HALLOWEEN 1978
8/10
The original was a great movie, but the ending was too abrupt. It's OK for a horror movie to reveal that the antagonist is alive right before the end credits roll, but you need an epilogue where the hero(es) think that everything is OK. That movie felt like it was still in the middle of the climax (when a serial killer named Michael Myers a.k.a. The Shape a.k.a. The Boogeyman tried to murder a teenager named Laurie Strode, he was shot and he fell off a balcony, but he vanished before anyone could catch him) and then it just stopped. With any other franchise, I would be disappointed if a sequel felt like an extension of its predecessor's third act rather than a continuation, but because of what I said before, HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 is an exception. In fact, Laurie's screen time is so short that I feel like it would be very easy to make a fan edit where some of her scenes here are placed at the end of the original. What's not answered is Michael's survival. Does he have something underneath his coveralls? It wouldn't be illogical, since he always walks slowly. There was a scene where Leigh Brackett (the sheriff) said "A man wouldn't do that" and Samuel Loomis (Michael's psychiatrist) replied "This isn't a man." And he kept saying ominous things like that throughout the movie. However, I thought he was referring to how evil Michael was. Did he literally mean that Michael is a supernatural being? Well, I'm sure the makers will make up their minds about this, as well as Michael's personality, his backstory and whether viewers are supposed to sympathize with him, right? Hey, where did all those black clouds come from? Now, John Carpenter and Debra Hill's script has pacing issues. Sure, the original was relatively slow too, but that's because it was important to see what everyday life in the town of Haddonfield was like. Of course that a killing spree is dramatic enough, but it's more impactful if you can convey how happy and quiet the setting used to be. This movie takes place mostly inside a hospital and it only shows a couple of people working there. It's rare for a horror sequel to capture the atmosphere of the original when the director gets replaced. However, Rick Rosenthal uses a lot of the same techniques Carpenter did.
The revelation that Michael and Laurie are long-lost siblings made me I roll my eyes! It's so forced and preposterous! Once the movie ended, I was angry, because I realized that this plot twist is also pointless. Laurie never finds about it (on screen), so what does it add to the story? If you remove it, does it affect the outcome?
6/10
HALLOWEEN PART III: SEASON OF THE WITCH was meant to start a new format, where each sequel would tell a stand-alone story. That's not a bad idea (I can't think of many anthology film series), so I would've accepted it had this been the first sequel... but once you've made 2 movies with the same setting and characters, you've established what the franchise is about. At least have it take place in the same continuity. Another idea that I like is satirizing commercials for children that contain annoying jingles. That's what the villain(s) of this movie use. Aside from pumpkins, the commercials also show clovers. You know, the symbol is associated with St. Patrick's Day, an entirely different holiday. It's not a plot hole or anything like that, but an aesthetic mistake. Iconography might not be the most important filmmaking element, but it's not meaningless either. A man named Harry Grimbridge is killed. Daniel Challis (a doctor) can't save him, so he has to announce the bad news to Ellie (Harry's daughter). He tries to make her feel better and they decide to investigate the murder together. Eventually, they start an affair (Challis is married). You're probably thinking that the grief has given Ellie daddy issues, right? Well, Challis is about the same age as Harry, so it checks out. They kiss at the 30-minute mark, which is unusually early for a screenplay with this structure. I was curious as to what would happen next. And... their relationship isn't really developed beyond that. They meet a family named Kupfer. Between the lines they have to say and the acting style, it feels like they came from an entirely different movie.
4/10
The pacing of HALLOWEEN PART 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS (what, no Roman numerals anymore?) is all over the place! The first act is similar to the original, because the title character stands around his next victim and walks slowly towards them. Too bad that it's not the same atmosphere. The blocking and Curtiss Clayton's editing are a lot faster. By the way, we see that Dr. Loomis is alive and the only permanent wound from the explosion at the hospital is a scar on the side of his face. I'm sorry, who's the supernatural being? The second act builds up an epic showdown. I don't think that's what this universe needed, but it's still a good storytelling technique. Also, it would've been so easy to write Ben Meeker (the new sheriff) as that person who spends most of the running time not believing what the heroes say. While he has doubts about Dr. Loomis's warnings, it only lasts about a minute. He decides to check if his story is true and he becomes a helpful ally throughout the plot. What a relief! Now, the movie as a whole isn't very interesting, but it's not truly boring either... except for the part where the characters hide at Meeker's house. It's only 10-15 minutes, yet it's executed in a way that feels like an eternity! The third act incorporates action film elements into the scary sequences (that was the norm for slasher flicks at the time). It's not bad filmmaking, but again, it makes everything feel inconsistent. When we meet Jamie Lloyd (Laurie's daughter), she's talking to Rachel Carruthers (her foster sister). Jamie says "Do you love me? Like a sister?" and Rachel replies "I'm not your sister, but that doesn't mean I don't love you." That's a weird way to answer the question. I mean, the question wasn't "I am your sister?" When Jamie and other children go trick-or-treating, Rachel accompanies them.
