Man, part 5 is just sprinkled with one moronic decision after another. For example, we have Rachel killed off in like the first 20 minutes or so. People liked Rachel! And who is she replaced by? Tina...a Jar Jar-type character that the audience will be praying to see dead. Jesus Louisus. For years, I used to think of her as the worst character in the franchise until they introduced Freddie in part 8 who was then eclipsed by everyone in the Rob Zombie entries. God, I fucking hate the Rob Zombie movies! Where was I? Oh, yeah...so another nonsensical decision was to include semi-comedic relief characters with those two cops who have clown music playing. Again, whaaaaat? Then we get Mikey chasing after victim fodder for no reason when he knows where Jamie is at. Why? Is Michael after Jamie or not? The movie can't seem to decide. There is also the bizarre choice to seemingly have Loomis die yet again. That would make it two apparent deaths each for Loomis and Michael. What the hell? Good lord...this script needed like 10 more drafts to get right.

I get it, they wanted to capitalize on the success of part 4 and churn out another sequel immediately after that big, ten year hiatus. But you need to have good ideas for that to work. The best idea was having Jamie become a killer and they dropped that without explanation. I get that it might have been hard to present a sequel with a little girl killer, but why not make it so that Michael is trying to make her become him. Meaning, as long as Michael lives, he cannot pass on this curse to her completely. There could be a back and forth of both characters losing and regaining their humanity almost in a yin and yang way--things balancing out. They have Michael crying in this movie--which is stupid--but could work if we had clarity that Michael doesn't want to actually kill. Maybe create this notion that Michael wants to be free of his curse yet must fight the curse from taking Jamie in his place. It could be implied that Michael was cursed to be a soulless, unstoppable killer as a child and wasn't even the first. This could add a layer to Michael whereby he is carrying on the burden of being the killer. I don't know...I feel like you could salvage this plot line somehow. Unfortunately, that's the problem--Michael worked better without a motive and any explanation further cheapens his character.

Having these two have a connection could have worked if it actually made sense.

In the end, I have mixed feelings regarding part 5. It's not a good movie, but it could have been great with more preparation and rewrites. The complementary nature between parts 4 and 5 is nice, however, it's ultimately meaningless when part 4 set up an incredible story line that is immediately discarded. The stylistic approach to part 5 is acceptable despite the filming clearly taking place in summertime. The ending is cool, and the man in black mystery was interesting as well. Sadly, the majority of part 5 is mediocre and dragged down by sheer idiocy. I can overlook the rushed production, but it's hard to forgive the destruction of part 4's momentum. I do still watch part 5 sometimes, but it didn't come close to living up to part 4.

Notable Moment: At the end when the man in black finally shows himself and busts Michael out of jail. It's unexpected and creates a nice cliffhanger. Likewise, the ending music adds a haunting melody to the usual Halloween theme that is awesome.

Final Rating: 5/10

Updated Review #20: Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Ten years after the night HE came home, Michael Myers is back to his usual trick-or-treating--now hunting his young niece.

Review: As I've said before, this is the second best entry in the franchise and the only legitimately good sequel altogether. While I do like other entries to a degree, I tend to just watch this and the original film most Halloweens. What makes this entry work is that it is the rare installment that introduces likable characters while still remaining true to the previous installments. This series is loaded with alternate realities due to writers backing themselves into corners. However, part 4 took a practical approach and tried to move the series in a new direction without destroying everything the way part 3 attempted. Sure, "Halloween 4" isn't perfect, but it's entertaining and does so many things right that no other sequel was able to accomplish.

Right out the gate, part 4 differentiates itself from the pack by dropping the main theme for the opening and opting for moody and ominous ambient music. Coupled with a montage of mid-west, quaint decorations cast against a Fall sunset creates this unsettling tone. This is how Halloween should feel with a harvest-inspired design. Of all the entries, part 4 has the most beautiful use of cinematography and sense of classic Halloween motifs. There was almost an apocalyptic feeling to the production especially when highlighting Michael being truly an embodiment of evil and that weird priest Loomis runs across. Speaking of which, man, oh man, would that have been a cool character crossover had they succeeded with the anthology concept of part 3. One can dream I suppose.

Wish I could include all the shots, but it's best to just watch the movie and see for yourself.

Besides looking great from a technical standpoint, the story does it's job too. Unfortunately, you have to suspend your disbelief early on with the initial premise of Michael and Loomis magically alive after being blown up in part 2. Likewise, Michael appears to have regrown his eyes which is somewhat laughable. However, if you can get past this scenario, the story picks up in a big way with Michael waiting patiently once again for ten years until springing to life from a coma to go after his niece, Laurie's daughter. It's implied that Laurie died, but they do at least acknowledge her presence and importance. To compensate, Loomis takes a bigger role as he once again hunts down Michael. I also like this particular depiction of Loomis with him borderline psychotic after years of obsessing over Michael. Loomis is a hero but one who would do just about anything to see Michael dead which makes him a wildcard as well.

