Halloween 4/5/6

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

What were the Schmoe's opinions on the 4/5/6 trilogy?Personally I love them!Five not as much as four or six,but I enjoyed it much more than the others did.After Loomis' passing,I couldn't care for the sequels after 6.I wish that someone could have continued the Druid plot-line.

[shoe1985]

I really like this part of the series.

H4 really brought the series back after H3 being such a disappointment for many. We got a great new heroine in little Jamie. Rachel was a great character that you actually rooted for. I have to admit, I thought she was going to get killed. Loomis was really good here too. The only problem I have is the mask. It didn't work for me, and it was one of the very few small problems I had with the movie.

H5 is a movie I like. Is it a great movie, no. It was rushed from the very beginning, and I blame greed on the Akkads for doing so. You have a decent story, but very poor execution. I like the idea of Jamie being in this hospital. I did not like this connection she had with Michael though. Rachel was still a lot of fun, but to kill her so early was not the right thing to do. Sure it was a good idea to show that all bets are off, but Tina was a poor character to replace her. Then we have Michael who is performed well, but the mask is off, but I guess going in the water would have ruined it. Plus, he was a little too big for my tastes. Loomis was good, but the role wasn't written to strongly.

H6 is one of those movies I just love. Knowing the stories about what happened to it just make me like it more. I know what Daniel Farrands wanted to do, and he had them in the damn script, only to have Dimension Films screw him over. As for the film, the released cut, it had a great build-up, and was entertaining, until the last 15 minutes. It was like they ran out of ideas, and threw things in there for no reason.

If we look at the H6 Producer's cut, it is a good movie, very close feel to the original Halloween, but those final 15 minutes were lacking what was a decent movie until then.

Overall, these 3 movies are good, but could be so much better. By the time you hit the 3rd sequel on and on, it is about the money. To get good movies by then is a real thing. H4 was a movie that drew a lot of interest because it was actually really good. Sadly rushing the 4th sequel ruined that interest in the series again. H6 looked great from the previews, but was a disappointed for many. Then they hear about all the problems on the set, and they understand why the movie flopped and wasn't that good of a movie, well for me I enjoyed it, but not everyone did.

Was I happy when the Akkads and Dimension went in a different direction with H20? No, but when you have the star of the original willing to come back, and she still has value in the movie industry, you do what it takes. Sadly, that movie felt like a cashin of what was hip at the time. But like the other 3 movies, after so many sequels in a series, there are only so many areas you can go in.

If the series was given more respect from its makers, we would probably be here discussing how great all the movies are. Instead, we will discuss how there were too many chiefs in the kitchen and not enough indians.

[teenkiller]

I really love the fourth one and would probably consider it my favorite along with the second. I used to love five when I was younger but after watching it last year for the first time in a long time I realized just how heavily flawed it was. Curse was a bit better but still wasn't able to fully capture the feel of the earlier films. Still, it has a weird nostalgic effect with me because it was the first Halloween film I got to see in theatres. I still prefer them to H20 or Resurrection though. I've been wanting to review this series for a while now but it looks like it's going to be a long time before that happens. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[Duke Nukem]

I won't claim H4 to be the classic return many other fans feel, but it was a solid return if any (**1/2 out of 4). Considering Loomis and Michael were both *intended* to be fried at the end of H2, so H3+ could go on with different Halloween-oriented stories, I can more than live with their unlikely survival rates. The characters were well written, there were some effective suspense and death scenes, and that's all I can say about it. I've always felt like something was missing from the film, and I still don't know what it is. It underwhelmed me. At the same time, I was never a fan of the surprise ending. I personally never saw how they could take on such an unexpected direction...

...Leading to H5's wise decision to work around that. I will not repeat the same flaws we all know exist in the film (**1/2). Instead, the one thing that I will focus on is the theme of Michael's "evil/rage." Loomis began to see more to Michael's evil, and that's the rage within him. He believed it was possible to control the rage and reach out to Michael. Jamie Lloyd was able to do that, and that was most powerful scene in the movie, if not one of the most powerful scenes in the whole series. Many fans disagree and just see Michael going "against" character, but I see it differently. I feel it is a weakness to Michael's armor and a secret to stopping him.

Both H6 and the "Producer's Cut" are watchable, but the P-Cut is better. I will go out of the way to admire some of Joe Chappelle's show-offy directing in the regular version. Some moments were well handled and unique, but much of it was still neutered for the MTV generation. Regardless, most fans won't admit to Joe Chappelle slightly salvaging the mess of a producution it turned out to be. I am willing to do that (**1/2).

Now, down to serious business. "H666: The Producer's Cut" was much better and clearer with it what it was trying to say (***). Not crystal clear. There were supposedly a lot of good ideas the the studio shot down. Regardless, the "final" product to never make it to theaters presented interesting and dark ideas to the table that was I willing to open up my mind to.

In most franchises like this, you want to keep things simple and never reveal the mystery behind the mask (a la "Jason Goes To Hell" and "Freddy's Dead"). I feel this movie did it right, at least a lot more effectively. Michael, himself, was still well-played in the film before this, so he hadn't become a parody of himself yet. And when you have a scary killer like him who keeps on coming back, you have to take off the mask eventually and answer why he takes so much crap. By the "sixth"/fifith film in this case, they had to do that. At least before he does become a parody of himself (an example of that might be his role as an "Internet Star" in H8, regardless Brad Loree's excellent performance).

In the end, the production H6 was a mess and a lot of bad stuff happened. And what we got in return from the kindly "Producers" was the best gift we could ask for in the aftermath. There were a lot of unaswered questions that would remain unanswered, when they ignored the story arc of H4-5-6 and started fresh from H1-2 again with "Halloween: H20." You don't have to like it, but it was the best thing to do. If it weren't Jamie Lee Curtis approaching them with the idea, H6 would have been the last H-movie we ever saw. There was nowhere to go after H6 flopped.

