Some great moments of violence. The problem was that the great concept was poorly executed. The story progression is often slow and confusing. Some good ideas emerged though. I just couldn't help but think that this film could have been so much better. Turn it on, sit back and let it happen, it's fine.
Add a Review
-
hellholehorror1 October 2017
-
Smells_Like_Cheese8 November 2004Actually, after seeing the rating on Halloween 6, I have to admit that I was a bit scared to see this movie, not because it's a horror story, but because it just had a low rating. But still I wanted to complete the Halloween series and when I rented this movie, I was really surprised that I liked it as much as I did. I think the rating is a bit harsh, this story brought us back into the story with Jamie, even though a warning in advance, she does get killed off with this sequel, I liked how they continued the story with one of the original characters, Tommy Doyle. It was cool to see him grown up and how the events of 1978 effected him. Honestly I don't know why this movie has a lower rating than Halloween 5, but I guess to each his own, but I really do think this story carries itself a lot better.
Michael Myers, his niece Jamie Lloyd, and the mysterious Man in Black have all been in hiding for six years. It is revealed that the Man in Black is the leader of a Druid-like cult, and the Man in Black kidnapped Jamie and had her impregnated. The baby is born on Halloween Eve and is carried away by the Man in Black. Later that night, a nurse helps Jamie and her baby escape. Michael Myers, in pursuit of Jamie and her newborn, kills the nurse. Jamie, meanwhile, steals the truck and flees to a dark and empty bus station where she calls in to a radio show that happens to be doing a broadcast about the Haddonfield murders. Jamie gets on the air, begging for help and warning of Michael's imminent return. Beaten and exhausted, she makes her way inside of an old barn where Michael is waiting for her. He kills Jamie, only to find that Jamie does not have the baby. Meanwhile, Tommy Doyle has his eye on a family who's moved into the old Myers house across the street from the boarding house where he lives. The boarding house is run by a mysterious old woman named Minnie. Tommy has been obsessed with finding the truth behind the murderous motives of Michael Myers. After hearing Jamie begging for help on a local radio show, Tommy finds her baby at the bus station and takes him into hiding. The people living in the Myers house are relatives of the Strode family, and among the current residents are Kara Strode and her son Danny. The plot takes a turn when the Man in Black finally reveals himself as Dr. Wynn from the original Halloween. Wynn has been experimenting with pure evil, does he think this is a good idea? Happy Halloween.
Granted, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is very different than the other Halloween stories, but I think this was a good pick up. Plus you have to admit that Jamie's death is very effective and scary. The whole cult thing was a bit much, but still I think it was a good scare factor to add into the story. The acting is better I think and the writing was a little more accurate. Plus unlike Halloween 5, Michael actually scared me again, thank God, I was getting a little frightened that he was loosing his touch and his butcher knife. So I do recommend this movie if you're looking to complete the series or if you're just looking for a good scare.
6/10 -
Sleepin_Dragon31 October 2018By this stage the franchise had really gotten tired, the previous few had been very poor, almost an insult to the fabulous original.
Of the first six films I would place this third overall, after one and two. It doesn't deserve its reputation as a bad film, because it isn't bad, nor is it great.
On the plus side, it has some scary moments, Michael's character is well used. The acting in general is rather good, it's quite slick, in a nineties way. On the debit side, the story is a little far fetched, and I didn't particularly like the cult element, it's like they tried to rewrite the show's past. It's a bit silly I guess, but....
At least it has Paul Rudd and the wonderful Donald Pleasance.
Not that bad. 6/10 -
Many people have written this off as the worst sequel to date and I'd probably be the first person in that line... in fact, I was. I never saw this in theaters but when I got it on video I was highly disappointed because it didn't explain anything that happened in the previous films, or maybe it did and I just didn't understand what they were getting at with all of this "Rune" stuff...
It was then that I began my search for the rumored "Producers Cut" which featured what should've been shown in theaters... a GOOD MOVIE! The Producers Cut features a clean cut, workable plot that intrigues me to no end... they actually took what was a hopeless film and turned it into a believable Halloween film that was actually scary...
If you'll notice that in the Theatrical Release the entire Halloween theme has been cut from the movie... how did they do this, you ask? They cut all of the eerie back round music that was included in the Producers Cut. I have no clue why it was cut from the movie because we all know that a Halloween movie isn't the same without that eerie music that builds the suspense and makes us jump out of our seats when it gets scary.
After Kara jumps out the window and is captured by the cult members, the movie takes a completly, never before seen path that takes you into the deapths of the true mystery that is Michael Myers and takes you on a rollercoaster ride all the way to the exciting and somewhat clever ending instead of locking the main characters in a room and letting them beat the heck out of Michael with a lead pipe...