Complementing Loomis is not your usual, final girl archetype, but, instead, Jamie, Michael's young niece. Of course--as I've mentioned tons of times--Jamie is played by Danielle Harris who was my childhood crush growing up. So Jamie always has a special place in my heart, and I still try to watch and review all of Ms. Harris' movies. Needless to say, she is great in the role as this tormented kid dealing with being adopted, her parents being dead, and Michael trying to kill her. This dynamic is enhanced with an action-oriented pursuit by Michael while still keeping Mikey in the shadows.

They do include a mild plot line about Jamie and Michael being psychically connected, but it builds toward a beautiful finale that nearly rivals the iconic nature of the original. And, without a doubt, part 4's ending is the second best in the franchise with the realization that Jamie has taken on the mantle as the killer. This is definitely not an ending you see coming and opened up endless possibilities to take this series. Sadly, the filmmakers fuck up royally, but it doesn't take away from how awesome the ending was. Furthermore, I'd argue Michael was never actually trying to kill Jamie in the movie especially given the twist.

Despite all the praise I'd give to part 4, I can't ignore plenty of glaring flaws and stupid ideas. As mentioned, the miraculous resurrection of Michael and Loomis is ridiculous. Beyond that, the fact that Michael would be transferred to a different hospital on October 30th is super contrived. Then we have the fact that Michael not only finds a mask similar to his original, but Loomis somehow knows to look for him in that form rather than, say, donning a Jason mask with Ninja Turtle smock. Let's not forget the rednecks were lame as hell too. Individually these aren't deal breakers, but, when compounded, they drag down the final impression.

Overall, part 4 is objectively one of the best installments in the series and my second favorite--a film that successfully invokes the true spirit of Halloween. As such, the cinematography is first-rate and captures an eerie tone the sequels would never again retain. On top of that, the story is engaging with likable characters and gives Loomis another chance to shine. My favorite is Danielle Harris since she brings conviction to her role and serves as an atypical protagonist. The movie certainly has its shortcomings, but they can be overlooked by the fun ride you're taken on and the satisfying ending that leaves a big impact. If you're the type of moviegoer who only ever watched the original or intermittent sequels, I'd highly recommend focusing on this entry. Everything went downhill after this anyhow.

Notable Moment: The final twist, of course. Not only does this scene hearken back to part 1, but it has a subtle buildup all along with Jamie seeing herself as Michael.

Final Rating: 7.5/10

Updated Review #19: Halloween III: Season of the Witch

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: The most preposterous plan to...uhh...take over the world--I think--ever concocted.

Review: As most "Halloween" fans readily know, part 3 was intended to be the beginning of a yearly anthology series whereby each future installment would be a separate horror tale revolving around Halloween. Moronically, they decided to make the opening entry of this plan be the ridiculously convoluted scheme of a corporation to use Halloween masks to kill the children of the world with the assistance of Stonehenge and robots. Riiiiight. What the fuck was John Carpenter thinking?! Magic pebbles embedded in masks and fucking ROBOTS!! Really?! And how could I EVER forget that all this appears to be activated through a magic spell included in a damn commercial jingle! Try getting that godforsaken Silver Shamrock theme out of your head! Good lord...

At a glance, I do think the initial concept of an anthology series was a great direction to take the series with Michael Myers clearly dead and his story concluded. However, part 3's story is unforgivably stupid through and through. The villain, Cochran, supposedly stole a pillar from Stonehenge and combined its magical properties with microchips that are embedded in Halloween masks that will unleash their power when triggered by a hypnotic commercial? Whaaaat? And when this magic is unleashed it kills the wearer of the mask and materializes bugs, snakes, etc. to kill others near the victim. Sure. Helping Cochran, despite having a town full of loyal minions, is androids or robots or whatever they're supposed to be. Uh huh. Finally, all of this is happening....because...the stars aligned? And Cochran stands to gain...umm...uhh...? Well, they've sold me. Sounds like a brilliant followup to the Michael Myers story arc.

Besides the shenanigans afoot, the main characters are boring. They're investment in this plot to kill the children of the world is forced. Likewise, the possibility of so many kids wearing the same 3 stupid masks is absurd. This entire scheme is nearly foiled by just a random business owner running into a doctor and his concerned daughter? Plus, the daughter somehow becoming an android/robot makes no sense whatsoever. I did like the atmosphere and mystery elements of the story, however, everything else is horrendous.

