You know, the term 'classic film' is thrown around a hell of a lot.  There's a great deal of times where it is simply not justified.  People jumping the gun the second a film is released, and saying it's one of the all time greats.  Let's see how it endures after 10, 20, or even 30 years.  Directors also get this treatment.  For example, Rob Zombie.  The man, in my brutally honest opinion, has yet to make a decently watchable film, but so many people hail him as some messiah because he makes dirty, ugly films.  It takes more than simple visual style to make you a good, let alone great director.  So, if you ask me who my favorite genre director is, who I feel has had the best run of things with the most diverse body of work?  I would say John Carpenter. The Thing, Prince of Darkness, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, In The Mouth of Madness, Vampires, Escape From New York.... all favorite films of mine.  He demonstrates a brilliance in everything he does - writing, directing, producing, and music composition.  When it comes to Halloween, there's nothing quite like it.  Every other slasher film in the world goes straight for the gore.  After the years and decades have passed, filmmakers seem to have lost sight of what is truly scary in horror.  It's not shock gore, cheap sjump cares, or splatter films with ten thousand gallons of blood.  Taking the time to adequately build up an atmosphere of tension and suspense seems to become a dying art among the mainstream horror filmmakers.  I'm not going to turn this into a comparison to other films, I'm going to tell you exactly why this film has remained a justifiable and certified classic for over 30 years.

If you aren't familiar with the film's plot, I'll give you a lean and mean version.  Michael Myers, fifteen years ago, murdered his sister on Halloween night.  Afterwards, he was put into a psychiatric sanitarium, overseen by Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance), but on October 30th, 1978, he escapes back to his hometown of Haddonfield.  Come Halloween, he is stalking a group of teenage girls for reasons unknown.  Among these is Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), a sweet, caring, and decent girl.  Loomis himself is in pursuit, fearing for what might indeed happen with Michael loose.  After fifteen years of treating the young man, Loomis is convinced he is purely and simply evil.  Someone without conscience, compassion, humanity, or any grasp of good or bad, right or wrong.  In clincal terms, a sociopath.  Donning a pale white mask of blank expression, Michael proceeds to methodically kill people throughout Halloween night.  Can the evil be stopped before too long?

You talk about film direction?  This should be shown to every aspiring filmmaker.  Even if they are not interested in the horror genre, this film gets everything right.  Music, cinematography, staging, acting, tone, pacing, editing....the list goes on.  Certainly the most impressive and crucial technical element is Dean Cundey's high caliber artistry as the film's Director fo Photography.  Before Halloween, I don't think any film had been shot in this fashion.  The beautiful, genius composition is the main element which crafts the horror so effectively.  You could take a still from about every scene, and you'd have something special and effective.  The composition creates striking images that serve the tension and terror.  How Michael seems to materialize out of the darkness just before slashing Laurie around the 76 minute mark is beyond known words to describe that brilliance.  Don't forget all the steadicam work.  Very impressive for a film of this scale, and it adds so much to the production values.  Even these days, the lower cost ones will cost you around two grand, and back in'77, they were brand new technology.  How shots glide from one place to the next, in and out of rooms, panning every so smoothly around the action - it is masterful.  Where now, everyone's gotta shake the camera so much, it makes you puke, it is a breath of fresh air to see filmmakers shooting a film like this.  Slow reveals, shots pushing in, pulling out, and oh lord....the gorgeous lighting.  Lighting creates atmosphere.  Subtle fills and key light.  Patterns across the walls and ceilings.  It helps to direct the eye, and envelope you within a certain mood.  Dean Cundey is a masterful cinematographer, and continues to showcase his artistry to this day.  He would also work on Carpenter's The Fog, Escape From New York, The Thing, & Big Trouble in Little China.

