After the last creatively bankrupt installment of this franchise, it’s no wonder that the Weinstein boys decided to go back to the drawing board and reboot the Michael Myers saga with Rob Zombie‘s version of Halloween. Or is it a remake? Or a re-imagining? Much like the most recent Nightmare on Elm Street film, I was confused as to the point of it all. Are we trying to fill in needless backstory about Myers and his upbringing? Are we updating the tale for a more contemporary potty-mouthed audience? Does anyone have a clue at this point?

You can probably give a brief summary of the original film in one not-so-brief sentence: Michael Myers is a messed-up little kid who kills his sister, gets sent away to the nuthouse but breaks out, and then tries to kill his younger sister many years later. In fact, that same synopsis is true for this film even though you would have to make a few inserts between commas here and there to get the gist of this film. Here we learn that Michael is not some normal-ish kid who simply snaps but is raised in an environment that guarantees an outcome of either loose or psychotic depending on the gender of the child. You’d like to think that Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie) was trying hard to raise her kids right but then you are reminded that she is a stripper and is voluntarily living with an abusive asshat. You might even feel a tinge of sympathy for Michael up until he butchers a rat off-camera in the first few moments and increases his violence thereafter.

Once the initial Halloween deed is done and Michael is found guilty of murder, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is assigned to his rehabilitation but after a few violent outbursts and a decade and a half later, Loomis resigns having failed to elicit even a rudimentary response out of the now gargantuan Myers. Depending on which version you watch, Michael escapes somehow and treks back to Haddonfield to find Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) for some snuggle time. Or maybe to kill her. Or maybe not. Who the hell knows?

Now, before I go all crazy negative, I will point out some of the things in Zombie’s Halloween that I like. Visually it is quite good and I hear that is the common thread between other Zombie-directed films (this being the only one I’ve seen, I’m merely going off the consensus). The direction, mostly, is spot on with little dispute from myself and most of the actors are quite good considering they are merely playing stereotypes of previously named folk in other films. Even though I didn’t care for the identical score from the first repurposed for this installment, especially in inappropriate times, the music was good as well. But sadly, for all the praise I can give to the production design or the acting, the story is the weakest link by far.

It almost seems that during the writing phase, Zombie was torn between a retelling of the original Halloween night with its subsequent aftermath and a pretty straight-forward remake of the original complete with the same characters and even identical lines of dialogue here and there. Unwilling or unable to pick between either, these two incomplete films are haphazardly sewn together into one really odd narrative to make a full movie out of. Even more sad is that it still runs way too long for a slasher film, especially considering that our final girl does not show up until almost halfway into the film.

The most aggravating thing about Zombie’s Halloween is that I see where either part of the story could have become a decent movie if separated from the other. Truthfully, I would much rather have seen a feature-length version of Michael stalking Laurie since that is where Zombie really showed the most promise with brutal attacks, not-as-hackneyed moments, and even a healthy bit of nudity (including from Danielle Harris!). My main issue with the front half of the film is that all of the characters are one-dimensional assholes with nary a redeeming quality between them. Laurie and her friends weren’t that well-drawn either but at least they were somewhat sympathetic even though I wanted to murder someone listening to their insipid dialogue about cheerleading or boyfriends or sex. If anything, for that half of the film, Zombie needed a Debra Hill for the adolescent teenage speak but he apparently went at it alone leading to some irritating results.

For every two things I liked, there were three that I did not, including the pointless trucker (Ken Foree!), the random hook-up in the Myers’ house, or the time period ambiguous settings. If he were not so beholden to throw in as many remembrances or re-stagings of the original, Zombie might have made a pretty decent entry in the Halloween franchise. But, the bifurcated nature of the story plus the horrendously drawn-out chase scenes between Michael and Laurie really distract from any enjoyment that may be obtained otherwise. But hey, at least it’s better than Busta Rhymes in Resurrection. At least Zombie has that in his corner.

