Trick R' Treat (2007)

Michael Dougherty's 'Trick R' Treat' is a true example of the diamond in the rough, surpassing everyone's expectations including its distributor Warner Brothers. Originally slated for a Halloween 2007 theatrical release, the executives made a last minute decision to send the film straight to video showing no confidence in its success. As it turns out, this is yet another big mistake big studios tend to make nowadays and 'Trick R' Treat' is now a modern day classic, one that has become a part of every horror fan's Halloween marathon list.

The film consists of different stories all taking place on Halloween night and all sharing similar themes of tradition & the consequences when one disobeys or disbelieves said traditions. Each story is connected by the cute little bugger you see above, Sam. The mascot of 'Trick R' Treat' also represents the holiday itself as a sort of guard, making sure that all respect and follow the rules of Halloween at all costs. While not every story hits the bullseye, it gets pretty damn close when compared to others in the sub-genre. Anthology films' greatest weakness is consistency, but luckily 'Trick R' Treat' has far less trouble with it than others. The film just has this youthful charm to it all because of the visuals and theming I sit down to watch it I always get the feeling of those days when one would read old fairy tales or that latest 'Goosebumps' book. It feels very nostalgic but at the same time a fresh breath of air for the horror genre.

The film is also a beauty on a technical level, taking advantage of the oranges & blacks one would associate with the holiday and just makes them bright and glowing. What I say next will likely be controversial, but I think 'Trick R' Treat' invokes the feeling of Halloween even more than John Carpenter's classic. It does everything in its power to look, sound, and feel like Halloween and if you see the film in high definition, it is truly a sight to behold. 'Trick R' Treat' is one of the best films you can see on Halloween night, with everything you'd expect and done with such style and talent to make it stand out above all others. Like Dougherty's other holiday horror 'Krampus', he just knows how to invoke the holiday spirit and inject it into everything. We need to give him all of the holiday horror films from now on, he is a master.

5/5

Night of the Demons (1988)

'Night of the Demons' is a perfect addition to one's Halloween marathon watch list. It has everything you're looking for when watching a horror film this time of year: a creepy mansion, monsters and all kinds of gory fun to make any genre fan a happy camper. The story is simple: a group of young teens on Halloween night decide to have their party at the local abandoned mansion on the hilltop (sound familiar?). Soon, they begin to be taken one by one by the demonic forces that were once kept within and its up to the remaining survivors to escape before dawn. 'Night of the Demons' works so well thanks to that genuine Halloween feeling one gets when watching it. As soon as the opening credits start, the creepy music and cartoon ghosts floating about along with a great animation sequence not only makes it one of my favorite horror movie openings, but possibly the best ever. The film never drops this fun factor which I think is what makes the film so enjoyable. Had the film tried to be serious too often, I feel it would have simply been forgotten in time, as without the charm of these fun factors the film really just boils down to an 'Evil Dead' clone.

Even with these typical horror tropes, director Kevin Tenney at least is skilled enough to put his own unique spin on most of them and the special gore and makeup effects are top notch and helps make it one of the best creature features of the 80's. It certainly doesn't hold back in terms of the nasty or the T&A, but through some great atmosphere, music, and mood that youthful Halloween spirit is still retained. The film is also a breeze to sit through thanks to its excellent pacing and the likeable cast. Even characters you're supposed to hate, like Stooge make for some great comic relief moments or they are tolerable enough that we get to see them meet a spectacular and gruesome end. As I mentioned above, the film's score is really helpful with the overall film and this is one of the better examples of how important a score can be to the horror genre when done properly. It's that fun cheesy 80's synth but with a spooky Gothic tone mixed in that makes for a great soundtrack to play in your local haunted house.

So, what doesn't 'Night of the Demons' get right? Well, if I had to point out something I'd say the film's book-ended side story. I won't spoil it here naturally, but other than to kind of nail the point home that it's Halloween it has no connection to the overall narrative. I feel that it was an attempt to homage 'Creepshow' but I could be (and very likely am) wrong but this subplot reminded me of it, but unlike that movie this one really didn't need it at all. It just feels tacked on as a last minute gotcha moment and little else. And really, that's about it. I love 'Night of the Demons' ever since I found it at my local Hollywood video one Halloween night. It never gets old for me and perfectly encapsulates the holiday for me. I highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the chance. SHAMELESS PLUG: Shout! Factory has a free App on Roku and Fire Stick that will allow you to stream 'Night of the Demons' for free with some ads here and there. Check it out.

4.5/5

Lord of Illusions (1995)

Clive Barker's novels are unique to say the least, standing out in the vast library of horror novels over the years. There's really nothing like them, so it's only natural that Hollywood would want a piece of this and for many years, it seems like they just miss the point. Yes as expected, only Clive himself seems to ever make good film adaptations of his work (who knew?) and today is a great example 'Lord of Illusions'. This film could have easily fallen apart before the half-way mark without Barker behind the camera, as the many themes and story twists could have come off as hokey and while I will admit there's some 90's cheese in there for sure, this is still a frequently forgotten but top notch thriller you should go back to.

The story follows Detective Harry D'Amour as he begins a new assignment that begins to lead him down a dark path, with all roads pointing to a stage magician named Swann and a mysterious cult leader named Nix. The noir elements work well with in 'Lord of Illusions' and the film unfolds each secret bit by bit with the right amount of pacing and tension thrown in. As soon as the film begins, and we are taken back in time to show Nix and his people you are instantly invested and wondering just what's going on, and what's coming next. Scott Bakula does a decent job as Harry, though a little forgettable. He's your typical private eye character and mainly serves as a way to get the story rolling. I felt the film was truly about Swann & his wife as their story comes full circle by film's end and they have the main link to the villain Nix. I wouldn't say the D'Amour character is pointless though, but he's a sort of false protagonist despite what the marketing would have you think.

The film still retains a lot of the bizarre hyper-violence and sexual themes most commonly found in Barker's work, and for a 90's horror film it surprisingly doesn't hold back when it comes to the sex and gore. The special effects are hit or miss, as was typical back then. The practical and makeup effects from KNB are just as good as ever, but its the CGI effects that stand out pretty badly. In most scenes, the image will be grainy or blurry while the special effect will be more crisp aging the film a little. The score, conducted by Simon Boswell (Hardware) is really fitting, but a little standard for horror. It sounds excellent don't get me wrong, but it's also very typical for the genre and doesn't stand out enough to make it a score to listen to on its own.