While most might not take conscious note of Cundey's work, everyone knows the value of Carpenter's score.  His themes have become legendary and iconic.  No other film in the entire franchise has a score this prominent or effective.  It drives so much of the film, creating a taut, nerve-racking strain of suspense.  There is one theme that I call the "Stalking Theme" because that's when you hear it.  Michael begins to stalk Laurie through the Waalace house, across the street, and all throughout the Doyle home.  This is a relentless theme which accurately and powerfully reflects the intentions of The Shape.  I continue to firmly stand by my belief that Nick Castle was the absolute best Michael Myers.  While the direction and camera work make the Shape truly effective, making Myers appear to move like a ghost - appearing and disappearing in a heartbeat - I want to specifically address Castle's performance.  Where later Michaels were more thoroughly rigid and mechanical in their movements, Castle brought a fluidity to The Shape.  He moves like a man, reacts like a man, but has a quality which is simply unsettling.  He's creepy.  He feels like a realistic homicidal maniac, but with a clear, calculating intelligence allowing him to stalk and kill at the most opportunistic moment.  He's not just running around like a nutcase, screaming and wildly slashing up people.  He's conscious of his actions, and acts deliberately.  In addition, Castle injects a violent intensity to the role.  He is relentless, and continues to come back with increased violent ferocity.  It can tend to seem like he needs to kill Laurie, that he is compelled to make sure she dies.  Compare how he strangles Laurie at the end to any other time Michael chokes someone later in the franchise.  In those later instances, it's very cold and empty.  Here, there's an apparent rage that cannot be satiated.  Some twisted, unwavering obsession at work, it would seem.  Michael actively and endlessly pursues Laurie.  He is the living embodiment of death.  He is inevitable and unstoppable.  And yes, this specific mask adds so much that subsequent ones lack - it has very human features, but clearly, they are fabricated.  He appears to have human features, but what he appears to be is not what he really is.

Speaking of performances, you would be hard presed to find a substandard one here.  Everyone fits their role just right, slipping into it like a finely crafted glove.  Jamie Lee's acting really shows what she was at the time - fresh, young, and eager.  I would take her performance in this film over what she offered in Halloween H20.  She showed genuine vulnerability, compassion, and emotional innocence here.  The performances throughout this film just feel authentic, believable, and tangible.  No one feels out of place or over the top.  Everything is very grounded and honest.  Charles Cyphers holds his ground as Sheriff Leigh Brackett, offering up a very real perspective against Dr. Loomis' "fancy talk" about pure evil.  You could see any small town Sheriff thinking and saying the same thing in reaction to such claims.  All of the ladies really bring energy and life to their roles.  The youthful enthusiasm, again, feels purely authentic.  Makes a lot of the "teenage" performances of today seem flat and cliché.

As I say in reviews for the sequels, Donald Pleasence is the glue that binds the film together, and provides it with a weight and urgency it needs.  His performance in this first film is more low key than his incensed sequel appearances.  You can see Loomis' fear surfacing as he speaks about his escaped patient.  Michael frightens him down to his core, and it is his own fear which motivates him.  He knows the hollow, emotionless, indifferent monster that Myers is, and cannot bare the thought of what will happen now that he's loose.  I believe, in the sequels, it drives him rather mad.  His obsession is enhanced by the volume of bloodshed spilled by Michael, and is why he becomes so deadset and crazed later on.  Pleasance demonstrates a real brilliance in this role.  The dread and fear in his voice gives every last one of his words credibility which is so crucial to building up Michael to being more than just a mentally ill murderer.  He is the boogeyman, a presence, an indominable, elemental force that cannot be reasoned with or destroyed.  The final look that Loomis gives, which came from Donald's own brilliance, conveys to the audience, "I knew this would happen."  It does not shock him, only frighten him further.  What he has believed all these years has been proven true - you cannot kill pure evil.

It is refreshing to watch the original film after weeding through the sequels.  John Carpenter's Halloween is like a revelation, and reminds me how none of the sequels measure up.  It was never simply one element that made this film so great - it was every element.  The cinematography is worthy of awards alongside the direction and music.  The acting is, mostly, understated and firmly based in reality.  Characters like Loomis and Brackett keeping cool heads instead of either going way off the deep end, or being complete bafoons.  This film is an undeniable and justifiable classic.  I can't say it's the most frightening film I've ever seen, that honor goes to The Exorcist (which I still can't pull myself to watch again), but this film will keep you rattled and unnerved to significant degrees.  While, I'm sure, there are minor technical gaffes here and there, it's nothing that you will pick up in a casual viewing.  No film is perfect in all aspects, absolutely, but what this is is an excellent piece of cinema that should continue to endure for all time.  There is no reason not to give this a full ten out of ten rating.

This film, like the original, is written by Debra Hill and John Carpenter, and it shows. Though the film is gore filled and quality lacking, it’s still a respectable follow-up. 

Nick Michalak here to present to you a review of the mixed bag that is "HalloweeN III".  Most say it's the bane of the series, but personally, for me, it's "H20".  I mostly agree with Joe's review of it here on this page (though, I'd give it even LESS stars than he did), and so, let's get on with this "Season of the Witch" review.