The most egregious mistake of this installment was declaring the original "Halloween" as fictional in this universe. Why not permanently set each entry on the same Halloween night in 1978? This would have made for incredible crossover potential. For example, in this movie they could have mentioned the murders going on in Haddonfield. Or had the main guy mention trying to get a hold of the doctor from part 2. Stuff like this could have been AMAZING if handled properly. Likewise, you could just shift perspective to other towns--other countries even--while keeping that retro design between installments.

I don't know, what is there really to say about part 3? It sucks. The defenders of this film claim the public just wanted more Michael, which is partially true, but this story is utterly pathetic and nonsensical. This was a terrible beginning to something that could have been truly remarkable and unique to the film industry. Instead, part 3 is the black sheep of the franchise and the worst non-Rob Zombie entry.

Notable Moment: Probably when Ellie is revealed to be a robot or whatever. Besides being a terrible twist, why didn't she try to stop Daniel earlier? Making matters worse is how long the scenes of her death drag on which completely cheapens the climax. Goddamn this script needed some serious rework and they needed me as a creative consultant BADLY.

Final Rating: 3.5/10

Updated Review #18: Halloween II (1981 Original)

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: After being shot SIX TIMES, Michael Myers continues his killing spree and attempts to hunt Laurie down at a hospital.

Review: Funny how many times Loomis stresses he shot Michael six times yet the sound effects crew idiotically added SEVEN shots! Yeaaaah, that's how you knew they done goofed right out the gate! Believe me, Loomis fired six times in the first "Halloween," yet, somehow they couldn't get this right when splicing new material with the original's ending? Needless to say, "Halloween II" isn't exactly the sequel fans had hoped for. I hadn't read my original review again since 2012, and it still summed up my thoughts perfectly. John Carpenter did not want to make this movie and you feel that. Still, "Halloween II" is not without its merit and has chances to shine. I'd still classify this as good--not great or anything above and beyond. Just good.

So what did work? I mean, we are only at the second entry in a franchise of 10, soon to be 11, entries. Well, the atmosphere and cinematography are still almost as good as part one. The use of lighting effects helps with Michael lurking in the shadows, but it's still nothing out of the realm that part one didn't do already and better. However, the consistency in the look does help make this sequel feel complementary to part one as they're supposed to take place in the same night. Considering three years passed in real life, I give credit for pairing the films together so well. Another aspect worth acknowledging is the look of Michael; he appears worn from the night, and it makes him appear slightly creepier given the Terminator-esque invincibility he displays this time around. Of course, I've always liked the ending of this film with Michael getting a proper and definitive defeat. Adding to this, I also always preferred Michael versus Loomis instead of Laurie against Michael. Michael was Loomis' responsibility and he's obsessed with the guy...the two going out in flames together redeems the character and brings closure to both he and Michael's arcs.

As for where "Halloween II" goes wrong...the story is simply not polished and doesn't add anything new outside of the main twist that Laurie is actually Michael's sister. As stated with my previous review, Michael having no motive felt scarier to audiences. Besides, this creates a potential plot hole of figuring out Laurie's whereabouts when Michael killed Judith as a boy. Why were there no signs of her existence either--like toys or bottles or whatever--lying around the house? A two year old leaves a trail in her wake! More to the point, if Michael is just trying to kill his sister, why doesn't he simply gun for her room instead of meandering about the hospital? The same logic could retroactively apply to part one, thus, creating continuity errors. I'm not saying the twist is completely bad, but it does create problems and cheapens part one to a degree. However, I'm more concerned with part two just building up a body count without a reason. Also, keeping Loomis on the peripheral felt forced with the whole subplot with Ben Tramer dressing exactly like Michael. Give me a break. Then we have Laurie doing absolutely nothing all movie long too. What the hell?

The last thing I want to mention is that the supernatural elements were definitely played up already in this entry. Besides the whole Michael absorbing bullets aspect, we get the scenes discussing Samhain. Yeah...who wrote that? If it really was Michael, why did he do this and to what end? More importantly, WHEN did Michael have time to do this?! I don't know why I didn't realize this over the years, but it is implied Laurie has a psychic connection to Michael when she sees the blood dripping in her dream, and it's connected to the murder of the one nurse we come to realize. Eh, this is all so vague...I don't know what John Carpenter was thinking with all of this. Obviously the sequels would run with this material.

All things considered, I do still like "Halloween II" for the most part. Much of the appreciation comes from the technical aspects and the respect for making the first two entries feel as though they could feasibly take place in one night. Loomis is still a fantastic character, Michael looked effectively scary, and the ending worked as the perfect sendoff for the franchise. On the other hand, Michael's motive is nonsensical and creates story problems, Loomis and Laurie are ultimately wasted by doing nothing through the majority of the film, and little is done to make this a worthy followup. Obviously the expectations were high after the brilliance of "Halloween," but part two is just an okay entry in the end. Mr. Carpenter could have done better that's for sure.