'Lord of Illusions' is one of Barker's better efforts, but out of the one's he directs himself it's also flawed in many areas in comparison. The story tends to stagger a bit, the film's special effects are dated a bit, and I feel adding the Detective wasn't necessary but the film is one I do recommend if you've run out of 90's horror and haven't checked it out. If you have seen it, give it another go this Halloween season. Oh, and be sure to see the director's cut for the best experience.

4/5

Halloween (2018)

Back in September, Universal Pictures decided to show the new entry in the 'Halloween' series to a lucky audience. The film ever since has received some very high praise and riding a big wave of anticipation until tonight's early screenings. Has all the hype been worthwhile? Has Michael Myers and Laurie Strode finally been given the film they deserve? Taking place 40 years after the events of the original film, we see how a traumatic event such as the 1978 massacre can affect someone, with both sides represented in full. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) has been living a sheltered life filled with sadness, paranoia, and fear while waiting for Michael Myer's inevitable escape and his vengeance on the one who got away. The film deals with themes of PTSD and abuse towards women and the outcome of the assault, all of which are current hot button issues and what will keep this 'Halloween' entry relevant for today's audience. We also see the impact both Myers and Laurie has had on those closest to her, namely her daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allison (Andi Matichak) both good and bad and in the end the film is about these women becoming family and dealing with past demons.

For those who are thinking that may be a bit too forced or political in some way, I can see why but make no mistake here: this is a true 'Halloween' film and delivers on what we've come to expect while also giving us something new, something sequels tend to have trouble with. And really this is where the film is the most flawed as the first and second act play out pretty much like any other slasher and for some may seem rather out of place once that third act kicks in. 'Halloween' can sometimes suffer from tone whiplash due to some typical horror pacing and tropes but to give the film credit, they are well shot and sometimes funny. And the humor is a topic I've not heard many talk about. The film is really funny, in a way that feels natural and at the right time. A particular scene involving a child character is a big highlight and this kid needs to be in more movies. He's a funny little guy. We also get some fun moments from the many callbacks to the '78 original, including a moment during the climax that had the audience laughing out loud.

I love these callbacks (particularly the opening credit sequence that I won't spoil here) but understandably there are a few too many. Most are subtle and usually in the background somewhere, but other times certain scenes will be an almost shot for shot of the original which can be considered lazy for many reasons. I don't think this film uses them enough to warrant heavy criticism, but it is a little too much at times. What I found the most surprising is that our younger cast of teen characters are all pretty likeable and don't go over the top with their performances. Andi Matichak is really good as Allison and I'd like to see her take up the mantle if any future sequels are in place. Her friends are funny and well written as well, and we feel actual pity for them when they pass on. The worst aspects of our cast I would have to say is the inclusion of a Dr. Loomis replacement. He feels out of place, as if they needed a Loomis character but then halfway through decided to change his personality and make him a pseudo-antagonist towards the finale.

Nick Castle & James Jude Courtney are excellent as Myers, and they portray him in a much more aggressive and brutal manner. Without ever seeing his face, you can feel that pure rage in how he attacks and kills his victims. This one pulls no punches with death scenes either, being one of the nastier entries for gore effects. Fans will love a few callbacks as well as the now infamous tracking shot as Myers goes from house to house in one continuous take, butchering all who inhabit them. It's an impressive scene to be sure and just me or others speaking about it won't do it justice. I also would like to give a quick mention of the film's score, once again provided by John Carpenter but this time accompanied by his son Cody, and Daniel Davies. As soon as the score plays, you instantly know its classic Carpenter. As of this review, I have yet to fully listen to the score on its own but seeing it with the film I say its perfect and another great example of just how many talents Carpenter has.

Director David Gordon Green & writer Danny McBride have given us the best 'Halloween' sequel in years, and possibly the best sequel of the franchise. Jamie Lee Curtis knocks it out of the park with her final performance as Laurie, and fans will appreciate the many callbacks along with the newly added scenes of humor and horror. I don't think many going in would think 'Halloween 2018' would be so damned good but they will not be disappointed and neither will you. Despite some issues I had with the first half of the film, that finale makes up for it in spades. If you see one film this season, let it be 'Halloween'.

4.5/5

Prince of Darkness (1987)

John Carpenter's 'Prince of Darkness' is one that is usually overlooked even today. The film is considered the second part of the director's 'Apocalypse Trilogy' that started with his 1982 remake of 'The Thing' & ended with 1994's 'In the Mouth of Madness', all of which were at the time considered box office bombs and all of which now have cult followings. While I feel 'Prince of Darkness' is the lesser of this trilogy, there's still a lot to like here especially when viewing it during the Halloween season. The story involves a group of science students and their teacher as they are invited to investigate an abandoned church in the middle of the city. Once there, they are shown a secret underground room by a Vatican priest (Donald Pleasance) which contains a cylinder full of a sinister green liquid. Soon enough, strange happenings trap the students within the church and one by one become the victims of the mysterious entity within.

The film mixes themes of religion and quantum physics of all things, and while that sounds nutty for a premise (and don't get us wrong, it is) somehow Carpenter manages to make these themes work together and it gets you invested in the story really quickly. And it's a good thing too because without that unique concept the film would fall apart within the first ten minutes and this is mainly due to how slow the beginning is. This may sound more of a nitpick but I think the slow beginning will turn off many during their first viewing and throughout the film there's not much in terms of action, especially when comparing the film to other horror films of the time. But I feel that this slow pace and the whole film being rather quiet makes for a really uncomfortable feeling and high tension.

The film mainly falters when people begin to become possessed by the green liquid as it then devolves slightly into many demonic film tropes but even with this weaker angle, we do get some great special effects and the very ominous but subtle score by Carpenter. I think 'Prince of Darkness' is one of John Carpenter's most experimental stories and one that you can see he felt very invested in. I find the idea of multi-dimensions, religion, and quantum physics fascinating and even today has never been found in films of any genre. The film does feel unique and one of a kind in that aspect but on the other side of things, I completely understand why this movie wasn't a big success at the time. As I said before, horror films were a big thing during this period and each film was trying to top each other with more sex and gore than the previous entry so when this moody, slow-paced and psychological film came along, it was hard to reach the top of the mountain.