I won't give away too much but I'd recommend that you get your hands on this video because it's a true gem that any Halloween fan should have in their collection.
If you have any questions, E-Mail me -
MissCzarChasm30 April 2002If Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.
Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.
That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.
*SPOILER*
Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.
*END SPOILER*
The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again. -
gridoon6 October 1999This movie has its share of flaws: heavy doses of graphic gore, that almost degrade a series which began with a gore-less film, and moments that simply don't make sense - why does Myers kill his "collaborators" at the end? Still, I found the attempts to explain his origin mostly fascinating. It's the easiest, the laziest and the greediest thing to present a killer without a motive and to keep bringing him back for more sequels even though he should be dead. Why do people say that this series never contained supernatural elements? When Myers is shot six times in "Halloween" and nevertheless lives, was that "natural"? Script and direction were a bit muddled, but not TOO muddled: I've never seen "Halloween 5", yet the plot made sense to me, even if some details didn't. The classic music score has been unfortunately altered, but as a whole this sixth entry seems to be somewhat underrated - "Halloween II" is much more boring. Fair acting, too.
-
davidhutch00714 January 2007Well to be fair this film has everything to go for after the lackluster Halloween 5 disappointed most Halloween fans.
The films sees Michael returning to Haddonfield to find Jamie Lloyd's young child that is now in Tommy Doyle's (Paul Rudd) possession. But Michael is coming home to a surprise as now the Strodes are living in his house and he isn't best pleased to find them there.
The plot of this film is one which has continued to cause controversy since the very release of the film yet all the plot tries to do is give Michael reasoning, reasoning to who he is, what he is and why he is which in this reviewers opinion wasn't a bad idea but came a little too late in the franchise for any real Halloween fan to accept. While the narrative is driven with good characters such as the Tommy Doyle character and of course Dr. Loomis the films seems to suffer in other areas.
Of course as most Halloween fans know the theatrical cut is not the only cut out there. A producers cut can be highly sought after and is often talked of as being better than the theatrical version and this may very well be a factor in the poor editing and at many times shoddy directing.
The film suffers from poor editing as it tries top cover up and bridge scenes obviously taken out from the final theatrical cut of the film, this in effect takes you right out of the film and at times makes you think how in the hell could they release this to theaters? The direction suffers in places but doesn't exclude Joe Chappelle from leaving his mark on the franchise with his music video approach to the film.
OK now your wondering why i have given this six out of ten and only gone on about bad points, well there are a few but it does have some great things going for it. The film's narrative is clever and Daniel Farrands should be praised for a different approach to the film from what could have been the simple hack and slash that we'd expect of Myers by now. This film however refuses to fall into that trap to some extent and deliver a clever story.
The acting should also be commended for this entry in the series, Donald Pleasance is as good as ever but fails to gain the amount of screen time he deserves for being with the series as long as he did. Paul Rudd plays the total opposite of what we would expect today playing a character who knows he must stop Michael but also has the demons within. These two performances alone made the film gain the extra mark to give it a six out of ten for me, had these performances not been there then this probably would be a lackluster five out of ten.
Of course it wouldn't be right for me not to talk about George P. Wilbur who of course plays Michael Myers for his second time and is still the only person to do so. Michael in this film feels a little different to what he has been in previous incarnation yet it is still the Michael we know and love. Wilbur does however give a good turn as Michael as he did with Halloween 4 and i believe is one of the stronger performers of Michael even if he did look as though he had a beer gut in the film.
Overall the film was everything i expected from a 90's horror cliché film yet i wanted more than the total runtime would allow. The ending feels altogether rushed and rather OTT and you are left feeling there was no resolution and of course we do not find out what happened to certain characters which is a real downer. I feel a great warmth to the character of Dr. Loomis and yet i think the director felt that his character was none too important well to you sir i say you do not know this franchise! The films worth seeing just to see the idea being played out which continues to cause controversy amongst fans today. Although considered one of the weakest films in the franchise i'd say give it a shot, i was very unwilling but upon watching i saw something different to the masses and you might do too. All i'll say is it's better than H5 and certainly on par with H4!
So is the film really a thron in the series side? in my opinion certainly not. ****** out of ********** -
jamiemiller-0761124 June 2019By the time you get to the sixth entry in a horror franchise, things like subtlety and character development are usually thrown out the window and replaced with ridiculous plot twists and endless gory set pieces. Some of this can be fun, but it still needs to make sense. The Curse of Michael Myers apparently didn't get that memo.