October may be over but sadly I still have a few more of these movies to suffer through. After watching Halloween: Resurrection, I began to yearn for the unoriginal simplicity of H20 or the complete and utter nonsense of Parts 5 and 6. Resurrection is the worst type of horror movie: it offers nothing of value to the franchise or the genre as a whole and it all around sucks complete ass. This movie (among others no doubt) is why horror films are seen as cheap, disposable, and worthless. In fact, there aren’t any better adjectives to describe this monstrosity.

The first ever free pass I received for a movie was for this one courtesy of a local defunct radio station. Shame on them. In fairness, I was almost excited about a new entry in the Michael Myers saga since my tastes weren’t refined enough to recognize H20 as the derivative mess it is. Yet, as I sat in a theater with hundreds of other free ticket winners, I began to see the error in my ways. Where the previous Halloween sequels can be attributed to studio perseverance for a quick money grab, at least they at least tried to tie in with the rest of the movies (Halloween III not withstanding). I cannot levy any such admiration to this piece.

The pretty conclusive ending of the last film is explained away in awkward exposition that Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis; only in the film for fifteen minutes!) actually killed a paramedic who Michael dressed up like himself. As such, Laurie has been checked into a nuthouse where she sits comatose taking pills and staring out a window. Except for the night that He comes. And by He, I don’t mean Jesus. Laurie is made dead through stupid actions of her own and Michael walks away to his creepy theme music. Logically, since Michael has ALWAYS gone after family, you’d think he’d be gunning for John, Laurie’s son from H20. Josh Harnett was probably too busy to degrade himself with crap like this so that’s a no go.

Instead, we are introduced to Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes) from ‘Dangertainment’ who ropes in a half-dozen dumb-shit college kids to peruse around the Myers’ house (the traditional Myers’ house that is) on Halloween for a live broadcast on the web. There’s a free-spirit chick, a wild-and-crazy chick, the bad-boy, the Rookie-of-the-year, and the final girl. Let’s just say that most meet their demise at the hands of Michael’s rage since they are … squatting in his house? The hell?

I gave Halloween III the crap category but I almost feel bad about that now. Perhaps there should be different tiers of crap: Tier 1 is almost passable like H3; Tier 4 or so would be where Halloween: Resurrection falls. There is absolutely nothing in this film that can change my mind. From the thoughtless shift from killing family to protecting property(?), to the wretched characters who fail to stick out in any way other than annoying and soon to be dead, to the abundance of Busta Rhymes, this film would probably take itself to the barn and shoot itself if it could. Even director Rick Rosenthal (of the not good, but nowhere near as bad H2) can inject anything of note into the painfully long runtime that cannot be seen in any bargain-bin horror film with a masked killer.

Even the fact that Michael Myers is so watered down in this installment is abundantly clear as he simply walks away after being chastised by Freddie who thinks he is just a random tech hand. The Michael Myers of old would have cut that sucker into a few dozen pieces before but maybe old age has gotten to him as he simply turns around and walks away. And good for us! Otherwise we wouldn’t be treated to Rhymes’ frequent utterances of “damn” and “fuck” and not to mention “Trick or Treat Motherfucker!” As a side note, it pissed me off the most that it cannot keep with the simple aspects of the series such as the always present rain on Halloween Eve. With the exception of H3, all other Myers-based Halloween films have rain on October 30th but apparently I as a 12-year-old was able to pick up on trends better than anyone involved here.

Maybe there was supposed to be some social commentary on the emerging trend of reality television but that was clearly not on the forefront of the production. If anything, we learned that Myers is probably not on a rampage because of a lack of protein or lack of sex but more likely due to a lack of not-dumbshit people surrounding him. Everyone in this movie deserved to die and maybe the character of Myers was simply trying to stop the audience from enduring any more of these films. I guess he didn’t take into account Rob Zombie. Damn!

Halloween H20 holds a special distinction for being the only DVD I own from a different country. I’m not really sure why I bought it on a trip to Germany over ten years ago since I cannot play it on a normal DVD player and my German is so shoddy now that I would need the dub track. But regardless, I have it on German DVD. I figured starting out the review with a random anecdote would be fine since this is more a technically-competent but superfluous anecdote than a real film in the Halloween series.