So I like really this part of the series, too. There's something to like in each of the films that shows another side to Michael and keeps it from being a rehash of the film before it. I like this part of the series so much, that I'm writing my own sequel to it. Recently, I wrote and posted "Halloween: The Blood of Michael Myers" - The closure I wanted to provide to H1-2-H20-8. Now, I want to provide closure to H1-2-4-5-6.

g1ng3rsnap93d, you opened this thread and wished that someone could have continued the Druid plotline. I am. I'm already writing it and have solid ideas of my own to bounce off of "H666: The Producer's Cut." I'm calling it "Halloween 7: The Peace of Michael Myers."

[poguesfan]

I though the fourth film overall was a vast improvement over the travesty that was part 3. I'm glad the powers that be decided to bring back Michael. I found the new heroine (Danielle Harris) very believable and I loved her relationship that she shared with Ellie Cornell (Rachel.) I thought the guy that played Michael Meyers handled his role rather well. He wasn't as menacing as the previous incarnations; then again no one will be able to top Nick Castle's performance in the first movie, however I still applaud the efforts.

Halloween 5, I myself was not a big fan of this one. I though killing Rachel off early was a huge mistake and to replace her with a complete vapid character was just dumb. Donald Pleasance sleep walks through this one, as he did in number 4 and collects his pay check. Overall, I though his schtick was getting rather old by this time. Finally, Halloween 6, I completely loath. Horribly written (what the fuck was up with that Druid backstory), horribly acted (well even Paul Rudd had to start somewhere.) Pleasance looks and acts like he been dead for a decade. My only praises is that Michael is fucking pissed in this one and he doesn't hold back at all, most of the death scenes are actually executed rather well.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Can't wait to read it,Duke!I feel obliged to ask if Loomis is involved at all?Sorry to hear about the H66 hate,Poques Fan,its my go-to for Halloween sequels,and I'm dying for the P-Cut.

[Duke Nukem]

Yes, Loomis is in it. I am playing off the ending of "The Producer's Cut," so you will see - for the first time in 13 years - extended material with Loomis.

It is too bad poguesfan among half of the fanbase can't get past the ideas H6 tried to bring up. I respect all their differences in opinions. I will also respectfully disagree over H6 being badly written. While I liked some aspects of H5, that is a movie that was for the most part very badly written.

[Ratlehed]

I like 4-6 alot more than H20 and Ressurection. Michael is still Michael. In
H2O he's alright, but not very scary. They made him such a wuss in Ressurection that I cant even watch it. Even the score for 4-6 is alot better than the music used in 7 and 8.

[shoe1985]

Finally, Halloween 6, I completely loath. Horribly written (what the fuck was up with that Druid backstory), horribly acted (well even Paul Rudd had to start somewhere.) Pleasance looks and acts like he been dead for a decade. My only praises is that Michael is fucking pissed in this one and he doesn't hold back at all, most of the death scenes are actually executed rather well.

The backstory of the druids is messed up because so many scenes are cut, things were changed so much that the writing of the druids did seem pretty bad. But if you look at the build up of the movie, it is actually pretty good writing. Look at Mrs. Blankenship's speech on Why We Celebrate Halloween, I thought that was one of the best things about the series. There is a trailer for the movie that has her saying that speech over different scenes.

As for Pleasance, he wasn't well for the movie. He didn't look it, but his acting was better than most people that are alive and doing well. It really helped what Farrands was trying to do with the script. Here is this guy that has been through so much. He gave his life to stopping Michael, and he failed so many times. It has pretty much killed him, and this is what we got. Could it have been done better? Of course, but when you have so many people wanting the movie to be a certain way, and egos come out, you more than likely won't get a good movie.

If you ever get a chance to read the scripts, which I posted in another thread, do it. You will get a better idea of what Farrands wanted, and I think you would like it.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I actually read a fourth of the original script online.The reason I quit there was the all-consumming fatigue the night had kicked in quite hard-I've been meaning to finish it since,but haven't gotten around to it.

[JJFlamingo]

Halloween 4-easily the most overrated of the series, with the exception of the genuinely shocking ending. The main reason for this is the unmitigated stupidity of the Sheriff Meeker character. I mean, he has Michael Myers' known target in custody (Jamie), and what does he do? Drive her out of town so he can lead Myers on a wild goose chase? No, he brings her to his HOME, basically putting his ONLY DAUGHTER directly in the line of fire and even worse, he then LEAVES to "attend to other matters", leaving only a couple of dipshit deputies to watch over them (and this after Myers has already decimated the entire police force). Meeker was such a fucking moron that he kills the credibility of what should have been Michael's grand return-5/10

Halloween 5-On the opposite end, very underrated, and nowhere near the dud many have made it out to be, mostly because they take chances with the material, some of it (Michael unmasking and shedding a tear for Jamie, Michael assuming the identity of one of his victims) working pretty well and other parts (the idiot cops and their slapstick music, Jamie's frantic sign language) not so well. Danielle Harris really came into her own as an actress here, and the final epic showdown between Loomis and Myers might be my favorite part of the series-7/10

Halloween 6 (T-Cut Only)-An undisputed disaster on almost all levels, raising more confusing questions than it answers (including that embarassing final scene), recasting Jamie with a (much) less appealing actress, Pleasence looking like he can barely walk, much less take on Michael again, and just a ridiculous bizarro-world of how things would really be (based on the ending of 5, why would there not be the all-out largest manhunt in US history to find Michael and The Man In Black; no one even seems to care that Myers is still at large), and the sloppiest directing and editing for any horror movie EVER combine to make this easily the worst of the series. Hopefully when the Producer's Cut is given an official release, I can get a better idea of what was intended-2/10

[Ratlehed]

I read the novel for part 4. I thought it was really good. Of course some extra is added. The drunk Preacher guy has a bigger part and Loomis finds more bodies on the way to Haddonfield. Also the Jamie/Rachel relationship is expanded. But its a good read if you like the Halloween series.

[ilovemovies]

Halloween 4 is my favorite movie in the entire franchise. Danielle Harris is terrific. One of the great child performances of all time IMO. It's extremely suspenseful.

Halloween 5 is so-so. It's incredibly uneven. Some scenes are pretty good and other scenes are awful. Overall, it's a mediocre movie and one of the weaker movies in the franchise. Infact, it's only a head of the unwatchable Halloween III and Rob Zombie's mediocre remake.