The film begins the way it intends to go - with an array of annoying flash cuts that make no sense. We never feel like we know where we are or what the story is really about, because it seems like every scene at least has a button involving a flash cut and loud sound effect. Maybe they felt like they needed them to keep the audience awake.
Poor Donald Pleasance seems lost, but Paul Rudd shows up and still looks the exact same as he does now. Whose blood is he bathing in? -
Okay wait let me get this street, there are actually some morons on this site who reckon this is one of the better if not the best Halloween sequel. I even read someone saying it was just as good as the original. Pah what nonsense don't believe them I've watched every Halloween and clearly unlike some people knows what makes at the very least a good horror movie and this shower of S is one of the Worst horror movies i have ever seen in my life. Frankly if i was John Carpenter i would sue the person who wrote this either that or go around to his or her place with a hunting rifle. Seriously Halloween sequels in general are nearly all rubbish, two was crap, three was stupid, four is alright, five is well five, H20 alright, Resurrection painful. Yet, in many ways i find this to be the worst of a very bad bunch of sequels. Why? Well let me just embark on some kind of rant not so much a review but a mindless rant on why Halloween 6 the Cure of Michael Myers is one of the most abysmal movies i have seen in a very long time. OK where should i start, ah yes the plot oh boy the plot. Basically the plot is a heaped together mess containing cults, signs of Thor and some other crap. It's just stupid it really is, the film tries to be flashy and intelligent yet, its heaped together in such a horribly made way. Why does Michael Myers got to have a reason for killing people? Simple enough explanation Micahel likes to kill his relatives that would suffice, but no we have to have a man in black and mysterious cults and signs of Thor and utter crap. God its so bad it made me want to cry it really did, the writers have tried to add to the character of Myers but have actually managed to do the entire opposite. Apart from wearing a mask and a boiler suit < which is a completely different colour by the way, Myers just isn't the same guy from the original or even two, heck maybe even four. Thats another thing why has Myers become a Jason Voorhes parody? I thought it was meant to be the other way round, yet Myers is so similar to Jason, all he does is endlessly kill people in gory ways. In the original he teased his victims took his time and as a result the whole thing was far more suspenseful. In this he just walks around hacking people to death. I mean in the space of Half an Hour we had equalled the amount of kills in the original it was just ridiculous. Oh and Myers in this seems to have a really big head, i mean its huge and hes put on loads of weight. What else is crap, oh yeah the return of Tommy Jarvis thats pretty bad, in fact all the characters in this film are crap bar Dr Loomis of course. I can't stand the little kid, i wish he had got it he's really irritating. Our Heroin is boring and not interesting. And her whole family are a terrible bunch of actors. The mother is rubbish, the brother is bad and the Father i mean was this his first part or something? He was like a cartoon villain for gods sake he was actually more evil than Myers < By the way his death is one of the most abysmal i've ever seen i think even Friday the 13th wouldn't come up with something so entirely laughable. What else is rubbish oh yeah Tommy Jarvis, don't know the name of the guy but he really can't act, he tries his best to be serious and all that but i just wanted to laugh at him. I wish he had died in fact if everyone had died it would have been quite good really. There is Dr Loomis a horribly aged and dieing Donald Pleasence by all account. Despite him being on his last legs Pleasance is still the stand out in the brief amount of time he features. Its such a pity that such a corner stone of this franchise had to say farewell in garbage like this. What else is rubbish, oh yeah the bit where the radio DJ gets it. Firstly how the hell did Michael manage to get in that van when five minutes ago he was in his house? Secondly it was just a pointless kill which may boost the body count but is just another peace of nonsense which adds to the drivel that is this film. Its in fact that death which said it all for me in that it was pointless a lot like this film.
-
ODDBear10 August 2008This sixth Halloween entry is a tough one to call. On the one hand we have a fairly interesting version of the film that has never been officially released and a released version that is mediocre at best.
The fifth film introduced a man dressed in black (and sporting a weird tattoo) who freed Michael from jail. What the heck was that about? Well, it seems that Michael belongs to some sort of cult who adore him and once the stars in the sky form some sort of pattern Michael gets the urge to kill. On the next Halloween night the baby of Jamie Lloyd, Michael's niece, has to be sacrificed and Michael is the one who has to make the kill.
I really can't make much sense out of this drivel. Giving Michael a supernatural background story was always going to end up badly and here the script (for the released version) is all over the place and nothing makes much sense. It does have a number of effective murder sequences and director Chapelle (who all Halloween fans hate, by the way) does an OK job at giving the film a stylish look.