Even though Part 5 and 6 had their rough patches here and there, both films had their strong points in the ongoing Michael Myers saga. Halloween 4 was just all around excellent. Yet this Scream-derived soulless grab for nostalgia has the balls to say that everything after Myers and Loomis went up in flames at the end of Part 2 never happened. The main response used against those decrying remakes and reboots is “It’s not like a remake destroys the original.” That certainly is true but H20 does its damnedest to try to erase the old-fashioned slasher films of the 80s and replace them with polished, Creed-filled movies like this. That irritates me.

Now, that isn’t to say that H20 is without merit. Jamie Lee Curtis returning to commemorate the original’s twentieth anniversary was a nice touch as well as the other references and callbacks to the first film. But this one spends three-quarters of its runtime sloppily tracing the structure of the original with some post-modern horror moments sprinkled in occasionally. Say what you will about Druid rituals and random tattoos but at least the preceding films tried something a bit different instead of just rehashing the same stuff but not even close in its effectiveness.

As much as I love it, Scream and its successes pretty much killed the Halloween franchise. Even though it was a slasher film with visible fingerprints from the original Halloween, Scream and this series should not come close to intersecting. Yet, the main problem I have with H20 is that it does not gently merge the existing elements of the series with the popular self-aware teen talk of the 90s as much as it barrels into it. The opening scene (featuring Marion Stephens even though she was barely a bit player before) that is mostly divorced from the rest of the story reeks of studios chasing the money with attractive TV actors and a few false scares but little else. The rest of the film plays out more like a high school drama production of John Carpenter’s Halloween with some hip and edgy dialogue and a puzzling inclusion of a movie that basically acknowledges that Halloween is a movie.

Curtis’ Laurie has significantly more to do this time compared to her last Halloween film but this Laurie never really comes across as genuine like some of the previous characters. Josh Harnett (in his debut film) and Michelle Williams try to class the place up with some decent characters and above-average acting. But their other friends are horribly stock and exist only to give Michael something to do. And this features LL Cool J who was not bad per se (at least not the worst rapper to appear in the series) but was saddled with a stupid and ultimately worthless character as the posh private school’s inattentive security guard. I feel bad for Adam Arkin the most since he is only around to extract exposition from Laurie and get stabbed in the back ala Random Nurse #3 from the second film.

The final act though has some great moments as Laurie goes batshit crazy and locks herself in the compound, calling for Michael. Sadly, this lasts all of about thirty seconds before Michael attacks, Laurie responds and then runs and hides. Perhaps this was a much longer sequence but the film’s impossibly short length leads you to believe that there was a lot cut as the bigwigs demanded less boring stuff like talking or stalking and more action. Another sad casualty of the film was the score by John Ottman which is sliced and diced and intertwined with Marco Beltrami’s Scream music that it is impossible to appreciate. That is if you aren’t a nerd like me and own Ottman’s sadly out-of-print score. I took that CD with me to Germany as well.

Director Steve Miner did exactly what he was hired by the Weinsteins at Dimension to do: make a Scream-esque Halloween movie. Yet, doing so strips any remaining originality from the series and reverts it to just another Scream copycat. At least someone had the foresight to “try” and make this the final film in its closing scene. Yet, I still have Halloween: Resurrection to watch so that was clearly as miscalculated as the rest of this film.

Pure and simple, this movie is an unadulterated mess. Coming six years after the sloppy fifth film, the Halloween series had certainly seen its better days as it changes hands to yet another production company, this time the genre upstart Dimension Films. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers also is notable for being one of the most awkwardly put together films courtesy of studio or dumbass filmmaker interference and even spawned its own alternate cut which ran rampant on VHS many years ago as the “Producers’ Cut.” Just like any relationship, this movie has a lot of baggage. And I have a love/hate relationship with it.