John Carpenter wanted to leave Michael Myers to ashes and push on into a new endeavour.  He wanted to make a new series of Halloween-related films, but cohesively, would have no connection to one another.  Simply put, individual & separate stories centering around the ghoulish holiday.  This would be Carpenter's first AND last attempt at that idea.  The non-sequel was panned by critics & fans alike, and there is true reason to that.  But, before I go further, let's layout the plot first.

Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) is a physician at a northern California hospital.  One October night, a man named Harry Cambridge is carted into the emergency room in hysterics.  Grasping a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask and screaming "They're going to kill us all".  Naturally, he seems to have lost his sanity, but when Harry is murdered in his hospital bed later that night by a mysterious man (Dick Warlock) who shortly thereafter enters into a car & blows himself sky high, Dr. Challis becomes very curious as to Harry's claims.  His interest is furthered when Harry's daughter, Ellie, tells Challis what drove her father into hysterics.  Harry Cambridge was investigating the origins of the Silver Shamrock masks, and to why no orders were being taken for the following year.  Daniel & Ellie trek to Santa Mira (the home of the Silver Shamrock Company) to find the answers they seek.  They are horrified when they discover that the company owner, Conal Cochrane (Dan O'Herlihy), has implanted microchips, partially made from mysterious Stonehenge rocks, into the masks, and when the Silver Shamrock commercial plays with its special jingle, it will kill countless numbers of children across the country in a horrific manner.  As the night goes on, time draws short, and Daniel Challis must attempt to thrawt Cochrane's evil, sinister, dreadful plan.  Through relentless android assassins (who all look like Dick Warlock), a treacherous factory, and more, Dr. Challis desparately races against time to stop this living nightmare from happening.

This film is good, but not great.  Points & counterpoints.  It has a tense & suspenseful story that plays out with some shocking visuals & lots of android gore (they ooze yellow fluid).  Though, the score by Carpenter & Alan Howarth isn't one to remember, and the endless & prominent usage of the Silver Shamrock jingle is more annoying than any commercial you may ever encounter.  Director Tommy Lee Wallace doesn't have much personal style, and certainly makes the visuals feel very dull.  Also, several of the sets & props seem budget-starved. and the $2.5 million budget re-enforces that statement.  If the film had double that budget, perhaps such things would've looked better.  Though, it wouldn't have saved the film.

Now, Tom Atkins puts in a strong, well-rounded performance here.  He shows the desparation of Challis well, and even more so, the intense fear at the film's finale.  It's a good performance, but at times, you may feel as though he's out-of-place here.  I don't know, it's difficult to explain.  Maybe it's just his physical stature which makes him appear uncomfortable in certain scenes.  Also, Dan O'Herlihy does a decent job as the insidious & sadistic Cochrane, but it's not a great performance.  Granted, he's convincingly evil, but barely more than that.  We are given a preview of Cochrane's intended fate for the youth of the country, and it is truly shocking and horrifying.  Unfortunately, that alone doesn't amplify the character of Cochrane.  He needed to be more devilish, more demonic, more purely evil, but O'Herlihy's performance does not reflect that.  His motives are horrific, but the man himself acts exceptionally casual.  He doesn't exude any emotion at all - no anger, no contempt, no vindictiveness.  It's a rather dry performance.

So, in the end, we are left with an intensly fearful cliffhanger as Challis screams at the television station over the phone to shut off the final commercial.  Thrilling & suspenseful finale, and it should stick with you for sometime.  So, what we have is that mixed bag.  The story worked, and the film had it's frightening & thrilling moments, but the production faultered.  Tommy Lee Wallace isn't much of a visionary director, the score was truly subpar for both Carpenter & Howarth (who would do great scores for the next three "HalloweeN" films), and perhaps, this film was done at the wrong time.  If it had been made a decade later, they'd have a bigger budget with better effects, and a higher production quality.  But, as this film is, the quality is low & the effects are quite poor.  So, it's a toss-up.  It's a decent watch, but most any other "HalloweeN" film would be more worth your time.

Halloween 4 is probably the one sequel which most closely matches the original.  I would attribute this to a few factors.  The most significant, maybe, is that it was before each new film tried to introduce some new twist to the story.  Some new element to either explain The Shape, or just utilize a gimmick to sell the film as something worth seeing.  It stays closer to the spirit of John Carpenter's original film, focusing on a simple stalk-and-slash idea coupled with relatable characters.

The film picks up ten years after the events of the first and second film.  Despite developments in later, contradictory sequels, Jamie Lee Curtis' character of Laurie Strode died in a car accident, leaving behind a daughter - Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris).  She is taken in by another family, and raised alongside their older daughter Rachel Carruthers (Ellie Cornell).  Meanwhile, Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) has been in a comatose state, and Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) remains persistent in his belief that Myers is indeed evil incarnate.  As Halloween approaches, The Shape stays dormant no longer, and Loomis must take chase of him before he claims new victims.  It is clear to the obsessed doctor that Jamie is to be his ultimate target, but it will be a Halloween night caked in blood before the horror is over.