They arrive at Meeker's house and Kelly (his daughter) answers the door. Rachel sees Brady (her boyfriend) and storms off. About a minute later, there's a full shot of Kelly, which reveals that she's wearing a shirt but no pants. Wouldn't it have been better to show that immediately? It would've added to the awkwardness of the situation, since children were standing in front of her. Also, hiding it changes the context of the scene. It makes it look like Brady is simply hanging out with a girl and Rachel shouldn't assume that he's cheating on her. Well, Brady doesn't even try to lie (he just tries to justify it), so I guess it's a moot point.
4/10
HALLOWEEN PART 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS (why isn't the subtitle shown on screen?) is the worst installment. Every moment is either dull or unintentionally hilarious. Plus, a great opportunity was wasted. You see, the best scene of the entire franchise is hands down the ending of PART 4, where Jamie killed her foster mom. Not just because it was unexpected, but also because of Dr. Loomis' reaction as he realized that this would be a never-ending cycle. It was that rare cinematic moment where your heart breaks and you get goosebumps simultaneously. I also liked the touch of ambiguity, because the cause wasn't. revealed. Did Michael possess Jamie? Or was she still in control of her body yet she had been "infected" by the evilness. It would've been a powerful conclusion.
Not only does the saga continue, but the idea that Jamie is the new antagonist is discarded. She's a traumatized person who has episodes once in a while. Oh, so she kills people involuntarily and the other heroes have to find a way to stop it without hurting? That could be an interesting conflict, but she never even tries to murder again. She gets seizures and Danielle Harris never makes it look convincing. However, it's clearly a sign of bad directing. In fact, her performance during the rest of the movie is just as good as it was in her first outing... if not better. There's a scene where Michael gets angry and starts throwing things around. Yes, that's what I want to see a slasher horror icon do: Throw a tantrum.
1/10
HALLOWEEN PART 6: THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (the number appears on screen, so why was it omitted from the poster and from every website?) is just more of the same, but it's less boring than its predecessor. Paul Rudd's performance is weak and Donald Pleasance has unfortunately gotten more over-the-top with each installment. It makes sense to incorporate a cult into the lore of a franchise titled after a holiday like this, but you can't do it so late in the game. Actually, if we tweak certain details, the plot of the original could've taken place at any time of year. The title doesn't reflect what the overarching story is really about. It's just more marketable that way. When asked about why he doesn't have a scar anymore, Dr. Loomis says "I had plastic surgery. I don't frighten people anymore." Hey, Sammy, guess what? It wasn't the scar. Your monologues about impending danger caused that. Your foreboding attitude became so aggressive over the time that, by PART 5, you had entered "homeless person who yells about the apocalypse" territory. I'm pretty sure this was a way to save money on makeup effects, but at least it's a plausible in-universe explanation. And I welcome it, knowing that the timeline would become a mess from here on now. Not a lot of mainstream movies in the 1980s showed children in peril, especially if there weren't any (non-evil) adults around, so I thought about giving these last couple of sequels credit for that. However, when I saw Jamie falling down a laundry chute, I started to wonder if the makers enjoyed seeing her suffer. And this movie seems to confirm that.
The beginning reveals that she was kidnapped, kept as a prisoner for many years and impregnated by her uncle against her will. She had a beacon hope when she managed to escape, but Michael found her not long after that. Now it's a good time to clarify that I saw the producer's cut (I read that it's the "true" version). Unlike the theatrical cut where she dies instantly, she's found barely holding on. She's taken to a hospital, but then she's shot in her sleep. So her suffering was prolonged. I'm sorry, how is this an improvement? The point is that, looking at the big picture, Jamie has one of the saddest life stories I've seen in a long time. Imagine if a concept like that was used today, i.e. the era of slow-burning psychological horror. Don't get me wrong. Not every movie has to be complex. The original wasn't (at least not from that point of view) and it's a classic... but if you're not going to handle a fictional tragedy the way it deserves, delete it from your draft.