'Prince of Darkness' isn't one of John Carpenter's best films, but it is a good film with some interesting ideas, an overall creepy feeling to it all, and makes for good Halloween viewing. I recommend it highly.

4/5

Creepshow (1982)

'Creepshow' is a loving tribute to the EC Comics of the 50's such as 'Tales from the Crypt' and combines the talents of Stephen King and director George Romero. Keeping with the comic strip tradition, we have an anthology film consisting of five stories. The first tells a tale of revenge from beyond the grave as a snooty family gets attacked by their undead relative in 'Father's Day'. This story I feel is one of the best of the film, and is a great example of what made EC Comics so popular. Many stories dealt with revenge and this could have come straight from the page in how accurate Romero and King are. The next story is a fun and simple one starring King himself as a dopey farmer who comes in contact with a mysterious alien fungus that begins to grow at an alarming rate. This is likely the one most horror fans associate with 'Creepshow', thanks to King's funny performance but also its premise. It takes some talent to turn something as ordinary as grass and fungus and make it scary or something that could hurt you, but this story nails it while adding in some black humor to make it the most entertaining sequence of the film.

We then have a tale of a jilted lover (played by comedian Liam Nelson) who takes his vengeance on his wife and her new lover, only for it to come back to bite him hard. This is also another great example of the source material and what would become a template for many episodes of the 'Tales' television series. I don't feel this was as strong a segment as 'Father's Day', but still some fun stuff here and out of all the stories, it has the most serious tone and genuine tension as Nelson slowly takes out his wife and her new beau. The next segment is the longest but a little more mixed in my opinion. It seems 'The Crate', a story about a mysterious box containing a vicious monster seems to be the most beloved story when the film comes into discussion and honestly I don't quite understand why. The film isn't bad or anything, it's a simple monster story with some great special effects work but that's really about it. The monster isn't nearly as unique as Tom Savini's other creations and overall I just didn't understand why this is the longest story. While I am critical of 'The Crate', I think the weakest segment of the film is the final one. It's about a germaphobe who gets attacked by cockroaches and really that's it. It's gross out gags and that's about it, and this even feels like the cheapest story, only being in one big white room the whole time. It's pretty weak to end such a great film this way but thankfully we do have a fun wraparound story involving a young boy (played by King's son) getting revenge on his father after he punishes him for reading 'Creepshow' comics.

Anthology films always have issues with consistency and it seems we'll never be able to find one that's completely flawless but 'Creepshow' is probably the closest we'll get. Even after these many years, it's one of the funnest horror films you'll come across and is a must see for fans of the genre.

4/5

The Barn (2016) *Quickie*

'The Barn' is a wonderful throwback to the 80's, with lots of simple but fun special effects, lots of gore & nudity, and the right kind of tongue in cheek attitude. The film is like many of the era: A group of teens unleash an ancient evil from an abandoned barn and must now try to survive Halloween night. Let's be honest, the story isn't meant to be anything original and in the wrong kind of hands being a bad movie on purpose can lead to disaster. But 'The Barn' plays with its cheesiness well, even if the jokes or inside references aren't always the most clever. I love the creativity and research thrown in here too. Horror back then was more about how unique the killer was and the over the top gory kills he provided and 'The Barn' goes this route as well. The overall film has a deliberate cheap look to it, while in contrast the three killers all have elaborate makeup and backgrounds. The gore scenes are also fun and excessive without that serious bite of modern day horror. In fact, I'd say that a lot of the kills feel like something out of a Troma movie and I love it.

As for its visual style 'The Barn' succeeds where others tend to falter. While I loved the movie 'Grindhouse', I felt it was trying a little too hard with the scratched up film and missing reel gags while 'The Barn' pulls off the aged look with subtle little bits here and there. Even the DVD box is decorated to look like those old big box VHS tapes from the video store. I feel that for many new to horror, this film won't do much for you. Even I will admit that if it weren't for my love of movies I likely wouldn't understand what the director is trying to do here, and just brush it off as a crappy B-Movie. If you see 'The Barn' with the modern eye, you'll hate it but for those who grew up during the best decade of horror this is candy for you. 'The Barn' doesn't try to be anything different nor does it try to stand out among the crowd. It's a fun throwback for you and some friends to enjoy with some beer and junk food. It's one of the best Halloween films to watch this season.

5/5

Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2009)

With 'Halloween II', director Rob Zombie had much more creative freedom and more space to create something different now that it's no longer a remake. The end result is a film that is better than the previous one, but if only for the film's structure rather than as a whole. The story picks up with Laurie Strode having been traumatized and mentally unstable since her encounter with her brother Michael Myers. While this is a good direction to go in, as seen by the newest film taking a similar idea for its story Zombie doesn't really go far with it. Laurie is now unlikable like every other character in the film, and as I previously stated with my 'Halloween' review when the whole cast is deplorable and horrible people how are we supposed to be scared or even be surprised by any of the brutality Michael exhibits. And speaking of the film's brutality, it simply just goes too far and would even put the many grindhouse movies Zombie obviously takes influence from to shame. It's needlessly vulgar, trashy, and blood splattered and just gives the film less repeatability because of it.

So what can I say about 'Halloween II' that's not negative so as to not sound like I'm repeating myself here? Well, as expected in a Rob Zombie film the visual style is superb here and is one of the best looking 'Halloween' films to date. It was shot in 16mm which gives it a look that stands out among other horror films of its time and goes with that grindhouse look as well. I also think the performances here are a bit better this time, with Brad Dourif and Malcolm McDowell being the two stand outs as usual. Despite the characters being written as annoying or terrible people, the cast of 'Halloween II' is much better than the remake's, having much less cameo appearances and instead focusing on a core group of people rather than spreading it out too thin.

Tyler Bates returns for 'Halloween II' and he's just not a composer I'm really fond of. I'm sure there's fans out there, but like 2007's 'Halloween' his score here just sounds like your usual horror fare of the decade, but this time they can't even bother to toss in the 'Halloween' theme until the end credits. The music you'll likely want to listen to is the various licensed tunes throughout, though they are still placed in random places and seemingly don't fit with the sequences ('Knights in White Satin' during the film's prologue being a particularly strange choice). I'm honestly surprised that Zombie himself has never contributed a score of his own to his work, but perhaps he's simply too busy with directing duties. I would like to see him compose someday however as I think he could have contributed a much better sound than Bates.