After the fallout from the unsuccessful Halloween III, Moustapha Akkad wanted to bring back Michael Myers to revitalize the franchise.  After all, it was about his only meal ticket.  Thankfully, this was a solid sequel.  Nothing that tried to shake up the idea of the franchise, just inject new life into it, and be as faithful to the style and vibe of the original.  Dwight H. LIttle directs, and does a fine job at it.  It's very difficult to rival Carpenter's film, but Halloween 4 doesn't try to be superior.  It only tries to be a respectful continuation, and it does succeed.  Little focuses more on atmosphere and suspense than gore.  While there is a decent amount of it, it's not obscene.  It's enough to give the film the needed deadly horror aspect, but stays away from being a splatter fest.  There's a constant tension through the main meat of the film, little tinges here and there to keep the momentum going.  This allows the film to flow at a decent pace; not allowing it to grind to a halt anywhere, or get wound up too soon.  Alan Howarth's score also helps to keep a strong connection with the first film.  The themes are slightly rearranged, but are more similar to those of the first film than the overly-synthesizer themes of Halloween II.

The cast and acting of The Return of Michael Myers is indeed solid.  Everyone holds their own weight, and convey a realistic array of emotions.  The young Danielle Harris really stands out.  Where a lot of young actors tend to come off as annoying or phony, she showcases such wonderful innocence and vulnerability.  An audience can't help but truly care for her, to fear for her, and feel sorry for her.  Donald Pleasance, as always, is excellent.  He continued to bring a real credibility and dramatic weight to the series.  Some actors, if delivering a lot of the dialogue he had to, might come off as ingenuine or laughable.  With Pleasance, he had the talent to make you believe every word.  He gave it all the urgency and consequence of the grave.  The emotion in his eyes, the fear and the pain, transcend through the screen, and hit you deep within.  And while I stand firm in that Nick Castle was the best Myers, George Wilbur does an admirable job, but he doesn't get much chance to show his movement.  He tends to more just appear out of nowhere, figuratively, than stalk people over long distances.  Though, he does seem less stiff than Dick Warlock's intrepretation (which I'm not very fond of; I prefer a more fluid Shape).  The rest of the cast, as I said, hold their own very well, creating a solid and realistic community of characters that you don't second guess their authenticity.  This is also due to Alan McElroy's solid screenplay.  Writing intelligent characters with depth who don't fall into the slasher film formula.  The make the choices that any one of us would in those situations.  When you would run away, they run away.  They don't make stupid decisions or take foolish courses of action.  They may act, sometimes, out of desperation making not the best choices, but there is a realistic motive behind them.  Amazingly, he wrote this script in eleven days, just before the writer's strike of 1987 began.  Take from me, a screenwriter myself, that's not easy to do.

Again, I feel this is a very worthwhile sequel.  It does more to honor John Carpenter's original film more than any other sequel (or remake) in the franchise.  It retains a similar look and cinematography, despite the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and really stays true to Carpenter's story and form of suspense.  While John might not agree considering his feelings on the franchise, from a fan's point of view, I feel it is respectful.  After this, the films began to become either more bizarre, watered down, or just plain cheesy.  Overall, I believe this entry in the series is about as appropriate and proper as you could get.  I've never cared for Halloween II, feeling it suffered from seemingly lower production values, a badly reworked score, thinner characters, and less-than-inspiring direction.  So, with that mindset, Halloween 4 comes off as the better sequel, and the one I would've bettered expected to follow the 1978 film.  It's not as intensely haunting or fascinating as John Carpenter's Halloween, but I believe it was more of a step in the right direction than anything before or after it.

Another sequel, released approximately one year later.  Clearly, it was a rushed production, and the pitfalls of that are blatantly obvious throughout the film.  It's not a pure failure, but the volume of problems and bad ideas are impossible to ignore.  Director & co-writer Dominique Othenin-Girard is probably responsible for many of them.  His résumé consists mostly of French films, but he was also responsible for the generally panned and dismissed Owen IV tele-movie.  The films' other two screenwriters, Michael Jacobs and Shem Bitterman, have nothing else of note on their filmographies.  If this film is any indication of their talent, it seems to make sense.