Remember the relative simplicity of the story in the original film? Yeah, Michael Myers apparently murdered that as well as the six in the title. Jamie Lloyd returns for a brief moment to birth a child that may or may not be Michael’s (creepy!). The town of Haddonfield has banned Halloween since its latest bloodbath six years ago (or is it five?). Laurie Strode’s previously unmentioned uncle John Strode has now moved his family into the old Myers house. His daughter Kara (Marianne Hagan) has recently moved back in with her young son Danny for reasons unmentioned. Across the street in a boarding house lives Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) who has been obsessed with Michael after his encounter Halloween night many years ago. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is apparently retired and nowhere near as enthusiastically crazy as before. All of these kooky characters merge together though as Michael reappears to help reduce the dumb character population.

I have much appreciation for the one credited writer of this film, Daniel Farrands. We’re far removed from the greatness of the original but you can tell that Farrands is not only a fan of the series but understands what a Halloween movie needs. Sadly, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans undermine some of the story but for most of the first fifty minutes or so, Curse has what should be standard in a slasher film, namely decently drawn characters and tense sequences showcasing its main psychopath. I must also acknowledge Joe Chappelle (yes, the one who also did Phantoms) who has a keen visual eye for shots and sequences that go hand-in-hand with the best of the sequels. Yet, allegedly this is the same Joe Chappelle (along with the always menacing studio suits) who absolutely destroyed the final act of the film. We can’t win them all I guess.

The film does much to correct problems with the last, especially as it comes to creating the best autumn atmosphere of the entire series (original included) and ditching the gothic Myers mansion for a quaint little suburban house more similar to the original. Even though some of the characters are completely worthless and/or assholes, most of the others are fleshed out enough to care about when the Boogeyman comes knocking. A stilted performance here and there (cough, Rudd!) results in some occasional bumps in the narrative but not enough to derail your enjoyment. Until the final act that is.

While I haven’t seen the Producers’ Cut, the reported major differences start as Kara (and all common sense from the film I suppose) is flung out of a window. This is painfully apparent as the relative successes of the beginning are maimed like Myers going after a group of random doctors and nurses for no explicable reason. All of the sudden it seems, Alan Howarth’s creepy recalling of the series’ theme is replaced with screeching guitars and the delightfully tense moments from before are replaced with other random shit for no other reason than to make it “cool.” Granted there are some good moments in the final act (I especially enjoy Rudd’s facial expressions when coming across Myers) but so much is done that tonally does not match the rest of the film nor does it make a lick of sense.

For every effective kill sequence the know-it-alls counter with a head exploding because, well we all expect that from a Halloween film. For all the eery slo-mo shots of Tommy walking past the 90s version of #OccupyHaddonfield, we are treated with dumb shit like a little girl saying “It’s raining. It’s raining red. It’s warm.” And for every moment of Danny being a creepy little kid we get this crap about Michael being controlled by Druids and a specific constellation. Even with its faults, there are far too many great moments here to dismiss this one as crap. It may not be as effective a sequel as Part 4 but you get the feeling that at least someone tried to make a worthwhile film.

1989 should have been a big year for horror fans with the release of Halloween 5, Nightmare on Elm Street 5, and Friday the 13th Part 8 all together. Yet, since the late 80s marked the decline of the slasher genre, it should stand to reason that all of these films were garbage in one way or another. Similar to Nightmare 5, I have never had any fondness for Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers which I previously dismissed as just another empty cash-grab. Perhaps since it has been easily ten or so years since seeing this one or because I know there is some horrid crap to come, I came out of my viewing of this film with a newfound appreciation for it. It’s still rather terrible though.

Taking place one year after the events of Halloween 4 (according to the title card that is), Michael has spent 365 days peacefully slumming on the floor of an old hermit, Jamie (Danielle Harris) is traumatized to the point that she cannot speak, and Loomis is even more batshit crazy than before. Even though stabbing your foster mother is not usually a mark in the “Pro” category, Rachel (Ellie Cornell) and her family have adopted Jamie but stuck her in the kiddy crazy house. Since Myers is presumably dead, Loomis (Donald Pleasence) has nothing better to do than lurk around the children’s house and barge in at inappropriate times. After the events of last Halloween, Rachel’s parents convince her to get the hell out of Crystal Lake, err… Haddonfield leaving Jamie under the care of Tina (Wendy Kaplan), Rachel’s crazy friend that we never knew existed before. Needless to say, Michael is not dead yet and rises to begin yet another slaughter of Haddonfield’s denizens as he goes after his niece. Even though he can apparently kill through her. Eh, whatever.