If you're a modern horror fan, then you'll likely want some heavy violence and 'Halloween II' does deliver. Again though, it feels so unnecessarily over the top and brutal that it's almost comedic. Michael beats people savagely, curb stomps them, smashes their heads in over and over again, and stabs a woman almost 30 times. It's nasty and the film revels and focuses on every last detail which will turn off even some hardcore fans of the series but not so much for the graphic nature, but rather because they simply last too long. I actually witnessed people in the audience get bored while watching some of these kills and that's how you know they're just too prolonged and pointlessly grotesque.

'Halloween II' is a small step in the right direction after a so-so remake/prequel but I think the film was simply doomed from the start. People were not looking forward to this one back in 2009 and even today I don't know anyone that shows it much love. I fully understand what Rob Zombie wanted with this film, but it's just not for me personally.

2.5/5

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007)

Rob Zombie's music is enjoyable for me personally, but even from the start his movies have been rather hit or miss. I personally enjoy 'House of 1000 Corpses' more than others but it's not hard to see how flawed it is. 'The Devil's Rejects' is still to date his best film and shows his strong eye for a unique visual look and even though the dialogue can be crude, the characters are more developed here and the film just works. Zombie has shown great love for John Carpenter's 'Halloween' through various interviews and even in his music, so it was safe to assume that during the hype for 2007's remake most people were excited. Then the film came out, and what started as a strongly divisive film has somewhat been given a little more hate than warranted. Don't get me wrong, it's not a great film, and far from being a great remake but aspects of the film do work and the film's visuals are pure Zombie which are at least interesting.

The worst part of 2007's 'Halloween' is actually not the remake aspect, but rather the first 40 minutes that act as a sort of prequel which was the original intention for the film as I understand. This prequel section attempts to show why young Michael Myers ended up stabbing his sister on Halloween night and it's the laziest way to tell a serial killer origin story. His family is stereotypical trailer trash that are vile and whorish and they can't speak a single sentence without dropping at least four F-bombs. The film gets even worse once Michael is committed because now we have abusive nurses and orderlies that rape their patients. All these characters severely undermine Michael because everyone is evil or messed up and they all make Michael seem like the least violent character in his own movie. When the film kicks into the second half when it begins to remake the Carpenter film it starts to salvage itself a little. Annie and Lynda are still obnoxious and slutty, but now so is Laurie, being way to over the top and hyperactive with Scott Taylor Compton's performance.

Thankfully, I did enjoy Malcolm McDowell's Dr. Loomis and gives his own performance while still honoring Donald Pleasance's portrayal. I also enjoyed seeing Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett as he always fully commits making these two the best characters in the film but sadly they're not in it as much. Tyler Mane is okay as Michael Myers. He does what is needed of him but his height and overall bulkiness really takes away his creepiness rather than increasing it. Michael was just a man of normal build but with no personality or seemingly any emotion or soul within him, hence why he's called The Shape. Making him a giant and giving him an over-stylized look doesn't work and it's strange that Zombie chose such a drastic look for him. Tyler Bates's score is really dull here, sounding like every horror film during this time. The film also throws in some rock and pop songs, some from the original films like 'Mr. Sandman' but these are mostly odd and out of place choices such as Rush's 'Tom Sawyer' which is a good song, but being placed in a scene in which a man is crapping in a truck stop bathroom makes no damn sense.

As I stated before, Rob Zombie's films all have a good visual style to them and 'Halloween' is really no different. Granted, it's the least interesting as his other work going for that grimy fluorescent look that the 'SAW' franchise would adopt but here I think it works a little better. Zombie seems to be going for a grind house or 42nd street theater flick with lots of grime, blood, and sex and visually at least I think he got his idea across well. It's just a shame that he couldn't do a similar film, but without the 'Halloween' outline. It might have worked on its own at least in a way that'd be entertaining, but despite people's best attempts it's difficult to not compare the original with this one which makes these drastic changes stand out too much. Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' isn't as bad as I remembered, but it wasn't as good as I first thought when I went into the theater. It's definitely better than some of the previous sequels, especially 'Resurrection' but it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from other horror flicks during that time. It's simply okay and very forgettable compared to Zombie's other work.

2/5

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

'Halloween: Resurrection' is so lame and forced that it has to have one of the most overused subtitles of all time. It's the basic bitch of horror sequels and one that provides nothing but a bad time to both fans of the series and horror in general. The film immediately sets itself up for failure within the first five minutes and honestly it's simply stunning to see a film fall apart in such a short amount of time. Not only do they retcon the ending of 'H20' to give a reason why Michael returns here, but it also wants to piss off the audience so quickly they kill of Jamie Lee Curtis in the first five minutes. We then get the "privilege" of following some of the most inane cast of characters I've ever seen in a slasher film. They have no real personalities and even after finishing the film just a few hours ago, I cannot remember a single name. This group of obnoxious twits go to Myers' old home to film some generic reality show (redundant I know) when Michael comes home and slaughters them.

The biggest sin of 'Resurrection' is that it doesn't even attempt to be good, but rather the best example of a cinematic cash grab. Even with the problems I have with part 4, 5, & 6, they at least attempted to be movies. This is a hollow product for the gullible and that's it. 'Halloween: Resurrection' can't even make it's webcam gimmick work in any interesting way. It just cuts to shaky cam footage or what looks like slightly better security camera footage. It feels like even Michael doesn't want to be in his own movie, even choosing to wear the worst mask since the fourth film. People who talk to me about 'Resurrection' usually bring up Busta Rhymes within about five seconds of discussion so by now I'm sure most of you don't want to hear about it again. Frankly, I don't know what makes him stand out as a bad actor when the whole cast is bad. What I just can't fathom in my brain is how did director Rick Rosendthal, who directed 'Halloween II' managed to make this garbage? He has shown to know how to make a movie suspenseful and give the audience the scares and gore they want, so what went wrong here? Perhaps the screenplay, but that doesn't excuse why the film looks so generic. The cinematography is so poor that it just seems like the DP and Rick wanted to finish the film as quickly as possible so they could care less how it looked.

The music sucks too. It plays the 'Halloween' theme too often and the rest of the music is forgettable and bland. They also like to thrown in those stupid jump scare sting on the soundtrack to annoy me even further. This also has the most paltry death scenes of the entire franchise, with the main highlight being a decapitation that just looks like Michael knocked a mannequin's head off. Every single thing about 'Halloween: Resurrection' fails to excite or entertain the viewer. It has no suspense, no characters, and not even some cheap gore. It has nothing to offer to its core audience and hopefully will fade from history in time.