Halloween 6 is actually a pretty bad movie but it's also a major guilty pleasure that I enjoyed a great deal. It's a bad movie but still manages to be very entertaining despite it's badness.


H4 - 7/10
H5 - 5/10
H6 - 6/10

[shoe1985]

Halloween 4-easily the most overrated of the series, with the exception of the genuinely shocking ending. The main reason for this is the unmitigated stupidity of the Sheriff Meeker character. I mean, he has Michael Myers' known target in custody (Jamie), and what does he do? Drive her out of town so he can lead Myers on a wild goose chase? No, he brings her to his HOME, basically putting his ONLY DAUGHTER directly in the line of fire and even worse, he then LEAVES to "attend to other matters", leaving only a couple of dipshit deputies to watch over them (and this after Myers has already decimated the entire police force). Meeker was such a fucking moron that he kills the credibility of what should have been Michael's grand return-5/10

Meeker took them to his home because he thought it would be the safest place for her. How would Michael know to go there? The first place to look would be the police station, which we saw was destroyed by Michael. There are some scenes I feel do drag the movie down, but I really enjoy this movie.

Halloween 5-On the opposite end, very underrated, and nowhere near the dud many have made it out to be, mostly because they take chances with the material, some of it (Michael unmasking and shedding a tear for Jamie, Michael assuming the identity of one of his victims) working pretty well and other parts (the idiot cops and their slapstick music, Jamie's frantic sign language) not so well. Danielle Harris really came into her own as an actress here, and the final epic showdown between Loomis and Myers might be my favorite part of the series-7/10

I agree with you on this being underrated. Is it a good film? Not by any means, but there are a lot of good ideas in this movie. If given more time to strengthen the script, it could have been great. Killing Rachel angered many people, and I would have waited until the end, but it really was a kick in the nuts for fans and saying anything can happen in this movie. Jamie was still strong. Loomis was Loomis. By this movie what more can you do with the character? Tina and friends are weak characters, and given more time for rewrites, they could have been much better. I loved how the movie was directed. The music was fantastic. The introduction was very creepy, and slashing the pumpkin made me jump a few times.

Halloween 6 (T-Cut Only)-An undisputed disaster on almost all levels, raising more confusing questions than it answers (including that embarassing final scene), recasting Jamie with a (much) less appealing actress, Pleasence looking like he can barely walk, much less take on Michael again, and just a ridiculous bizarro-world of how things would really be (based on the ending of 5, why would there not be the all-out largest manhunt in US history to find Michael and The Man In Black; no one even seems to care that Myers is still at large), and the sloppiest directing and editing for any horror movie EVER combine to make this easily the worst of the series. Hopefully when the Producer's Cut is given an official release, I can get a better idea of what was intended-2/10

I like the movie, and I agree with most of what you said. Like I have said before, the final 15 minutes of this movie seem to really bring down what the rest of the movie did well. I thought the characters were well developed, but in the final scenes it is like this is time to hit us hard. Maybe have Michael give an FU to the cult, and with that scene he kills the doctors should have been that needed scene. They should have had a small scene were Wynn is explaining to someone on a phone that they can't control him, they can't control evil. Then have Michael kill him.

[JJFlamingo]

Meeker took them to his home because he thought it would be the safest place for her. How would Michael know to go there? The first place to look would be the police station, which we saw was destroyed by Michael. There are some scenes I feel do drag the movie down, but I really enjoy this movie.

I can understand Meeker thinking it was a safe place, but AT LEAST get your daughter out of there and have her stay someplace else for the night. If a legendary unstoppable serial killer is after a little girl that you have in your custody, the LAST place you would want your own beloved little girl to be within a mile of his target. Meeker didn't seem to consider (or care) about this scenario, when any reasonable father would have taken extra steps to ensure his own family's safety first and foremost. In the end, Ben Meeker is just as responsible for his own daughter's demise is Myers is...:(

[shoe1985]

I can understand Meeker thinking it was a safe place, but AT LEAST get your daughter out of there and have her stay someplace else for the night. If a legendary unstoppable serial killer is after a little girl that you have in your custody, the LAST place you would want your own beloved little girl to be within a mile of his target. Meeker didn't seem to consider (or care) about this scenario, when any reasonable father would have taken extra steps to ensure his own family's safety first and foremost. In the end, Ben Meeker is just as responsible for his own daughter's demise is Myers is...:(

But he did leave an officer at the door and Brady was there, along with Rachel. So, it wasn't like his daughter was alone with Jamie. She also knew how to use a gun, and he may have had faith in her that she could protect herself if she needed too. It is all opinion though, and you do make great points.

[JohnTravoltage]

I love 4 and 6. Not 5 so much, but I still watch it all the time. Hell I even have the cover of Halloween 6 tattooed on my arm!

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Sweet!!

The fifth one was just a MEH entry for me,the kills were pretty kewl,the characters not-so-much,the man in black just seemed random as of then(and according to Farrands,the H6 scribe the screenwriters of H5 didn't know what the eff they were writing about either-imagine that!)but it was used for the better in H6,the ending was pretty great though.My only complaint w/t it was that there was no indication that Loomis survived after his stroke,until I read about part 6 online I thought that they killed him off. :(

[zombievictim]

I've only ever seen the theatrical version of 6 and that was a long time ago but these films have a certain atmosphere that I enjoy. And while I don't think any of them match up to the greatness that is the first, the 4/5/6 trilogy is still rather entertaining.

[Ratlehed]

I wish the Man in Black would've been a cool new charectar. It turns out to be old Dr. Wynn. That guy couldnt pull a "Terminator in the police station" on the best day of his life. When he gets off the bus in part 5 the little kid looks at him like he's a really scary guy. To me Wynn doesnt look mean or scary at all.

It should've been some badass assasin hired by the cult or something. They could've worked him into a sequel or so.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I liked how Wynn from part one was the Man In Black,I know the Terminator ending to part 5 was utterly unplausible due to his real identity,but what wasn't in that movie!!? IMO,it was a nice tie-in to the original film.