There are many things I can accuse Halloween 5 of. This is not a very highly regarded sequel in the franchise and for good reason since other than Loomis and Jamie, it seems that this was fashioned more like a Friday the 13th movie. ::SPOILER/RANT ALERT:: The biggest thing that pissed me off as a kid and even so today is killing of Rachel. I understand the precedence from F13 Part 2 or Nightmare 3 & 4 but Rachel was not only attractive but a pretty compelling character for the audience in general. She was doubtful at the start of the last film but turned into Ripley-lite to protect Jamie from Myers. And then she dies twenty minutes into this film with a weak death scene that has no emotional resonance throughout since everything assumes she’s gone to go with her parents.

To replace her, we have Tina who might have been fun and spunky in the late 80s but just annoys the shit out of the millennial crowd. Tina, combined with her one-note, cookie-cutter friends add nothing to the story that Rachel could not have but we don’t really care when Tina is being chased/stabbed by Myers because she fails as a character. Even when little Jamie discovers Rachel dead in the palatial Myers house, there is no time to reflect or dwell on the relationship of the two. To me, hands-down, that is the biggest fault of the film.

I’d be remiss in reviewing this movie without talking about the other things that plucked my nerves: the poppy-teen soundtrack, the goofy cops (complete with clown music!), the complete bastardization of the Myers house, and of course the introduction of the major pain-point for the next sequel: Thorn and the man in black. Really, for the few positives it had (namely chase scenes in the back half), the entire production just felt sloppy. The title card indicates one year later yet all dialogue suggests it is in fact two years later what with Jamie being two years older and Loomis referencing “twelve years ago” as if it were the night of the original. And really, even if you’re an off-the-grid mountain man, are you going to let a man lay motionless on your floor for an entire year without calling someone? And even though the mask was pretty aggressive-looking this time around, it’s supposed to be the same from last time. Come on now.

For all of the huge problems this film had, it does has its positives. Director Dominique Othenin-Girard has done little that you might have heard of but that is almost upsetting since he had a great eye for the visual aspect of the picture. It’s nothing 70s-era Carpenter-esque but there were a number of sequences that were shot pretty well even though they were shoehorned into this not-good film. Alan Howarth’s score is still pretty effective and Loomis’ game to entrap Michael was well-played even though that was rendered futile by the end when Michael escapes courtesy of the shadowy man-in-black. Even the notion that Jamie and Michael are connected somehow is interesting but used poorly to the extent that it might as well have made a good six minutes or so to trim from the running time.

Supposedly legal troubles stopped a follow-up sequel the next year but I can’t be too sad about that. Since Loomis was teetering on the edge of clinical insanity and Jamie was given almost nothing to do this time around, I shudder to think of what would come next. Other than Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers that is.

In the world of slasher sequels, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is still pretty highly regarded. It doesn’t come close to the original but that’s not surprising especially after the previous sequels in the franchise. Part II was apparently made to up the gore and body count that the first was sorely not lacking. The all-around awful part III was apparently created to kill the Halloween name altogether. Fortunately it did not succeed because then Danielle Harris would not be who she is today (for better or worse) and we would be denied arguably the best sequel in this quite uneven franchise.

After the success of the first two films, it’s obvious that Jamie Lee Curtis would be pretty hard to get back into the genre saddle again. Since writer Alan B. McElroy realized the importance of family from the first two (we haven’t yet reached Resurrection at least), the story was shifted from Laurie to Laurie’s daughter Jamie (Harris). While one of the cardinal rules of horror films states that a kid cannot die, McElroy and director Dwight Little get their merit badge in trying their best as poor 7-year-old Jamie is in danger from almost her first frame. Fortunately, there are plenty of more disposable characters to off as Michael miraculously awakes from a decade-long coma to stalk the young child. As this is a proper Halloween film, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is back on the case as he hunts Michael in his marginal screentime.