One year after the events of Halloween 4, things are not as expected or hoped for.  Jamie Lloyd is merely locked up in a children's psychiatric hospital, acting weird, but not homicidal in anyway.  Michael Myers, ultimately, is still alive, and has been laying dormant in the company of a derelict by the river.  With the coming of Halloween, he rises once again, and starts on his killing spree towards Jamie all over again.  This time, Jamie has some psychic link with him, able to see what he sees, and generally know where he is.  Of course, most everyone doesn't believe her wild claims, believing she is indeed insane, and ultimately, allows for many more to die because of it.  Dr. Loomis, as usual, is there to head up the endless fight against The Shape (here portrayed by Don Shanks).  Meanwhile, a mysterious man in black makes his way into Haddonfield for unknown reasons, and for ones that the filmmakers would change their minds about six years later.

I have to say, first off, that this film suffers mostly from an under-developed script.  Where Alan McElroy put together a rather intelligent script for Halloween 5, the three screenwriters on this film did everything possible to make it stupid and stunted.  From the pair of lame, dumbass cops to the annoying character of Tina to most any other new characters, it's a real chore to consider anyone likable here.  Aside from the returning cast of Harris, Pleasance, Cornell, and Starr, the acting is rather poor and irritating, at times.  Don Shanks' Shape doesn't really stand out.  There's not much for him to really work with, and the mask he's saddled with is terrible.  Granted, it follows within the continuity that this film establishes, but they weren't forced to make it dirty and ugly.  Not saying Michael should be pretty, but any fan can clearly understand what it is I mean.

The direction that Othenin-Girard takes the film is very gothic in visual style.  Everything appears grittier, dirtier, and more grim.  Though, the most horrendous and objectionable change is that of the Myers' house - which bares zero resemblance to any other Myers' house throughout the series, before or after.  Obviously, continuity wasn't a real concern for Dominique.  I will give him credit where the film's tension and suspense is concerned.  He handles it very well, and creates many scary sequences throughout various parts of the movie.  It's simply the harsh and drastic departure of visual style and art direction that detract from its quality in the overall series.  The entire film has a far more cryptic than atmospheric style to it than the rest of the franchise's entries.  This doesn't tend to go over well with the fans, but considering the film's other stated flaws, it's stance within the franchise is quite expected.

Halloween 5 is also planted the seeds for what became Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers with the 'Man in Black.'  It seems even the film's writers were uncertain as to the man's identity, but in some instances, he was portrayed by Don Shanks.  This was due to speculation that he might be a blood relative of Michael, possibly his brother.  Obviously, any intentions these filmmakers might've had about the Man in Black's identity were irrelevant by the time of the sixth film's production.  During this production, though, tension and conflicts were abound.  Pleasance and Akkad disagreed with each other, and they both disagreed with Othenin-Girard about the direction of the story, and the direction of the film.  Not many were happy with the outcome, and is resulted in a rather uneven and terribly unpolished film.

As I said, it's not a pure failure, but it's a real mixed bag of problems.  While it is enjoyable if you dumb yourself down and not care much about continuity, it's far away from being one of the better films of the series.  In contrast to Carpenter's original, this is arguably b-movie shlock.  On its own, it's still shlock, but potentially enjoyable to some variable degree.  Suffice it to say, this film could've stood from an extra year of development as well as a far more competent and talented director.  I'm sure a fan-made edit of this film exists which fixes a great deal of its problems, making it more digestible, but probably a good deal shorter.  Whatever the case, this was a terrible drop-off from a rather respectable and enjoyable Halloween 4.  It's worth seeing, but not worth any good expectations.

Following six years later, much has changed in the world of this film franchise.  Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) has retired after suffering a stroke.  Presumably, this is the explanation for his collapse in Halloween 5.  Furthermore, it is believed that Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) and Jamie Lloyd (J.C. Brandy) died at the previous film's conclusion.  Though, it is October 30th, 1995, and things are about to change further.  In actuality, Michael survived, and Jamie has been held captive by the Man in Black and his cohorts all this time.  Jamie has since been impregnated, and is now mother to a newborn baby boy.  In an escape attempt, Michael pursues her relentlessly.  Meanwhile, shock jock Barry Simms holds a radio broadcast about the return of Halloween to Haddonfield, and one of his callers is a panicked Jamie Lloyd, calling out for help.  Among those listening are Tommy Doyle (Paul Stephen Rudd) as well as old friends Dr. Loomis and Dr. Terence Wynn (Mitch Ryan).  Though, it is not long before Michael claims his niece's life in quite a gory fashion.  While the child is lost to The Shape, Tommy soon tracks the baby boy down, and chooses to protect him.  Loomis & Wynn soon join the hunt for Myers, but ulterior motives loom in the shadows for some.  More people are in danger as the Strode family (relatives of Laurie) have moved into the Myers house, and are now squarely within evil's cross-hairs.  Tommy, quite obsessed with the truth about Michael Myers, believes he has discovered the origin of his evil, but how this version of the film progresses, it eventually becomes irrelevant.