3/10
HALLOWEEN H20: 20 YEARS LATER
3/10
HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION is the kind of horror movie that only tries to create a scary atmosphere when the script says so, as opposed to maintaining it throughout. That's why the lighting, shot composition and song selection in a lot of scenes would have you believe that you're watching a comedy. Not a horror comedy; just a comedy. This is the only installment where the main conflict doesn't involve the characters from the original and/or their relatives. Maybe I wouldn't mind it so much if the new characters weren't so annoying. They're contestants on a reality show and I'm afraid that the satire isn't very clever. It's time to address the elephant in the room: Busta Rhymes. Admittedly, his performance isn't terrible. He has screen presence and I'm sure he could shine if he were given a script that played to his strengths, but here, he's given more material than what his lack of range can stand. In fact, I felt a pandering attitude that I didn't feel when watching H20. I guess that's because LL Cool J has more acting talent and because his role wasn't that big, while Busta is being pushed down our throats like some kind of product placement. "Hey, audience! We have a rapper! How hip are we?!" His character is the only one that can put up a fight with Michael. He's the one who gets to say the cool and funny one-liners (well, that's what they're supposed to be). And the cherry on the cake: He gets top billing! The opening credits roll, we see his name, and we immediately realize that we won't be able to take the movie seriously. I know that Bianca Kajlich (the lead) isn't a big star, but what about Sean Patrick Thomas (he was famous enough to be credited as a "special appearance")? Even Tyra Banks would've been a better choice. While she's mainly known as a model, she had already acted in other movies.
The worst part is the opening scene, but not for the mere fact that Laurie dies. I'm not against that idea, but it needed better execution. You see, previous installment's badass climax (which by the way didn't compensate for the dull prelude) culminated in Laurie beheading Michael with an axe. Now, it's revealed that it was a paramedic. Michael had crushed his larynx, so he couldn't speak, and had put his clothes and mask on him. Every time that Michael switches places with someone (yes, it's a recurring plot point) it feels less believable. He's always been portrayed as someone who takes his time, presumably because he knows he's unstoppable. He walks slowly from place to place. He stares at his victims for longer than necessary before killing them. And despite all that, I'm supposed to buy that he's fast enough to pull off a stunt like this? Honestly, if you can't justify a new installment without undoing the ending of the previous one, why not go all the way? We know that he's a supernatural being, so just reveal that he magically grew another head? It would make the subtitle more honest. Anyway, the guilt drove Laurie insane, which is why she's been committed to an asylum. She knew that Michael would eventually show up, so she set a trap for him. He falls for it (how did she know that he would stand in that exact spot?) and gets ready to kill him, but she's afraid that she might kill the wrong person again. Yes, Laurie, I'm sure that the guy who has been chasing you with a knife is another innocent who wants your help. She tries to grab Michael's mask, but he stabs her. She kisses him on the lips and--Whoa, what?! Why?! Yes, I know it's not a real kiss since he's wearing the mask, but where is this coming from?! She says "I'll see in you in Hell" (yes, that's definitely where you're going for trying to commit incest!) before falling to her death. Michael goes to hand the knife to one of the patients and walks away. However, this is supposedly shot from Michael's point of view. So... Is he walking in reverse?!
1/10
HALLOWEEN 2007
4/10
HALLOWEEN PART II 2009
1/10
HALLOWEEN 2018
5/10
HALLOWEEN KILLS was designed to be the second-to-last movie, so it theoretically should be filler. The fact that it's mildly entertaining is already a big achievement! A significant portion of the running time takes place at a hospital, just like HALLOWEEN PART II 1981 and PART II 2009, but it doesn't feel like repetition. Judy Greer and Anthony Michael Hall are the stand-outs. HUNTER'S MOON by Ghost is a great song on its own, but I'm not sure if it fits as the theme. Due to all the retcons, we're now on the 5th continuity. Part of me knows that, in the future, someone might make a new sequel that erases the current ones, so it's hard for me to get invested. If there's something that needs to be fixed, come up with a solution and incorporate it into the story. Even if it's a far-fetched explanation, it's still better than pretending certain events didn't happen at all. One of my issues with its predecessor was that some of the characters were too irritating. It wasn't the same amount as RESURRECTION and nowhere near the same amount as Rob Zombie's duology, but it was enough to leave a negative impression. Here, the comedic characters are more hit than miss and Karen Nelson (Laurie's daughter) and Cameron Elam (Laurie's granddaughter's boyfriend) feel like completely different people.
She's no longer a stick-in-the-mud whose bad decisions indirectly make things easier for Michael. Hell, she shows compassion when no one else does. And he's no longer the typical teenager who tries too hard to be cool and ends up coming off as a douchebag. Keep in mind that I felt that way about him before he cheated on his girlfriend and then ruined her phone. No, he's not forgiven for doing that (at least on screen), but by showing that he's willing to help every chance he gets, he gains enough sympathy from the other characters (and me) when he dies. Now, slasher flicks are about an individual who hides a lot and attacks people whenever they have the opportunity. Viewers know that the deaths could be prevented if larges groups gathered in the same place, ready to stop the killer. That's why it's always a good idea when a sequel shows a crowd fighting back and then failing. It highlights how big the threat really is. PART 4 introduced the idea with the Haddonfield residents. This movie, rather than copying it, expands on it. It also adds a layer of depth by exploring how rallying up a mob can backfire. What confuses me is that Laurie says "Michael is responsible for this chaos. He's trying to divide us." Hey, that character is a lot of things, but an evil mastermind isn't one of them. No, people behave primitively under certain circumstances. That's it.
6/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