The biggest reason that this film works while others in the series fail is that it does not have a seemingly deep hatred for the first. I’d imagine that most directors do not wish to work on a film solely to pay respect to a previous entry but when the alternative contains contempt for just about everything that made it great (see parts 5 and 7 for more), this is not a bad direction. Starting from the opening scene where a team of Myers-fodder is attempting to transfer him from one nuthouse to another, this installment is filled with little callbacks to the original that seem to escape the rest: Rachel (Ellie Cornell) mentions to Jamie that Laurie used to babysit her, Rachel’s friend is named Lindsey who could very well be the pig-tailed brunette from the first, etc. It even one-ups the original in that this portrayal of Haddonfield actually feels like a midwestern town in the throes of fall as opposed to Southern California with some colored leaves strewn here and there.

Most of all, this film jettisons the cardboard cutouts from the second and replaces them with real characters. The dynamic between Jamie and Rachel as foster sisters starts rather frosty but ends with Rachel risking life and limb for Jamie. The love angle between Rachel and Brady is a bit trite but it is not front and center, existing only as a moderate time filler. Hell, I’d wager the drunken rednecks are more richly developed characters compared to just about anyone in part 2. And even though this is taking place a decade later, most of the characters are not stupid enough to have to be brought up to speed about Myers and his reign of terror many moons ago. In fact, even though the security guard is saddled with some clunky exposition at the start, I appreciate that the filmmakers knew that all we’d need is a quick twenty seconds or so to explain how we got where we are. It doesn’t quite explain how Loomis escaped the fiery inferno with minor scarring and a limp, but whatever.

While it did have a few questionable moments of common sense (a trained deputy does not notice a stowaway in his backseat?) and horror movie sense (don’t go near the guy who has spent 80 minutes trying to kill you!), there is nothing here that is so dumb or out of place that distracts from the story. Even having watching this movie countless times, there are many sequences that still make me jump or put me on edge and that is one of the highest praises I can levy at a horror film. The shots are worthwhile and the chase scenes are still thrilling and you can’t help but think what the entire Halloween franchise would have been if this level of commitment was present throughout.

Despite seeing all the other movies in the franchise multiple times, I had never seen the Friday the 13th: A New Beginning of the Halloween series, Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Sure, I could deny that is because Michael Myers is absent in this installment but that would not be exactly accurate. Yet, over the years I have heard time and time again that this film would have a much better reputation if it did not have Halloween in the title. That may in fact be true. But it is still a shitty movie.

I cannot fault the filmmakers for jettisoning the lone silent, stalking killer after Halloween II. For starters, that was not really a great film to begin with and the Michael Myers story had come to a pretty conclusive ending. Even taking the Halloween title and shifting it to other stories of the season would have been a neat idea if the first attempt did not turn out as poor as this one did. Perhaps producer John Carpenter was trying his hand at crafting lackluster films that he would perfect a decade or so later. Or maybe Carpenter just slapped his name onto this as a quick money grab. Either way, the real culprit here is not Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), a man who wants to destroy the wholesome fun of Halloween but writer and director Tommy Lee Wallace.

The start of the story is actually decent beginning with Harry Grimbridge desperately running from silent and well-dressed killers while clutching a pumpkin mask. After a close call or two, Grimbridge escapes and winds up in a hospital under the care of Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins). One of the well-dressed men enters the hospital and kills Grimbridge before fleeing from Challis and setting himself ablaze in his car. Challis is approached by Grimbridge’s daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) who has suspicions about her father’s murder (you think?) and the two head off to Santa Mira, home of the Silver Shamrock novelty company headed by Cochran. The fantastical plot elements start withering away at my enjoyment as Challis and Ellie poke around the town, encounter some colorful locals, even more colorful visitors and the Old Man himself before he made his way up at OCP.