[Duke Nukem]

I thought about that too recently. Maybe Wynn would have been a *little* younger in H5 than he would be in H6...but the question still stands. It's one of those little things that didn't occur to me until until much later. I do also like how they tied in Wynn from the original. It answers some questions, like "How exactly could Michael escape?" and "How on earth did Michael know how to drive the car?" That last question never bothered me. I always felt that, as long as he IS possessed by pure evil enough to pick up a knife, anything will come natural to him. Yes, anything. This is how I cope with the oddest element found in "H666: The Producer's Cut." I think it makes sense.

Another good question is how Michael has this thorn mark on his wrist starting with H5 (and never seen before). Even if he was wearing overalls with sleeves whenever "trick-or-treating," someone other than Wynn would have noticed the mark in the sanitarium before his escape...and wondered what the hell it meant. And same with Wynn and the Thorn mark on his own wrist. Wouldn't somebody have noticed that eventually?

While I guess we can only point fingers at Daniel Farrands for the Man in Black/Dr. Wynn issue (which I have no real problem with; I felt he was effective), I think we can only look at the late Moustapha Akkad for the Thorn thing since he wanted to spice up the storyline. Not an issue with me, I like what they ultimately did with Thorn. After all, I'm writing my own continuation of the Thorn story with H7.

[shoe1985]

I believe it was the director/writer of H5 who came up with the thorn marking. Farrands researched it, and wrote what he discovered into the movie.

When you start bringing in these new elements into a series, it usually never turns out to be good unless you have the right people working on the movie. Sadly, H6 didn't have the right people. It had a good screenwriter, who wrote a very good script, but too many people had their own visions. Farrands was just the writer, so his opinion didn't matter once they had the story and a script.

[Duke Nukem]

I am aware of all that, expect for the the director/writer of H5 contributing to the Thorn physically being marked on Michael's and the Man in Black's wrists. I seem to recall the director also being responsible for writing the script or at least co-writing it, so I'm not surprised by that. There were a few good ideas - largely Michael's evil being considered a rage that could be controlled, that was beautifully handled - and also Michael posing as Tina's boyfriend Michael in the car sequence. I enjoyed that bit.

But for the most part, the director did not seem to realize that this was the fourth sequel in a series and not an original film. H1-2-4 all shared similar tones and atmosphere. H5 didn't need to do the exact same thing, but it also didn't need a fancy director from France to continue where H4 left off. Someone more tradition like John Carpenter, Rick Rosenthal and Dwight H. Little. Why the studio picked someone way different always puzzled me. Maybe because he showed genuine interest, who knows.

Having read so much more about Daniel Farrands from you recently, I hardly blame him for what happened to H6, or the assigned identity of the Man in Black. I read an interview with him some time ago and recall, "They shot down a lot good ideas," etc. I only pointed out the Thorn markings suddenly showing up in H5 in good fun, like "The Terminator in the police station" turning out to be Dr. Wynn.

You brought up the process of introducing new elements into a series, and that matter of doing it with the right people. I am actually willing to admit that the director of H5 may have showed more genuine interest in making an H-movie more than Joe Chappelle. I can't say for sure, but I've heard stories about how he was on the set.

[shoe1985]

From what is known about Chappelle, he was happy with the P-Cut of the film. He thought it was fine, but he was also thinking about his other pictures he would be doing. Since we were not there, we can only go by the information we have. The sounds of it all though, the producers wanted the film to be one way, the writer and director wanted it another way.

We all know H5 was rushed, so more than likely they chose the best script they could find in a very short time, and went with it. Of course the script needed some rewrites, but nobody seemed to care, it was about getting it out there and make the money.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

How about a BUMP!!?

[MistAh BlistAh]

I love Part 4, my 3rd favorite in the series after the first 2. Part 5 has some great scenes like Danielle Harris in the vent, getting stabbed at and the whole car chase through the field, but overall its a pretty weak entry in the series. I've yet to see the P-Cut of part 6, and I really didn't like the theatrical version. Paul Rudd is a joke in that movie, or...er...it's a joke of a movie, really didn't like where they took the story.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I like all of them, even the fifth-though it was one of the lesser entries of the series. I really enjoy H6, despite the problems that it suffers, but I could totally understand how it gets all the flack that it does.

[PSU80]

H5 was pretty lame. The story was pretty much the same as H4 but the characters were terrible and the comic relief attempt with the two police officers failed miserably.

H4 was awesome, without question the best entry in the series except for the original. It brought Michael back to being scary again, and the locked in the house ordeal in the middle of the film was genuinely scary.

H6 was the first Halloween film I saw in theaters because I wasn't old enough for the previous entries. I loved Curse when I first saw it but then again I was only fifteen and didn't appreciate too much except gore. H6 is brutal, and Michael looks pretty menacing in that one but the story and plot feels too rushed. Bringing back Dr. Wynn as a villain after literally NEVER being in the series was worthless.

[Evil Ed]

In my opinion of the series, parts 4 through 6 were horrible. I found the plot of the films to be boring as well the characters in them, including Michael. I think they really messed up this series when they started bringing in the family elements, and then the obvious of the cult that takes care of Mike. The first Halloween was great because you didn't know Michael was Laurie's brother, he was just a guy stalking her because he saw her dropping some shit off at his old house. The second one was great because it was a continuation of that same night of stalking where he followed her to the hospital, this is also when we found out he was her brother. The family angle worked in this movie though, because it tied the connection between Michael and Laurie together.

The family elements in the latter elements were irrelevant and just plain boring. Who really cares (including Michaeal) about his niece? How the hell would he even know enough about her to go and stalk the bitch?? She wasn't even close to being born by the time he was in the psych ward, and how would he reconnect with her anyway when he got out?? Then they had to drag out this storyline and really what it did to the character of Michael Meyers is drain out all of his frightening, mysterious elements. 4-6 Thumbs DOWN! H20 was good because it was supposed to be the final phase of him getting to Laurie; who now brought in a son for a new angle, and it ended perfectly with her lopping off his head. They should have never "resurrected" the franchise after that.