1/5

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

The 'Halloween' series was in dire need of a fix, with the past three entries being more disappointing than the next. While I wouldn't say 'H20' is still a home run when it comes to a proper sequel, it's thankfully much more entertaining and has some real tension and of course the return of Jamie Lee Curtis. The film was their first attempt at retconning, as they're currently doing with the upcoming 11th entry by ignoring the Jamie Lloyd story and setting the film 20 years after the events of 'Halloween II' where Laurie Strode has changed her name to Keri Tate and is the headmaster of a California boarding school. Michael Myers is still haunting her after so many years, and she lives in fear for both her and her son John (Josh Hartnett) expecting him to return for revenge on his sister. The rest of the story is really dull, and is what keeps 'H20' from achieving greatness with the film taking too many cues from 'Scream' and 'Scream 2'. It was touched up by Kevin Williamson who wrote those films, but he seemed to leave the good dialogue and tension for those films and not this one.

The film has too many jump scares, in fact that's the only scare it has in its hat. They happen far too often and with annoying music stings. The original film and good horror films in general have build up to these jump scenes but also have mood, atmosphere, tension, and general dread. 'H20' only attempts this in the last 20 minutes of the film, but boy are those 20 minutes great. Whatever problems I may have, once Jamie Lee locks the gates and pulls out that fire axe to fight Michael and that theme song swells, I don't know but it just washes all my problems away and I always enjoy the finale of this film. I don't ignore the film's problems, but it also doesn't take away the third act's fun, genuine horror, and what must have been one of the few movies to do so at the time having Laurie be one step ahead and know that Michael will get up again and takes matters into her own hands to ensure he doesn't. 'H20' also has one of the best horror movie endings of all time and one that I can only imagine how shocking and surprised it was at back in 1998. It's too bad the next entry would completely destroy it's impact and it's awesomeness if one were to watch it immediately after as I had to for these reviews.

Other negatives I have may just be nitpicks but I don't like how this film looks. It looks like every Dimension Films production at the time, and even 'Scream' had this look and yes even then it doesn't appeal to me. I feel the biggest problem with 'Halloween H20' is that it just blends in with other teen slashers at the time such as  'Scream', 'Urban Legend', and 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'. They should have only focused on Laurie's story, which thankfully they seem to be doing with the new film. The teens in this story other than John are nameless and generic bodies for Michael to kill and even John himself is a poorly written character. He just complains and moans the whole film, and then he's injured and sent away in the last act. He's useless. This film is Jamie Lee Curtis' and no one else. 'Halloween H20' is an improvement on parts 4-6, but its also your usual 90's slasher fluff. The film tries too hard to be like the imitators rather than a genuine 'Halloween' film. Thankfully, Jamie Lee Curtis saves the film to a certain agree and it's still worth a look if you weren't fans of the previous sequels. If only they stopped with this one...

3/5

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (Theatrical/Producers Cut) (1995)

Six years after the cliffhanger ending of 'Halloween 5' we have one of the biggest letdowns in the series. Granted, I wouldn't say that I went in with high expectations or any at all for that matter, but they topped themselves with this one because 'The Curse of Michael Myers', regardless of the version you view is a mess. We'll start with the Theatrical cut of the film which for those uninformed was drastically changed at the last minute and gets rid of several scenes, changes plot points, along with some editing and sound tweaks here and there. This cut is the one most people will tell you to avoid, even the most hardcore fan of 'Halloween' tends to avoid this cut now that they have the option. The biggest differences here are a lack of the Dr. Loomis character, which was mostly cut from the film because of a test screening of 14 year old boys who thought Donald Pleasance was boring (and hopefully someone smacked those kids across their heads after). The other major change is the backstory for Michael and why he kills. Both cuts explain that he is commanded by an ancient cult known as Thorn, but in the theatrical cut we get a lot less backstory leaving many plot holes and inconsistencies in the script.

The theatrical cut does have the addition of some better kill scenes, one in particular involving a head explosion but this does little to excite and quickly fades from memory. So as far as the theatrical cut goes, it's a pretty bad final product with noticeable trimming and over the top editing that made me feel like I was going to have a seizure. The film's finale is where the biggest problems are introduced and we're left with an abrupt and rushed final fight with Michael and then the film ends with an open ending that explains nothing. If it weren't for the ever-present Donald Pleasance in what would sadly be his final entry in the series this movie would be completely unwatchable. It's the slowest hour and a half I sat through and if it wasn't for Busta Rhymes entering the picture (which we'll get to) this would easily be the worst film in the 'Halloween' franchise. Still, taking a silver medal isn't any better.

The producer's cut has some improvements here and there, but really I didn't really understand the hype with it. It's a better product sure, but it's hardly a good film either. It suffers from some of the same problems, such as weak dialogue, lack of Michael, and boring bland characters but also has the full Thorn storyline intact. This is the biggest pet peeve of mine when it comes to mysterious characters of any film genre, whether that be Michael Myers or The Joker and giving them motivations or backstories. We don't need to know why Myers does what he does, he's just evil as Dr. Loomis says and that's why he's called The Shape. Giving him all this backstory ruins the whole mythology and demystifies everything, like a magician telling you his secrets.

But the producer's cut is at least a coherent film. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It doesn't have the seizure inducing editing of the theatrical cut. It actually tries to be a good film, and above all it wasn't dictated by 14 year old boys who can't even see the film in the first place. But I personally don't care for either cut. One is a well made film with a poor script and the other is a badly made film with a poor script.

Theatrical Cut:

1/5

 Producer's Cut:

2/5

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

'Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers' is a rushed mess of a sequel, released only 1 year after the previous film. It once again stars young Danielle Harris as Jamie Lloyd, the niece of serial killer Michael Myers. After the events of the previous film, Jamie has been taken to a children's facility where she now seems to have a psychic link to her murderous uncle. It's a tired concept that just feels absurd, especially after what we saw at the climax of part 4. MINOR SPOILERS HERE: Jamie had seemingly been taken by the same evil force that drives Michael and she ended up stabbing her stepmother. 'Halloween 5' brushes this off and insults its audience by never following up on this ending. Instead, we have easily one of the worst slasher movies of the 80's with some of the most obnoxious and unlikable characters that are introduced only a few seconds in before you are begging for their deaths. I think the saddest thing about 'Halloween 5' however, is that Donald Pleasance and Danielle Harris are wonderful here. They give it their all, even if Harris doesn't get to speak for most of the film and Pleasance's Loomis is almost as crazy as Michael here, going very over the top with it.