As I said, I had hopes for this towards the beginning in spite of the distinct lack of a notable modern monster. There were enough chase scenes and creepy encounters and music stings as the suited men dramatically enter the frame to keep me engaged for a bit. Yet, I can fully appreciate and agree with the #halloween3sucks hashtag that PBF used while watching this last year. I trust you all know of the magical way that we buy into movies, even ridiculous movies through our “suspension of disbelief.” I’m not sure what the opposite of that would be called but whatever it is, this movie has it in spades.

I could not get over just how ridiculous everything after the half-hour point or so was. Challis (a doctor, not a cop) has a strange encounter with a dead patient and a “flamer,” meets up with some chick and all of the sudden they are on the road to investigate. And then they’re shagging in the hotel room. And then they’re just staying in the hotel room instead of … well, investigating. And they don’t really seem to question the strange and almost abandoned town, the curfew, or the fact that a woman with her face blasted off is taken to a toy factory, not a hospital or even a damn veterinarian. Even though Atkins has more charisma than I do in my entire existence, these dumb-as-rocks characters only exist to provide me something to do while watching this film such as shaking my head in disbelief or gawking at the absurdity of it all.

Even worse though is the character of Cochran. He gives a fairly detailed explanation to a restrained and masked Atkins why he wishes to turn the heads of little trick-r-treaters into worms and snakes but … to be honest I wasn’t really paying attention. But what kind of business model does this man have? He spends his entire life amassing great wealth through novelty items like sticky toilet paper (someone get on this!) or wind-up whatevers for this sole purpose? Or was he really trying to just steal a piece of Stonehenge and that just happened to come about thereafter? His business practices aside, Cochran is worse than every Bond villain combined as he guides a leisurely stroll through the bowels of his factory to Challis saying things like “You’ll figure it out soon enough” before explaining every damn thing?

I really cannot imagine the purpose of this film. Is it a form of social commentary on evil businessmen and how they will do anything to get a buck? Or is it to speak on the silliness of kids dressing up and getting candy on a day traditionally tied to the slaughter of livestock for winter survival? Or is it simply to churn out something, anything, with the Halloween name on it to cash in on unsuspecting theater patrons? I don’t know and I really could care less. Even with PBF’s disdain for this film, I was hoping it would at least continue the series’ result of entertaining me. While admittedly this film did, it was assuredly for the wrong reasons.

Largely thanks to John Carpenter‘s original Halloween, the 80s were chock full of slasher flicks taking place everywhere from summer camps to sorority houses and everywhere in between with a collection of mostly bland, forgettable murderers. Everyone seems to remember this era fondly even though the sad reality dictates that most of these films are pretty bad with a few notable exceptions sticking out here and there. With the title, heroine, and villain notwithstanding, Halloween II would be more of the former than the latter.

In fairness, from the opening scene (largely cribbed from the end of the first), the film tips its hand and foreshadows what to expect: some excellence surrounded by cheap and lazy writing. Loomis’ magic seven bullet pistol and Myers’ leisurely stroll backwards up an obvious ramp cement that this is nowhere as thoughtfully planned or executed as the original. Returning writers Carpenter and Debra Hill take the interesting route of continuing this installment right after the conclusion of the last after Myers’ has escaped the nuthouse, killed a bunch of kids and adults (and a dog), and tried fruitlessly to off Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis).

Perhaps as a way of multiplying the low body count that no one complained of from the original, Laurie is taken to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, otherwise known as the medicinal equivalent of Police Academy … or the malpractice warehouse. Doctors come in drunk, nurses show up late and disappear to fornicate in patients’ rooms or in a hottub, security guards are fat and clueless, and with the rest of incompetent boobs, all we’re missing is a Tackleberry character to complete the likeness. So of course Michael slips in under the watchful eye of no one and prowls around the abandoned corridors like a lost trick-r-treater.

I really dislike spending most of a review comparing a film to its far more successful forerunner but that is hard in horror films in general, especially here since it is so closely tied together with the preceding film. Yet, the most damning thing I think of against this film is that the writers and director Rick Rosenthal seemed to go out of their way to avoid carrying over anything great into this film. All of the new characters are merely set dressing waiting for their inevitable strangulation or scalpel in the back and due to their number, there is no reason to care for any of them. Bud can be easily identified as the crude, horny guy, Janet as the ditzy girl, Karen as the negligent nurse … it goes on and on. Only Jimmy (Lance Guest) has any deeper characterizations but even he is largely disposable.