It is rather easy to see how this entry in the series failed to be a serious success.  This mainly stems from the drastic re-cutting of the film following poor test screening of what is known as 'The Producer's Cut.'  In this, the theatrical cut of the film, there's much left to be desired regarding the plot.  What begins as a supposed occult plot surrounding Michael eventually takes a sharp swerve towards some form of genetic cloning, and all things occult are washed away from the story.  The film also goes for a lot of cheap, false scares which only degrade the quality of the film.  Dispatching with a re-cast Jamie Lloyd didn't win any fans over, either with the fact that she was killed or re-cast.  Though, Danielle Harris did not like the script, or what happens to Jamie in it.  So, she passed, forcing the role to be given to another actress.

What it is that I enjoy a great deal about this film is the entire Thorn / occult plot-line.  Many despise it, but it's much the same as I like Jason Goes To Hell.  It offers up a better explanation than just "he's evil."  Evil alone doesn't make you immortal, and impervious to injury or pain.  There has to be a reason.  The worthiness of it just depends on how credible the reason is within the context of the story.  While the entire Thorn mark on Michael in Halloween 5 was purely random, trying to give Moustapha Akkad some thread to continue with into the next sequel, I find it is quite a valid revelation.  Like it or not, John Carpenter did set this up, partially years ago.  When filming additional scenes for the network television broadcast of the original Halloween, he introduced the plot twist that Laurie was Michael's sister.  He also introduced the idea of Michael being linked to Samhain in his and Debra Hill's script for Halloween II.  Despite which belief system you categorize it under, Samhain is directly linked with an array of paranormal / supernatural events and rituals.  All of which involving the relationship between the living and the dead.  Therefore, while none of this origin came from a singular stream of consciousness, it all eventually fit together with perfect logic.  If for nothing else, it's a better origin than Michael Myers becoming a killer because he was the victim of abusive, alcoholic, white trash parents.  Don't make evil incarnate a sympathetic figure.  Sympathy For The Devil, you ask?  You shouldn't feel sorry for evil, but you should respect it's power and legacy.  Otherwise, it'll "lay your soul to waste."  Proving as much, the one person who survives throughout these films is the one who respects and never underestimates the evil that is The Shape - Dr. Loomis.

But getting back to the actual film and my review thereof.  What further drives this away from the tone of a Halloween film is the excessive gore.  The splatter level here is more akin to that of a Friday The 13th film.  The Halloween films have, generally, been more focused on atmospheric horror than shock gore.  I can only fault director Joe Chapelle for a good measure of this.  He was the one Dimension Films called on to re-shoot sequences for Hellraiser: Bloodline.  Thus, essentially butchering everything that film had left going for it after the Weinstein's bitch slapped Clive Barker and original director Kevin Yahger from the project.  He's another studio "yes man," catering to whatever the head of the studio tells him to do.  Not a director who strives to establish his own identity or fight for his vision.  The look of both Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers and Hellraiser: Bloodline is exactly the same - blue overtones and bleak visuals.  While the imagery works a bit better here, considering the autumn seasonal landscape, it could've benefitted from extra punch.  It's not as bad as Underworld, but it's about in line with that visual mindset.

Fortunately, the acting rises far above anything that might be lacking in director's chair.  Donald Pleasance, as per always, delivers what had always kept this film series so unique.  He offers a dramatic and emotional weight which brings an honest credibility to the film, despite what strange turns it might take.  Paul Rudd and Marianne Hagan bring equally real and solid performances.  Rudd brings a definite erie quality to Tommy; making it quite apparent that he's had a weird time of it since Halloween, 1978.  I always find myself especially intrigued by his character, hoping that a subsequent film would follow him in more depth.  Obviously, that's a dashed hope.  Beyond just how the franchise has evolved, but because Paul Rudd emphatically made it known he'd never come back.  Supposedly, he was disappointed by the final result because filming had him believing it was going to be a high-caliber suspense film, but the reaction to the film was overwhelmingly negative.  Clearly, he didn't like how the film was handled by the 'powers that be,' and one would believe, he wouldn't want to put his faith in them again.  Considering everything they did following this film was one wrong move after another, I cannot blame him.  That being said, there's hardly a weak link amongst the cast.  Mitch Ryan is a welcomed addition who adds an extra element of strength and villainy.  He was quite necessary to move this sort of plot forward; to offer answers of some value.  Lastly, George P. Wilbur returns as The Shape.  He previously took on the role for Halloween 4.  The performances are about the same, but he gets to do more walking here.  You see more of his movement, but it really looks like his coveralls are riding up his ass.  His movement doesn't have that natural fluidity that Nick Castle had in the first film.  Seems everyone who portrays Myers tries to emulate the robotic and rigid performance of Dick Warlock.  Why?  I don't know.  I think Castle's more natural movement made Michael seem more human, and in a way, more frightening and relentless.  He seemed to move with more purpose, more determination, and thus, showed he was more motivated.