Don Shanks' portrayal of Michael is a good one, and easily beats the previous film's performance by George Wilbur. The mask is also much more creepy this time thanks to KNB's excellent design. It's far superior to part 4's, which looked very cheap and ordinary but here you see the wear and tear and looks the closest to the original's when comparing the series up to this point. The effects team also provide some well made gore effects, even if they're all but excised thanks to the MPAA (Interesting Note: This is the only 'Halloween' film to have issues with the ratings board, despite the tame nature in comparison to other films of the time). I also will point out that even though the film is a crumbling structure, I do like that it seems to at least be attempting to be more intense and have genuine mood and atmosphere throughout. It has one of the more grim tones in the series, but the director quickly throws that away by focusing on the annoying teens and in particular these two bumbling policemen that even get this silly carnival music when they're around. Way to kill the mood jackasses.

'Halloween 5' is easily one of the worst in the franchise for me personally and as a whole, I don't enjoy the Jamie storyline all that much. I understand that 4, 5, & 6 do have their fans and it's nothing personal and I'm glad you can enjoy them more than I can but man are these three films a slog to sit through. Sorry Michael, but it doesn't get better from here for quite a while.

2/5

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Ten years later, after the events of 'Halloween' & 'Halloween II' we return to Haddonfield in 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers'. For those who are unaware, 'Halloween II' was to be the finale for the character of Michael Myers & Dr. Loomis. However in 1982, the first attempt at this new direction 'Halloween III: Season of the Witch' was received negatively upon it's initial release and so after so many years, the studio decided to resurrect Myers to please the fans. I won't deny that I'm a pretty hardcore 'Halloween' fan, but I got to be honest and admit that 'Halloween 4' just doesn't do much for me, and it gets less and less enjoyable each time I view it. It isn't really about what it lacks either, but rather what it keeps from the previous films and the result is a sequel that is so by the books and safe that if it weren't for the wonderful acting by Donald Pleasance and young Danielle Harris I don't think anyone would even remember 'Halloween 4' like they do today.

The film is the same story structure as the 1978 original: Michael escapes the institution, kills a mechanic for his suit, kills a dog, and is chasing after a Strode character. 'Halloween' may have been the film that started the whole slasher sub-genre, but part four is one of the most forgettable of that era due to these safe tactics by the production studio. As I said before, the film does offer a great performance by the young Harris who plays the role of Jamie, Laurie Strode's daughter. It's actually astounding that such a young child could play such a demanding role as Jamie this well. As always, we also have the pleasure of Donald Pleasance's Loomis character and he knows the role so well by now that he is flawless though admittedly a little over the top for some folks. The new characters all suck, most of them being the usual characters you'd find in an 80's slasher flick. The slutty Sheriff's daughter, the generic boyfriend that lacks a personality, and even though we have a final girl of sorts in Jamie's sister Rachel, Ellie Cornell isn't given that great of a character to work off of despite her being a good actress. Rachel complains or cries a lot and is just never given enough scenes to show her love for Jamie aside from the final act.

'Halloween 4' also can't seem to figure out what it wants to be at times, with some gory killings thrown in rather sloppily, as if they didn't know if they wanted to be like the original or try to be like the many imitators. The film's third act is the only real worthwhile part of the story, as most of the action is here but the beginning and middle is painfully slow for such a short running time. 'Halloween' was able to keep people's attention during these slower moments by giving us likeable characters, mood, atmosphere, and of course that great Carpenter score which part four sadly lacks on all levels. By far, the best scene in the movie for me is when Loomis meets a traveling preacher on his way back to Haddonfield. He and Loomis share a moment together, and Loomis sees himself in this raving man talking of Armageddon and the end of the world. You can see it in Donald Pleasance's face during this scene that people in town must think of him the same way and its a really deep moment for the character. It's such a shame that this is the only scene with any substance to it and the script is dull and lifeless. It's just a carbon copy of 78's 'Halloween' and contributes nothing of its own to stand out.

'Halloween 4' was given much fanfare and love from fans back when it first released, but time has not been kind to it. Aside from the two lead performances, there's nothing to see here that you wouldn't find done better in the original 'Halloween'. I know fans have a soft spot for this one, but I gotta be that guy and say I really do not enjoy 'The Return of Michael Myers'. It's a sad homecoming for an iconic horror monster.

2/5

Hardware (1990)

'Hardware' is a 1990 sci-fi horror film directed by Richard Stanley and stars Dylan McDermott as a salvager named Moses who discovers the remains of what seems to be an android and brings it home to his girlfriend Jill for her to use in her art piece. The parts turn out to be something much more sinister and becomes a sentient being that begins killing everything in sight and has trapped Jill in her apartment. I first heard of the film back when I was reading a magazine article about lost or underrated horror films with 'Hardware' as their number one pick. The film has a long history for sure, going from distributor to distributor and making it a very hard film to track down for years, especially if you were looking for the International (or uncut) version. But thanks to the folks at Ronin Flix (shameless plug) I finally got myself a copy of 'Hardware'. I watched it and...it's good, but I think its mysterious origins and the lack of availability has overhyped it just a bit.

The first thing I'd like to say about it is that for a film that only cost 700,00 UK Pounds (or 900,000 US Dollars) 'Hardware' has some of the best production design I've ever seen for a low budget genre picture. Right away the first shot of the film takes you into its world, a vast desert with red glaring sunlight as a mysterious man searches the vast wasteland. From then on we don't get too elaborate with the sets, as most of the film is set in Jill's apartment but it's clear that Stanley and crew did the best they could and used their imaginations and skills to make a believable world that immerses you. It's a good thing that the world of 'Hardware' is so interesting because the same can't be said for the story. For a film that frequently pops up on top rated lists of 90's horror and sci-fi, the film's plot is extremely thin even for the genre. The exposition in the first half hour or so gives you all the background and then the film falls into the usual tropes of over the top gore and jump scares.