Even though he didn’t have a huge part in the first, Donald Pleasence returning as Loomis feels like he is merely on a loop from the first film since he goes on the same rambling tirades about evil and death and Michael’s pleasant stay at Smith’s Grove but they are nowhere as entertaining this time around. And it’s questionable that Loomis, the man who watched over and studied Michael for a decade and a half didn’t even think to keep tabs on Laurie who Michael was clearly gunning for at the end of the last until he finds out that Michael and Laurie are related. Granted, Loomis didn’t know this early on but he was one step ahead of Michael the first go around. Now he’s desperately trying to catch up.

For all the quizzical choices made in the first two-thirds though, the final act thankfully ratchets things up as Michael finally stops dicking around and goes after Laurie. It is these last twenty minutes or so that make the film worthwhile as Michael pursues his sister through the bowels of the hospital. While the pursuit isn’t quite as tense as before, it does the job superbly helped by the cheesy synth music by Carpenter and now accompanied by Alan Howarth that actually fits well. Even though the ending isn’t as final as we would believe from this film, it does have a feeling of closure as Laurie once again escapes the throes of death while everyone else … well, doesn’t.

I am almost ashamed of myself from fifteen years ago for liking this more than the original. Sure, the body count is higher, there is more blood and gore than before, and even more classic horror elements like spring-loaded cats but the originality and heart of the first is sorely missing.

John Carpenter may not be churning out classics like Halloween any longer, but his arguably most famous film seems to have been the perfect storm of dedication, foolishness, ambition and talent that elude most films. Made on a tiny $300k budget (or about $1 million today), Halloween would go on to become one of the most financially successful independent pictures ever, not to mention the impact it made on filmmakers and movie-goers even thirty years later.

I trust you don’t need a plot summary of this film. If you do, I implore you to seek out your nearest big-box retailer, electronics seller, or yard sale to pick up at least one of the 318 versions that have been commercially released. I suspect that if you retold the synopsis to someone who hadn’t seen it before (heathens!), they would think it sounds lame and predictable. That just shows how much impact Carpenter, co-writer Debra Hill, and the dozens of inexperienced crew members’ legacy still lives on today. For me as a young, stupid kid, I did not particularly care for this film, preferring the more over-the-top antics of its direct sequel or even other, somewhat lesser films like A Nightmare on Elm Street. If released today, I suspect it would not go over well with the masses. Then again, people are much more stupid today.

If you wanted to be nit-picky, you could point to the film’s low budget techniques, its questionable continuity errors, or some of the now silly-sounding dialogue. But even with those minor quibbles in place, Halloween is undoubtedly a tremendously effective horror film and even a quiet look at the kind of monster that can spring from a mute six-year-old. Hill and Carpenter craft Myers so wonderfully because the Shape is left (for this film at least) emotionless and vague, not dissimilar to the doctored Shatner mask that populates stores around this time of year. Myers is deadly and determined and because he and his motivations are shrouded in mystery, the old campfire story of the Boogeyman jumps out and envelops you in an uneasy fashion. As Ebert said in his review, this is not a movie you watch; this is a movie that you experience and live in.

Through Carpenter’s exquisite eye at crafting a scene that goes from typical to terrifying in the blink of an eye, or Donald Pleasence‘s delivery of exactly what Michael Myers embodies, to Jamie Lee Curtis‘ desperate pleas and screams that populate the final few minutes of the film, Halloween aims high and delivers much more than most films attempt. The slow and deliberate pacing or the relatively restrained violence and gore may be a turnoff to some horror fans, but we call those people idiots for good reason.

The excellence of Halloween has been written about time and time again so I am not saying anything new or groundbreaking here. But I thought it fitting to kick off this year’s Monster Scum with a bang as I attempt to tackle the most highly regarded horror films. So, sit tight and check back often as we try to class the place up a bit.