[PSU80]

H20 was a travesty. The plot and story were good, I will agree with that. But Michael wasn't scary at all, and Jamie Lee Curtis was way too butch. Not to mention the fact that it had the worst mask in the entire series, with the exception of Rob Zombie's, "Michael was born in a sewer mask.".

[jessr]

I would like to see a remake of this like friday the 13th

[Evil Ed]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the mask opinion. I strongly stand in favor of Halloween 4 having the worst mask of them all. It looked absolutely retarded, in fact Michael looked absolutely retarded in H4. His image in that film reminded me of a mascot uniform, stuffy and stiff. H1 and H2 got it right, H5 Mike looked good too.

[Cop No. 633]

I'm still a big fan of Halloween 4. I think it's the best in the series after the original. My problem with Part 2 was the pace. It was the slowest in the series and the story was almost non-existent. The only new revelation was that Michael and Laurie are siblings. Everything else was pretty much an exercise.

Part 4 makes up for the lack of pace in the second one. It has a story that moves along pretty quickly, which always helps for a sequel to a horror movie. On top of that, we're with characters who actually feel real and you don't want to see them die. Loomis is back and Pleasance is more mad than before, which always works for me. This film had more going for it than any other in the series. It was simple like the original, but made Michael a bit more cunning. He was a step ahead of everyone. I liked that a lot.

Part 5 was just a mess. It was like a basketball player getting the ball to make a winning shot after a long comeback and they miss it and that's when the team just started losing with every game after. 5 was the game changer for the series. They rushed it and the movie turned out bad. Everyone knows what's wrong with it at this point. There's clown clops in it with sound effects for God's sake. Need I say more? It is anything but underrated. The only thing underrated about it was Donald Pleasance.

Part 6 was a mess, but it got a few things right. For one, the atmosphere was great. It had a creepy vibe to the shots. The introduction to Tommy was pretty cool. It looked like it was off to a good start, even if they did recast Jamie. But after a while, you start realizing that it isn't going anywhere. It half-asses the answers to Michael's curse. Even in the Producer's Cut it does this as well. Why did they choose Michael? Were his parents in on it? The idea of a cult could have been handled much better. What was the end result for putting the curse on Michael? I know they had that whole "kill one family for the tribe" speech, but he's killed so many other people in town it's not even funny. I think it could have been cool if they introduced more supernatural elements like demonology. Could have spiced things up, but Dan Farrands probably wasn't talented enough. Let's face it, for all the talk about how great his script was, what has he done since to show he was a good writer? Overall, this film is really bad, but it is entertaining. I'd rate it above H5, for that reason and for attempting to clean up its mess.

As for H20, that one's far from perfect. It would have been better if Laurie had no son. I think they barely scratched the surface of how crazy she was. They could have done much more with her character instead of just seeing her hit the bottle and panting from time to time. I was really let down when the movie followed John and his friends. It felt more like Scream than Halloween. Why on God's Earth did they get Kevin Williamson to write the treatment/overall idea? Not having Loomis in it also took away the depth of the story. Loomis always added more dimension to the world and Michael's evil, but without him, it takes away the lore/mythic aspect that he injected into the series. The atmosphere was also lackluster. Everything was brightly lit and didn't have the proper feel of a horror movie. Overall, it felt like Halloween-lite. It was still decent enough to recommend over H5 and H6, but definitely not 4 or 2.

[Evil Ed]

I agree with you on parts 5-6, however I don't agree with part 4 being the most simplistic after the orginal.

If anything part 2 is the most simplistic after part 1, it was a continuation of the same story. Michael chasing Laurie. Basically the same formula as the first film but set in a hospital. The only wrench thrown in the plot was that Michael was Laurie's brother. Which it seemed like they just revealed it, and then kept on with the story. Laurie's friends were replaced by hospital staff, and Doc Loomis still saved the day this time facing off with Michael and both finishing each other off. It was a great ending.

Part 4 brought in this whole new family tree with Michael's niece (who's daughter was she?) who was adopted into a new family-- that Michael somehow knew about AND found and is now stalking? Simple huh. I also hated how in part 4 he turned into almost a Frankenstein type character where the whole town was after his ass, chasing him around in trucks, and swat vehicles, wearing his mask running around scaring people.

[Cop No. 633]

I agree with you on parts 5-6, however I don't agree with part 4 being the most simplistic after the orginal.

If anything part 2 is the most simplistic after part 1, it was a continuation of the same story. Michael chasing Laurie. Basically the same formula as the first film but set in a hospital. The only wrench thrown in the plot was that Michael was Laurie's brother. Which it seemed like they just revealed it, and then kept on with the story. Laurie's friends were replaced by hospital staff, and Doc Loomis still saved the day this time facing off with Michael and both finishing each other off. It was a great ending.

Part 4 brought in this whole new family tree with Michael's niece (who's daughter was she?) who was adopted into a new family-- that Michael somehow knew about AND found and is now stalking? Simple huh. I also hated how in part 4 he turned into almost a Frankenstein type character where the whole town was after his ass, chasing him around in trucks, and swat vehicles, wearing his mask running around scaring people.

I suppose it could be complicated, but it made enough sense. Michael overhead that he had a niece. He founds her by chance. But I felt that the connection or bond has always been there even since part one. I mean, if you take into consideration (going by the series' logic), Michael happened to "find" his sister on the porch of his old house. That's about as much a coincidence as him finding his niece at the store. I know Laurie wasn't originally meant to be his sister, but that's the way it turned out. I'd say the film follows the same logic of the original two movies in that regard. I mean, look at part 2, how did Michael even find Laurie? He randomly bumps into a kid holding a boom box. Both movies has its moment of chance. I like to think of it as fate though.

H2, while definitely right under H4 for me loses out because it's a film where there's just a lot of waiting going around. There's no movement to the plot. There's long stretches where I just get really bored.

I actually liked what you hate about part 4: that Michael has become a legend of sorts. I think it was cool that he left that kind of affect on the town. I really enjoyed that aspect of it. It made the world bigger than just isolating it to a couple of characters. It gave Haddonfield a bit more character than just a backdrop.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

H20 was a travesty. The plot and story were good, I will agree with that. But Michael wasn't scary at all, and Jamie Lee Curtis was way too butch. Not to mention the fact that it had the worst mask in the entire series, with the exception of Rob Zombie's, "Michael was born in a sewer mask.".