The cast is a mixed bag in 'Hardware' and honestly I'm not sure who to root for here. The film sets up Moses as the hero and for the first half of the film is our main focus. Only when the M.A.R.K. 13 boots back up do we turn our focus to Jill and Mo's friend Shades and McDermott is quickly thrown aside.  It's a shame Richard Stanley wasn't able to explore more of this world due to his low budget and he did the best with what he had, giving us just enough information to follow the story and to be invested at least but I think 'Hardware' is long overdue for a sequel or at the very least another film set in this universe. The film's special effects are very impressive for a low budget flick and the director and crew used the right lighting and angles to make the android very convincing. Sure, there's some obvious reverse photography and the robotic prop doesn't have too much movement to it but it's still pretty freaky as hell to see in action, particularly during scenes in which it's trying to see Jill while she hides from its thermal vision.

Just a quick word on the film's score by Simon Boswell because it's a strange beast. For the most part, I feel it all fits well with the overall film and the opening piece is the standout track. However, in the third act there are moments that seem really out of place, throwing in loud choirs and what seems to be orchestral music when the rest of the score is more of a synth sound. It's an enjoyable film score, but not one you'd listen to by itself. Many viewers have told me they felt disappointment for 'Hardware' and some even saying it did nothing at all for them and I'd say I'm kinda on the line with it. It's not as great as the others said, but it's not a bad movie either instead it's a well made and perfectly competent film with some great ideas that were not fully realized due to the budget. I still would recommend at least a rental if you're at all interested in 'Hardware'. It's at the very least an interesting curiosity for genre fans.

3/5

Venom (2018)

The character of Venom was long due for his own film, especially after his less than stellar appearance in 2007's 'Spider-Man 3'. It's been a long time coming but finally this weekend we finally got one, but does it live up to all those expectations? Well, I suppose the best way to answer that is depending on what you're expecting from a film like 'Venom' so for me personally, I had a blast with this film. The film is currently getting beaten to death by critics, citing it as a 'turd in the wind' to quote the titular character and in reading many of my fellow critics' reviews, I really don't know what they were wanting out of this one. Is it silly? Yes. Does it have a little too much comedy? Probably. But I think this wave of negative attention has come from the fact that 'Venom' just came out at the wrong time.

'Venom' feels like a pre-MCU superhero movie and for many people, that's apparently a bad thing. It seems we now take these Marvel and DC films a little too seriously and act like even the best of them such as 'Avengers' is something that's Oscar worthy or something. These are movies meant to entertain and to give viewers some good action, humor, and fun which is exactly what 'Venom' delivers, though admittedly not as well as those other films. It's not like the movie is bulletproof or anything as noticeable scenes are missing, likely due to the rating change and the story goes from one subplot to another like a pinball. A fun little note but the first act is almost beat for beat like 1994's 'The Mask' which many will see as cliche and boring, but I found it amusing and it gives us enough detail into Eddie Brock's character, even if you aren't aware of the character's backstory in the comics.

What I love the most about 'Venom' is...well Venom. Tom Hardy provides the voice of the symbiote creature as well as playing Eddie and as such is essentially talking to himself the entire film. It's actually a pretty amazing achievement to have chemistry with yourself but Hardy is great and pulls it off perfectly. The humor is more frequent than I feel was originally intended, but it kept me entertained and I laughed out loud more than once. I also loved Michelle Williams and while I feel she was meant to have much more screen time, I love that she is never in need of rescue nor is she the stereotypical girlfriend character. For a film that gets so much negativity for being too old school this was a good change without feeling forced or PC in its addition.

The biggest negatives of 'Venom' comes down to two things: the villain, Carlton Drake and the noticeable and choppy edits throughout. Carlton Drake is one of the worst comic book movie villains I've ever seen. Riz Ahmed is a great actor and I have nothing against the guy, but he just feels completely miscast here. He's not imposing, he's very cliche dialogue isn't helped by Ahmed's rather soft voice, and once we're at the final fight between him and Eddie it's over rather quick for such a big buildup. The film also has chunks that are noticeably missing throughout, and subplots are either resolved really quickly, or are just left alone for long periods of time killing the pace. Whether these many edits (Hardy was quoted as saying nearly 40 minutes worth) were in order to get the film a PG-13 rating or just for time, I think we're in need of a director's cut badly in this case.

So that's 'Venom' and I am as surprised as you may be to say that I actually enjoyed it. It's far from perfect but 30% on Rotten Tomatoes? 'A Turd in the Wind'? Hardly. Check out 'Venom' for yourselves and just have fun with it. It's a good way to spend a Saturday afternoon with a popcorn in one hand, a drink in another, and a group of friends and just turn your brain off.

3/5

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Day 3 of our Halloween marathon brings another William Castle remake, though one that gets a little more of a mixed opinion. '13 Ghosts' like 'House on Haunted Hill' only uses the very basics of the original's storyline, that of a man who inherits a mysterious house haunted by ghosts, and fills in the blanks with original material. While I don't think it succeeded in crafting something 'good', but I gotta admit that this is quite the guilty pleasure film for me and one that's great to watch on Halloween. Despite the film's modern mechanics and cutting edge (at the time) special effects, '13 Ghosts' does manage to keep that old time, Gothic feeling that horror films of old showcased and unlike 'House on Haunted Hill', this one tries to take a slightly more serious approach (for the most part, but we'll get there in a bit).

The cast is serviceable with Tony Shalhub bringing the best performance he can given the silly material. He's a likeable character thanks to Shalhub and his more serious and grounded personality helps keep the film from completely falling off the rails. The other stand out is Matthew Lillard but for the opposite reasons. He's a little too over the top with his performance, giving the film far too many lame attempts at humor throughout. Also Shannon Elizabeth is in it...yep she's about the same as she always is. The biggest star in the film is F. Murray Abraham but he is really phoning it in and doesn't play a very interesting or memorable villain.

Where the film excels most is in its visual effects and production design and really made it stand out back in 2001. The house is completely ridiculous and doesn't make any sense, but it's a great setting and is used in one of the best death scenes in a horror movie. It's simply a unique setting that I've never seen in a movie since, which is likely considered a good thing to most folks but I like these bat shit insane horror settings. The titular ghosts are also each unique and one is never similar to another. It's some of the best makeup and practical effects of the millennium era of horror and if you take anything away from '13 Ghosts' it's going to be them.