Earlier on, I briefly mentioned the music, but let me touch on some more.  Alan Howarth, a frequent collaborator of John Carpenter's, and the man responsible for the scores of Halloween 4 & 5 returns here.  He takes things in a different direction this time out.  Synthesizers are more in use, creating a harsher atmosphere.  Though, when you reach the climax, it is overwhelming with shredding electric guitars in a very 80s pop-metal style.  It's like a second rate Eddie Van Halen wannabe took over the scoring job on the film, and did a terrible job at it.  This is not scary or suspenseful.  It's just obnoxious   Again, this is something exclusive to this cut of the film.  Decisions made by people less interested in creating a coherent and effective horror film, and more interested in just making whatever's going to give them one extra dollar - even if it's full of lame bullshit.

Generally, I feel this version of the film is less fascinating than its bootlegged counterpart.  Based on its own merits, the film boils down to a mindless slasher with a messed up plot progression which ultimately negates itself.  While it does have strong acting and solid production values, the studio heads botched it all up to cater to stupid fourteen year olds who wouldn't end up being able to see the film in theatres anyway.  The whole film seems meant to build up towards answers and revelations regarding the origin of Michael's evil.  Sadly, it's all thrown out to introduce a new ending which makes no sense, and doesn't bother to explain itself.  I'm not one who demands that all mysteries be solved, and all questions be answers thoroughly and definitively in a film.  Though, the fact remains that this ending does not fit to this story.  It washes away all plot points and hints at answers the film establishes, and introduces brand new ones which come to no light.  It's a cliché, shallow, and hollow conclusion to a film which laid the seeds for so much more.  Satisfaction, at least for me, does not come from this version of Halloween 6.

Dubbed 'The Producer's Cut,' this version of Halloween 6 has become quite well known to fans.  It has never been officially released by Dimension Films, and can only be found in bootleg form on both VHS and DVD.  If you are interested in finding a copy, I'm sure a Google search will help you out better than I can.  The story behind why there are two different versions comes down to know-nothing movie-goers at a test screening.  The altered ending is also due to the passing of Donald Pleasance following principal photography, but that was hardly the catalyst for the extent of these changes.  Suffice it to say, there are distinct and dramatic differences between this version and the theatrical cut.

This cut of the film follows a slightly different change of events.  There are alternate death scenes, some happening later in the film, allowing characters to survive longer than in the theatrical version.  One of those being Jamie Lloyd is not killed bu Michael, but rather, dies in the hospital later on by the Man in Black.  Music cues are different, mostly eliminating the false scares in the film, but also, you will find no trace of wailing rock guitars anywhere.  The score is more in the traditional Halloween style with atmosphere and tension.  A definite difference from the start is Donald Pleasance doing the opening narration instead of Paul Rudd.  Plus, we get a flashback to a never used, never seen ending to Halloween 5 where Jamie is abducted by the Man in Black.  Though, where this version of this film departs from the theatrical version is more in the final act.  I won't go spoiling much, but the film follows through on the occult aspects it establishes instead of the genetic cloning swerve the theatrical outing offers.  Several scenes throughout the final twenty minutes were re-shot with a heavily revised script, leading to the more 'by-the-numbers' ending we eventually got.