The two main reasons that I won't watch H20 (Jamie Lee Curtis being butch-overkill, and Michael's mask.). Although I actually liked the mask in Halloween (Remake).

[Evil Ed]

I suppose it could be complicated, but it made enough sense. Michael overhead that he had a niece. He founds her by chance. But I felt that the connection or bond has always been there even since part one. I mean, if you take into consideration (going by the series' logic), Michael happened to "find" his sister on the porch of his old house. That's about as much a coincidence as him finding his niece at the store. I know Laurie wasn't originally meant to be his sister, but that's the way it turned out. I'd say the film follows the same logic of the original two movies in that regard. I mean, look at part 2, how did Michael even find Laurie? He randomly bumps into a kid holding a boom box. Both movies has its moment of chance. I like to think of it as fate though.

H2, while definitely right under H4 for me loses out because it's a film where there's just a lot of waiting going around. There's no movement to the plot. There's long stretches where I just get really bored.

I actually liked what you hate about part 4: that Michael has become a legend of sorts. I think it was cool that he left that kind of affect on the town. I really enjoyed that aspect of it. It made the world bigger than just isolating it to a couple of characters. It gave Haddonfield a bit more character than just a backdrop.


I can definitely jive to that. The series did have a fate message going on in the early installments that they tried to carry on to the 4th film, it's just I felt that the characters of the niece and her family were unnecessary.

I can see what you are saying about how Michael was almost immortalized in the community like Freddy. Afterall, the forth installment was made doing the "supernatural" phase of horror in the 80's.

Honestly for me, I'm not sure if it was the story of the 4-6 films, or the look of the films. There's just something about those set of films that just doesn't look right to me. Almost as if they turned dark or gothic in a strange way. They never sat well with me.

The way I rate me Halloween's are:
1,2,3 (sue me but I like it even though it shouldn't count),7,4,6,5,8, Remake

[Cop No. 633]

haha, it's all good. I enjoyed Part 3. It's got Tom Atkins in it! That should be enough for the price of admission.

Our lists are almost the same... I'd just switch H20 with 4. I own 1-4. I don't even own the others because I never feel like watching them.

At least we both know how rubbish the remake was. Seriously, I didn't think it could get any lower after part 8, but low and behold, Zombie surprised even the most jaded fan. I think he might even set the bar lower with his second one. Expect more deaths, more unnecessary characters, more shaky cam. I still don't know how anybody can honestly defend the "Love Hurts" montage without embarrassing themselves.

[Evil Ed]

Amen to that. More white-trash dirtballs finding clever ways to use the f-word.

[PSU80]

I'm suprised to see a few people that actually enjoyed H5. I like 4 & 6 but 5 was terrible.

[poopontheshoes7]

Big 'ol bumpity bump.

I used to love the whole damn series as a young horror loving twerp. I was just coming into my own as a horror fan and I couldn't get enough of these flicks. (Mike, Jason, Freddy) I loved them all. But, as I grew older and my tastes changed I came to realize that the Halloween series is probably the worst of the Trinity of horror icons.

Halloween 1, 2, and H20 are the only flicks in the series I still love. It creates a fantastic trilogy imo. H20 get way to much crap. It's unfairly labeled a Scream a knock-off. Peh, I say! While I'm sure the movies development was helped along by Scream it really stands on its own two feet imo. I guess people like to compare it to Scream because it features a group of hip teenagers. Well, the teens in H20 aren't even in it that much! The movie is still very much about Laurie and what happened to her on Halloween night 20 years ago. Jamie Lee is friggin' awesome in this movie and carries in like a champ. I love the slow burn of it all. It actually takes its time!. Michael is the scariest he's been since 2 and the final showdown is awesome. I just love the brother/sister plot line. It's great in its simplicity and the film ends PERFECTLY. I think it's one of the best endings of a horror series EVER. But nooooooooo they just couldn't let it rest could they. Fucking pricks.

Halloween Resurrection is a travesty of epic proportions. I'm shocked this isn't everyones least favorite entry in the series. Every single thing about it feels forced, hallow and cheap. From the incredibly retarded way they brought Michael back to the soulless way they killed Laurie to the ridiculously shitty acting and dialogue. This movie is one of my most hated movies of all time. The whole webcam crap is already dated as shit and.....Busta Rhymes. Busta fucking Rhymes. He was by far the worst actor in a film of crappy actors but to have him be the hero of the film, to karate Michael around his own house...URGH! It makes me want to rip my hair out. As crappy and lazy as I think 4-5 are at least they seemed like they wanted to do something unique. But HR is just a big gimmick. From the webcam plot to having a (then) popular rapper star in the film. This is one of the most pointless sequels ever made. And thats saying something considering I'm a huge Jason fan:) It's so pointless in the way that H20 felt so definitely final. Not only that; it was a RESPECTFUL ending to an iconic series. Resurrection felt like a soulless cash grab from day one.

As for H3-H6. Halloween 3 has gained a pretty big cult following for reasons beyond my understanding. I never hated it because it didn't have Michael. I hate it because its a shitty ass movie. The plot, while cool in theory, is completely underwhelming. The pace is slow as molasses and it doesn't feature one ounce of suspense, mystery or fun. The main villain is decently creepy and the gore is well done. Other then that Halloween 3 is a bad as it's been made out to be.

H4 is other sequel I don't get the love for. Many fans hold it higher then 2 which boggles my mind. Aside from a decent opening credits sequence, Pleasance and Harris rocking the shit out of their roles and a couple good kills I find H4 to be dull. It lacks atmosphere and suspense. Everything just sort of happens. Not to mention Michael is boring as hell in this. His mask is the worst in the whole series and he movies like a robot. Completely lacking the "Shapeness" of the Shape.