The movie is kind of lacking some real bite however, despite the film obviously going for a harder tone and look. It's pretty lacking in gore for the era as well and the ghosts despite their cool designs and creepy presence don't seem to really get a lot of time to attack and haunt our protagonists. The villain's ultimate goal is really convoluted and paper thin and like our ghosts barely makes an appearance. So sadly we're left with Tony Shalhub trying to do his best while Matthew Lillard hams it up and when you're less subtle than Chris Kattan that's something.

So why am I recommending '13 Ghosts' despite these big issues? Well like I previously mentioned it's got a great atmosphere for Halloween and while not my first choice, it's definitely one I'd put on my marathon list every year. If you go into it with the mindset of just having fun or even just to have something spooky in the background of your Halloween get together I'm sure you'll have some fun with it.

3/5

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

'House on Haunted Hill' was directed by William Malone (Creature) and stars Ali Larter (Final Destination), Geoffery Rush (The King's Speech), and Famke Janssen (X-Men) and is a remake of the classic Vincent Price film from B-Movie director William Castle. The remake follows the basic story of a group of strangers that are invited to a mansion with a cash reward to those who stay all night, but unlike the original the hauntings are quite real. The film has a great cast, especially for a horror film in the 90's. Rather than going for the latest television stars like 'Scream' and its many knockoffs did during that period, it seems like Malone went for whoever he felt was right for the part and it really knocks the film up a few pegs, with the biggest praise going to Rush's performance. He plays it up so well, channeling Vincent Price perfectly and by far is the best thing about the movie. Ali Larter is always great to see as well and she provides her usual charms here, and Janssen plays the bitchy wife trope well and I love the scenes between her and Geoffery the most.

Sadly, the rest of the cast is merely fodder but I will say that while I don't enjoy former SNL player Chris Kattan in most films, he gets a little too much hate here. I at least remember his character and he does provide some comic relief that gave me a few chuckles. For being the two front runners on the film's poster and marketing pictures (seen above) Taye Diggs & Bridgette Wilson are so forgettable here and one character that's important to the plot isn't even on the poster, but hey that's more a nitpick so let's move on. I think it was best to make the ghosts real in this one rather than an elaborate plot from Price, and they even give the film a good backstory for the hauntings with a fun cameo from horror legend Jeffery Combs. The film also has a great look to it, fitting the psychedelic and stylized horror sequences along with a strong Gothic feel that was sorely missing in 90s horror films. The biggest issue with 'House on Haunted Hill' however is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to do at times. One minute, you have the eerie visuals and dread and then the next, the film goes for a more traditional gore and jump scare route ruining the tension building.

The film also has far too many subplots, with the 1959 original's mixed with the modern ghost story leading to confusion and eventually the film just strays too far away until the final act. The final act suffers too, whether because of these other issues or not it feels really rushed and the big bad ghost of the film is one of the worst looking monsters I've seen in any horror film. It's a CGI blob that I guess is supposed to be an inkblot test on acid, but it's super weak to go through a mostly solid horror film only for the villain to deflate it in the last five minutes. Despite my issues however, I do still recommend 'House on Haunted Hill' if you're looking for something to add to your Halloween viewing list. It's a fun and cheesy horror flick with a classic feel to it that keeps you entertained even with a weak third act and somewhat bloated running time. If you need something new to see this Halloween, check it out.

4/5

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

After 'Halloween II', the series was meant to be finished with Michael Myers and Laurie Strode. Director John Carpenter and Debra Hill were then tasked with continuing the series and they decided to go with a different story for each sequel, each set around the holiday. Most of you already know this story, as well as the end result when the film released in 1982 and didn't resonate well with the horror fans of the time. It's almost become a hipster movement of sorts to say that you now enjoy 'Halloween III' and yes, I myself do enjoy it but you'd think it was the best sequel the way I've heard it from some reviewers nowadays. For those who have skipped this one, the basic plot is this: an evil mask maker hopes to sacrifice children on Halloween night by rigging the masks with a magical stone that activates when they watch a specific commercial. A doctor stumbles upon the sinister plot and with the daughter of one of the factory's former workers, they hope to stop it before its too late.

The story is the best part of the film and is very unique even today and for an 80s horror film, it has many deep layers that has likely been the reason behind why many have now been giving the film a second chance. Themes of commercialism, issues of free will, and over consumption of television as children really elevates 'Halloween III' above your average horror flick and thankfully doesn't beat you over the head with it. The acting is about what you'd expect here, but is above average with the stand out being the villainous Conal Cochran played brilliantly by Dan O'Herlihy who many of you may know from 'Robocop'. He gives the role the perfect blend of cheese and over the top acting required of such a character, but at the same time his monologue about the origins of Halloween is really chilling and sticks with you as one of the film's best moments.

The film is also shot very well and has Dean Cundey returning for his final 'Halloween' film. He gives the film the dark and sinister feel it needs, however I don't get that holiday feeling as I did with the previous two films, aside from the final act where we get some nice sunset shots as children in costume travel for their treats. I only wish this look was the whole film. The score also sees John Carpenter return for his final composition until 2018's reboot film. Instead of a horror theme, he seems to go for more of a science fiction sound, all synth of course. It still feels appropriate for this film though it's far from my favorite piece of Carpenter's.

'Halloween III' is far from perfect however, with small cracks in its foundation that keeps it from being better. I just want to get this out of the way first because I'm sure people are sick of hearing it, but yes the film's title 'Halloween III' does not work with it due to it's connection to the Michael Myers films. Had Universal and Carpenter been more obvious and clear with their intentions, it may not have been as poorly received. Time has made the film out to be a big flop due to this poor marketing and while I agree they didn't approach this correctly, the film's failure has been blown out of proportion. I also really dislike the young actress in the film as it's not only uncomfortable and unrealistic that she instantly gets together and sleeps with Tom Atkins' character (which also happened in Carpenter's 'The Fog' for some reason) but she brings nothing to the story other than to give Atkins a motivation to continue the story. The film also doesn't play with the supernatural and technology elements quite enough. I would have liked to see or hear more about those aspects of the story as they're the most interesting. I just feel that I'm missing some pieces in the story here and there but you get enough to enjoy the story at least.

'Halloween III' gets way too much hate, but also way too much love. It's a good 80's horror flick that doesn't quite work in places, but 'The worst movie ever'?, 'Most underrated horror film ever'? Hardly, but check it out if you've yet to see it, or go back and give it another chance to see if you experience it differently. And remember: 30 more days till Halloween...Silver Shamrock!

3.5/5