But is it a better cut of the film?  Yes, I believe it is a definite improvement.  The film follows its own logic throughout whereas the theatrical cut veers off track, essentially disregarding the development of the story at the start of the final act.  The Producer's Cut retains a consistency and continuity within its own story, and with its predecessors.  While it requires the story to delve further into bizarre territory, it seems more satisfactory.  More importantly, it is all rather well explained through the course of the overall film.  This is mainly done by Tommy, but in the final act, Wynn goes further in depth about the motives behind it all.  The film doesn't envelop itself in clichés or formulaic horror film scenarios in or building up to the film's conclusion.  It presents a climax and ending which respects the development of the story, serving the tone and themes appropriately.  It also leaves a much clearer opening for a sequel - a definite storyline to follow down.  Unfortunately, this storyline and its continuity were shelved and ignored by the makers of the subsequent sequels.  While I would've liked to see such a proper continuation, I don't believe it would've been successful.  Any non-fans would be turned off and lost with such a continuation.  This is merely by the fact of long-stretching mythology and continuity that newcomers would be unaware of.  Of course, this would allow for even lower box office numbers.  I guess it falls into the realm of fan fiction from then on.

I don't see a real point in reviewing the acting since the quality of the performances don't change from one cut to the other.  Though, aspects of the editing should be addressed.  Whereas the theatrical version is far gorier than previous Halloween films, this cut removes a good deal of the gratuitous bloodshed.  This helps to put it back on track with the other Michael Myers' outings, and keep the horror focused more on atmosphere and suspense than on shock gore value.  I believe both cuts of the film were done by the same editor, Randolph K. Bricker, and so, the quality of the editing is quite consistent between both versions.  Though, the story seems to flow better in this version.  That's probably because there's more story here to work with between various characters.  Even the timeline alteration of Jamie's death offers up a well-timed plot turn, and slightly tighter pace about one-third of the way into the film.  It also keeps the idea of the Man in Black alive where he's barely present in the theatrical cut.  Also, bare in mind, the Producer's Cut was put together first.  So, the gore was all added in later, but still, several small character moment are excised in the theatrical version.  While they are nice touches, I don't think either cut is exceptionally better or worse because of their presence or absence.  Still, it helps to give an extra touch of depth to one or two characters.

I can honestly say that I do find more enjoyment in watching this version of the film, but watching a multi-generational bootleg copy is not something I would do often.  It still seems doubtful that Dimension Films will ever invest the time to produce a proper DVD or Blu-Ray release of the Producer's Cut.  It is an investment in time and money.  Also, there's no guarantee that they still have all the necessary elements to present the complete film.  Sometimes, audio tracks or film elements are lost.  Beyond that, who knows what condition the master print is in.  I'm not saying these are definites, but there are numerous factors to take into consideration.  But if they don't show the initiative, we'll never know.  Regardless, if you ever have the opportunity to view this version of the film, I believe it is worth your while if the more occult aspects of the story intrigue you.  Otherwise, I don't think it's really worth the time and effort to track down a decent copy.

1) One of today's best music composers did the film, John Ottman (You’ll understand why this is a problem soon) 
2) It’s the 90’s!  Most teens want something like "Party Of Five" not like "Friday The 13th"! 
3) Steve Miner, one who likes to cover up his former films directs it. 
4) It throws away the plots of 4 through 6. 

Okay, this might not look like a huge problem, but it slowly makes the film fall apart. 

Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, under the identity of a "Ms. Tate". She now works at a private school that her son goes to. As Halloween approaches, she finds that pills and booze are the only way out of the visions of her brother, Michael Myers. Her son senses something is wrong and knows the truth about the killings. He tries to convince her that she watched him burn, but that doesn’t help. While all the students go on a camping trip, four of them shack up in there rooms(one being John, Laurie’s son). Meanwhile, Myers had found Nurse Marion Whittington(Chambers) house and found Loomis’ files on Laurie. He found where she was and set off stealing cars and getting closer as Halloween approached. When Michael got to the school, all that was blocking him from his sister was a security guard (LL Cool J.) 

To fit in all the stupid little sub-plots would have taken too long for this review. Now, to explain all the effects of the problems:

1) Ottman’s great music(I have it) was replaced halfway by music from "Scream". Dimension’s executive producer, Bob Weinstein, wanted a more "hip" score, which sounded terrible. Throughout the film, kids were saying that music is from "Scream"! 
2) We get too many little sub-plots with problems about boyfriends and girlfriends(who cares!). We also get a bunch of television actors/actresses that we’re sick of watching! 
3) Soon Miner will complain that this film is horrible. 
4) In one scene, we see pictures of dead people that were killed in 4-6 and we also see something in a newspaper article about Jaime Lloyd! We all think that the story didn’t happen, now we are confused! 

There are a few good things, though. The first scene, amazingly, has the EXACT feeling of the original. Also, the death scenes were quite creative. I had trouble guessing what Michael would do! The actors were great, but Jamie Lee's Laurie is totally dead. I don't feel bad for her character. I just want to say "Stop Yelling!"

Rated R by the MPAA - Contains terror violence, gore, and adult language.