Notable Moment: I still like when Michael kills the blonde nurse toward the end. The way he keeps her hovering there for a second is just disturbing.

Final Rating: 6/10

Updated Review #17: Halloween (1978 Original)

Disclaimer: Contains spoilers!

Plot Summary: Fifteen years after murdering his sister, Michael Myers escapes from a mental hospital so he can go trick or treating.

Review: Most of my earliest reviews were written hastily and not to my true liking. Unfortunately, the entire Halloween franchise was lumped into that category. I've wanted to redo the entries over the years, but, goddamnit, I really hate the Rob Zombie remakes with every fiber of my being. Luckily, my hope for the newest entry has allowed me to muster the strength to force myself to re-review the whole series again and to do it the justice it deserves this time around. For my viewing experience I'll be using the newer Blu-ray complete collection which is getting harder to find so pick it up before it's gone! Though, I'll probably still use my DVDs for still shots. Okay, on with this review!

With the original (and true) "Halloween," there isn't much anyone can add to the dialogue. The movie has been studied in film schools for decades, it has been ingrained into pop culture, and it remains one of the most successful indie hits of all time (at one point holding the crown). When people hear the main theme music...they know! "Halloween" perfected the slasher genre and laid the groundwork for the entire '80s boom. Sure, there were others like "Black Christmas" beforehand, but those movies didn't quite establish the masked-killer concept. Michael Myers has become an icon that is easily recognizable 40 years later--a testament to this legendary film and how readily it resonated with audiences in '78 and continues to this day; this is a statement unto itself.

The best shot with Michael "emerging" out the shadows through careful lighting tricks.

What makes "Halloween" work so remarkably well is that Michael appears intimidating, and the constant lurking adds to his presence. Likewise, the town and cast felt relatable as just everyday people dealing with a crazed killer. Speaking of which, the original concept of Michael having no motive made it extra disturbing since he just snapped out of the blue. The opening sequence where Michael kills his sister was actually a huge leap in camerawork as well as the precise editing for when the mask comes off to reveal Michael as a little boy. That was all shocking at the time and is still a great reveal to this day; I mean, if your movie starts off with a big twist like that you are naturally curious to see where it goes next. "Halloween" provides that solid pacing that movies prior to this point lacked and also allows it to hold up when put alongside any of the sequels or current films.

A nice, shadowy outline is all you really need...hence, the Shape.

Now, don't get me wrong, as great as "Halloween" is, it does have it's flaws. For example, the acting at times can definitely be weak especially from the three main girls. This film launched Jamie Lee Curtis' career, however, there are some shaky moments from her. Furthermore, there are weak points in the story structure such as how Michael was able to drive a car. The tiny flaws are easy to overlook when "Halloween" has so much going for it to cancel out those minor gripes. As such, one must remember the tight budget and shooting schedule that can account for the occasional flaw. I also easily overlook the shoddy acting at times when you have the powerhouse skill of Donald Pleasence bringing to life the Dr. Loomis character. Besides having such conviction, we get such powerful lines like:

"I met this 6 year old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and the blackest eyes...the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him and then another seven trying to keep him locked up, because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...evil."

Or...

"I watched him for fifteen years, sitting in a room, staring at a wall; not seeing the wall, looking past the wall, looking at this night, inhumanly patient, waiting for some secret, silent alarm to trigger him off."

Simply brilliant material and writing from John Carpenter who also launched a tremendous career thanks to the merits of "Halloween." The delivery of these lines is also spot-on and opens up a level of mystery surrounding Michael. Love it.

When we factor in everything, "Halloween" succeeds in almost every regard. We've got incredible and innovative camerawork, editing, and sound--especially in regard to the original score. The pacing
keeps audiences engaged with a constant stream of Michael lurking in the background and some genuine frights. While the acting can sometimes falter, you have the unhinged Dr. Loomis there to pick up the slack. Of course, the story itself is compelling despite its simplicity. You could boil things down to just "a guy in a white mask that stalks babysitters," but "Halloween" gives you enough material to keep you thinking deeper about Michael and whether or not he's even human. Overall, "Halloween" is a classic--a must-see for horror fans and anyone who appreciates the art of film.

Every year I offer alternatives to watch if you've seen this movie a million times...but sometimes you just have to watch it a million and one times!

Notable Moment: The opening sequence is, unquestionably, the best moment in the film and, perhaps, the entirety of the series.

Final Rating: 9/10