H5 features another good show from Pleasance and Harris and actually has some atmosphere and a mean streak H4 completely lacked. To bad the rest of the cast was utterly obnoxious, the comic relief horrendous and the ending infuriating. And Mikes mask is widely considered to be the worst of the whole series. Huh? At least it had texture unlike the completely blank piece of whiteness that was the H4 mask. A mild step up from 4 in entertainment value only. The rest can suck a cock.

H6, like 5 has decent atmosphere and kills but its story is a complete and utter disaster. There is really nothing I can say. It sucks. It asks more questions then it answers. The Producers Cut is just as terrible as the Theatrical cut for different reasons. It completely undermines ANY menace Michael still had.


And that, my friends, are my thought on the Halloween series:)

[Evil Ed]

Mike just looks terrible in all of them except 1 and 2 and the remake too. Terrible series.

[PSU80]

I just rewatched H4 again the other night. It was the only Halloween on all week that was on a paid channel, thus it wasn't hacked up. I have to admit, after all these years, I still find H4 more unsettling than the rest in the series. Once he's inside the house and they're all trapped inside, that's pretty disturbing to consider.

[PSU80]

Mike just looks terrible in all of them except 1 and 2 and the remake too. Terrible series.

Are you serious??? I'm thinking not, but I could be wrong. :(

[jaw2929]

I too remember Halloween 5 being a piece of shit for the most part. What I didn't like is that Danielle Harris' character goes fucking MUTE for 3/4 of the flick, when she was perfectly fine and could talk, etc. in the 4th flick. Then she just starts talking outta nowhere near the end of the 5th. That really agitated the shit outta me about the film, not to mention it's weak as hell plot.

I really loved the first 2, part 4 and H20. The 6th one wasn't too bad either, but I didn't like the cult/harness Mike's power, concept that began in part 5. Stupid-ass shit. Also Resurrection sucks balls too. (just thought I'd throw that out there)!

[Count Orlok]

The family elements in the latter elements were irrelevant and just plain boring. Who really cares (including Michaeal) about his niece?

The familt angle was introduced in Part 4 because Jamie Lee Curtis decided she didn't want to reprise her role as Laurie Strode. So the crew behind the movie decided to create a new victim for Michael to go after. I liked that they did that because they really had no choice. I mean, they could have had Michael go after some random person like in the original, but as we witnessed in H2, what would be Michael's purpose going after this person? They were better off expanding the family tree right then in there since that's the direction the series went with the second installment. Michael had no other sisters in his family so it was time to persuade it's next generation.

How the hell would he even know enough about her to go and stalk the bitch?? She wasn't even close to being born by the time he was in the psych ward, and how would he reconnect with her anyway when he got out??

Well like some one else had pointed out, how did he know who Laurie was the moment she came to his house? He hasn't seen her since she was two years old and now she was seventeen.

Then they had to drag out this storyline and really what it did to the character of Michael Meyers is drain out all of his frightening, mysterious elements. 4-6 Thumbs DOWN!

What did you expect that he remains a mystery forever? Sorry, but I would not have been too fond of that. As the original movie by itself it's perfectly fine, but as you and other people fail to realize is that this one movie became a series. As a SERIES an explanation was eventually needed for Michael's motive and why he was who he was. If anything, by H5, we had an ongoing storyline that was taking the series to a whole new direction rather than recycling the story of the original Halloween. Halloween 6 was going to be the movie to tie up all the loose ends established so far regarding why Michael killed Judith, why he tried to kill Laurie and then Jamie, why he did so on Halloween and why he was this "evil" persona that was given unique powers. By H5 he now has this symbol and a connection to a Man in Black that frees him from his jail cell by the end of the movie. Yeah the next installment was definitely origin time.

H20 was good because it was supposed to be the final phase of him getting to Laurie; who now brought in a son for a new angle, and it ended perfectly with her lopping off his head. They should have never "resurrected" the franchise after that.

I'm glad they did. First off, H20 was never intended to be the ending to the series as far as Moustapha Akkad the Weinstein company had in mind. They wanted to continue the series during H20's production, even shooting brief footage with Michael as the paramedic before production on Resurrection took place where they would shoot more flashback footage. But why I'm glad H20 wasn't the last because it would have been a poor finale. Sure, we saw "Michael" die but so what. It didn't tie up the loose ends to everything. Instead, it dropped a whole storyline that needed resolution and only attempted to tie up loose ends to another storyline. Even when resolving that one storyline the ending was unsatisfying to it because the send off was too quick. Laurie kills Michael and then it's over like "That's it"? No decent epilogue?

Part 4 brought in this whole new family tree with Michael's niece (who's daughter was she?) who was adopted into a new family-- that Michael somehow knew about AND found and is now stalking?

Jamie happens to be Laurie Strode's daughter. At the time you wrote this comment, how could you not have known that? It's clearly stated in the movie. Who else's daughter could she have been? Michael only had two other siblings and Judith would obviously have been out of the picture, leaving Laurie.

Halloween Resurrection is a travesty of epic proportions. I'm shocked this isn't everyones least favorite entry in the series. Every single thing about it feels forced, hallow and cheap. From the incredibly retarded way they brought Michael back to the soulless way they killed Laurie to the ridiculously shitty acting and dialogue. This movie is one of my most hated movies of all time.

This is actually one of my favorite movies out of this series and I feel that it is extremely underrated. I don't see how it's that horrible. The plot was good and had good pacing, the atmosphere was dark and spectacular (something H20 had lacked dearly), and the character development was nice. I also liked how it once again followed the footsteps of H5 and H6 by setting it in the Myers house again. At least this movie has it looking like the Myers house again like how it was in the first two movies.

The whole webcam crap is already dated as shit and.....Busta Rhymes. Busta fucking Rhymes. He was by far the worst actor in a film of crappy actors but to have him be the hero of the film, to karate Michael around his own house...URGH! It makes me want to rip my hair out. As crappy and lazy as I think 4-5 are at least they seemed like they wanted to do something unique. But HR is just a big gimmick. From the webcam plot to having a (then) popular rapper star in the film. This is one of the most pointless sequels ever made.

The webcam thing at the time might have not been dated since we were approaching a whole new generation where that was starting to become a big thing. So it works well for this movie. I didn't like Busta Rhymes either and felt his acting was way too over-the-top in this. Perhaps if he wasn't in it then this movie could have been more appreciated.

And thats saying something considering I'm a huge Jason fan:) It's so pointless in the way that H20 felt so definitely final. Not only that; it was a RESPECTFUL ending to an iconic series. Resurrection felt like a soulless cash grab from day one.

I'm sorry, but as I told some one in my response to them above, I find H20 to have a very bad ending.. How can you drop a whole storyline and then expect to end the series right off that bat? The quick send-off it had was weak for both the series and it's storyline because it didn't feel like an actual finale for the series as a whole, and the way it ended so quickly after Michael's demise was as if they decided to do that at the last minute. I find Resurrection's ending to be more satisfying.

H4 is other sequel I don't get the love for. Many fans hold it higher then 2 which boggles my mind. Aside from a decent opening credits sequence, Pleasance and Harris rocking the shit out of their roles and a couple good kills I find H4 to be dull. It lacks atmosphere and suspense. Everything just sort of happens. Not to mention Michael is boring as hell in this. His mask is the worst in the whole series and he movies like a robot. Completely lacking the "Shapeness" of the Shape.

Apart from the mask I disagree with you here. I feel H4 had a great Halloween atmosphere, and had the feel the original movie had. I liked how it captured some of the aspects of the original while maintaining it's own story ten years later. Not to mention the continuity of this movie following the first two was absolutely fabulous. It truly showed itself to be a worthy follow-up.

H5 features another good show from Pleasance and Harris and actually has some atmosphere and a mean streak H4 completely lacked. To bad the rest of the cast was utterly obnoxious, the comic relief horrendous and the ending infuriating. And Mikes mask is widely considered to be the worst of the whole series. Huh? At least it had texture unlike the completely blank piece of whiteness that was the H4 mask. A mild step up from 4 in entertainment value only. The rest can suck a cock.

The thing I didn't like about Halloween 5 was the house. I liked the mask and even wanted one like it myself. A lot of people don't like the mask in this movie because of the neck being so big.

H6, like 5 has decent atmosphere and kills but its story is a complete and utter disaster. There is really nothing I can say. It sucks. It asks more questions then it answers.

As confusing as it is, this is my second favorite sequel in the series. I agree, the story is a mess and should have been explained more during reshoots. I also felt it wasn't needed for Chappelle to cut out so many of the scenes that could have had the movie keep a decent pacing. It felt really rushed and certain scenes just fell flat.

The Producers Cut is just as terrible as the Theatrical cut for different reasons. It completely undermines ANY menace Michael still had.

Michael is shown to be very brutal in the movie than he was in the previous ones. That should at least count for something.

[Heisenberg]

Isn't 5 the one with the clown music in the background when the two bungling cops make an appearance? Yeah, that's all I got to say about that.

[Count Orlok]

Isn't 5 the one with the clown music in the background when the two bungling cops make an appearance? Yeah, that's all I got to say about that.

Yeah, that's the one. The clown music did rather fit in the personality of those two bungling cops quite well actually, as awkward as it was.

[jaw2929]

Orlok, the jokey circus clown music doesn't belong in a Halloween movie. Nor does a "Love Hurts" montage with Zombie's wife stripping throughout it, either. ;)

[Count Orlok]

I didn't mind either. Rob Zombie was basically doing his own thing with the remake and I thought the music fitted the part where Michael is sitting on the curb feeling mistreated apart from his mother stripping.

[The DragonKeeper]

I enjoyed all of these movies in my childhood, but now recently re-watching them as a grown adult I realized how flawed and inconsistent each sequel was. Now I completely understand how the series went downhill post-Halloween 2.

[Kevin Lockard]

I used to like 4, thought 5 was ok, thought 6 was terrible. I'd still rate them in that order from best to worst, but I now think all three are terrible.

Myer's mask looked funny in H4. His mask in H5 looked like it was about to fall off the entire time. His mask in H6 at least looked cool. I also respect the effort of trying to add a bit more complexity to the Myers storyline with H6, but the specific plot that they chose (something to do with a cult and voodoo and that sort of nonsense, as I recall) was horrible. So I had no problem with H20 (which I thought was a fitting end to the series) ignoring the storylines of all three of these movies.

[Inglorious]

Sort of unrelated... but damn. Did anyone notice the amount of former schmoes in this thread? Weve lost a lot of horror pals over the years, and that may or may not explain the inactivity of this section. Oh, that and horrors in a lull phase again; which we all know is typical every 7-10 yrs.

Still such a bummer.

On point - I love 4 but dont regard it as highly as most fans of the series (of which I am an avid one). I like 5 a lot and dont disregard it as much as most fans of the series. For COMM I go back and forth. One year I may like it, one year I may hate it. Its no Freddy's Dead of which I hate every year; but its not as solid as the rest either. Ill usually place it above the 5th. The 6th has a fun feel on Halloween day or the day prior, otherwise its lackluster to me.

I saw them in this order as a kid - H1, H2, H3, H6, H20, H4, H5, H8. H8 (Resurrection) was the first I saw in theaters (I was 16 at the time, and a regular of these very forums, awaiting a possible Freddy Vs Jason which did come but 1-2 yrs later or so). 1-3 kick 4-6's ass IMO. The whole series is fun if viewed in the right state of mind. Just relax and enjoy some classic horror, eh?

I fully agree on the mask sentiments. I feel it looked GOD AWFUL in 4 and 5. I dont love it in 2 either, but its better than 4 and 5.

[Matchbox225]

The series should have died when Donald Pleasence died, preferably before then. He's the only reason I think the sequels are worth at least one viewing.

That said, I thought part 4 was the best of the three in this discussion.

Part 5 was okay, but Part 6 was bad, but like I said, it's probably worth a viewing for Dr. Loomis's last appearance. :(

[Kevin Lockard]

Agree about Donald Pleasence. That was probably why they decided to bring Jamie Lee Curtis back for the 7th one, since they knew that bringing back the main character of the original movie was the only thing that might spark interest for another Halloween film. (I personally thought H20 was a fitting ending to the series, before Resurrection came along.)