Then there's the infamous Producer's Cut version which made better sense of the whole supernatural element behind Michael's origins (initially the film was to be called "Halloween 666: The Origin of Michael Myers). Ironically that version is much more similar in style and atmosphere to the original. There's less bloodletting and mayhem and the supernatural element is handled pretty well and it has a shocker of an ending. It's more stylish, somewhat Gothic and caps the whole story off in a much better way.
Why this "Producer's Cut" was axed and a more confusing version released is baffling. Everybody seems to agree that the released version is inferior and much more senseless. I have to jump on the bandwagon and support those who like the unreleased version better.
Donald Pleasence is very old here but he's a joy to watch as Dr. Loomis, Michael's main nemesis in the series. It was reported that director Joe Chapelle had no respect for Mr. Pleasence and tried to keep him out of the movie as much as he could. Apparently the guy thought it was beneath him to direct a Halloween movie and somewhere he stated that this was merely a price he had to pay to move on to bigger and better things. Nice! No such problem was with the film's screenwriter Daniel Farrands, a big fan of the series. He relished the chance of writing a Halloween movie and his original script (used for the Producer's Cut) is actually very decent. The whole Thorn aspect is explained in as good a way as possible (although I never liked the concept).
Other actors are pretty good, especially Mitchell Ryan who gets a much bigger role in the unreleased version. Paul Rudd pulls off his role well but it bugs the hell out of me the way the actor has talked about this film after it's release. He and Chapelle must have been big pals as Rudd offered to refund those people who had paid to see the movie. This to me is an arrogant and unprofessional move from this overall very decent actor.
The verdict here is that the unreleased version is a solid film overall. The released version, while not all bad, is mediocre at best with some effective set pieces that compensate for a truly confusing story. The "Producer's Cut" should be released on DVD so every curious horror fan can take a glimpse at what should have been. -
CMRKeyboadist6 September 2006Well, I should start by saying that the "Halloween" series is not among my favorite of the slasher genre. I will certainly admit that the first of the series is a genre bending movie and a horror classic. I just never was able to really connect with the series (minus part 3). So naturally, Halloween 666 was not what I would call a great movie. I thought it was confusing and had very little direction. What I didn't know was a producers cut of the film had been made adding in much of what was cut out. Interest got the better of me and I searched and tracked down the film. This is what I thought...
For those of you who have seen the movie I won't give a summary of what the film is about. But for you haven't seen the film, I suggest you read a different review as I don't want to spoil anything for you.
For one, this version of the movie is virtually gore-less. In the theatrical cut there are several moments in which the gore is rather extreme. The scene in which Jamie being impaled on the farm equipment is gone. She is merely stabbed and actually doesn't die until later in the film. Also, the scene in which the nasty Father comes home and Michael electrocutes him until his head blows up is gone also. Michael pulls it old school and just stabs him and pins him to the wall of the basement.
As I said earlier in the review that the movie was confusing, in this version much of those questions are answered. The whole storyline about "Thorn" and how they have control over Michael because of some strange ruins. This makes for a much different ending then what was original seen in theaters, but it still leaves you with an even more confusing ending then the theatrical version does. The best part of the producers cut is the fact that they bring back all of Donald Pleasence's scenes. He is the best part of any of the films and is what really keeps the original film interesting.
Overall, didn't really like this film. But, it is definitely worth seeing, especially if you do like the series. I think this is worth the time looking for a copy. 5/10 -
Halloween 666 (1995) The producer's cut review!
Halloween 666 starts of with a recap of the horrific ending to Part five. If you thought the last chapter was dark, this one will really blow your mind. A mysterious "Man in Black" has raided the Haddonfield Police Department freeing Micheal Myers. In the process poor Jamie Lloyd was abducted by strange cultists. What they want with her? Who knows, but let's just say her long suffering will end soon. Doctor Loomis is back spending the rest of his twilight years trying to stop Michael Myers from killing any more innocents (good luck). A friend of Loomis, Doctor Wynn comes back after a four sequel hiatus to help the good doctor. Another old face from part one guest stars as well.
This dark and dreary sequel was dismantled during the post production editing. For some reason the distributors felt that the final product wasn't worth the average horror film watcher's time. So they decide to dumb it down. Then after having the film sit on the shelf for several months it laid an egg at the box office. No matter what they did to the film, they made it worse. They should have left well enough alone. Hey, the film company knows better than the filmmakers now....don't they?
Producer's Cut :Highly recommended
Released version: Not recommended -
rivertam2626 February 2020This review is for the theatrical cut which I prefer. As long as we ignore Michael getting his eyes shot out at the end of 2. This entertaining but flawed sequel has some definite lapses into weirdness with the druid stuff the Myers worshipping cult. But I love the feel of the movie. It's one of the more seasonal entries of the bunch. It also has a creepy, dread inducing atmosphere and it's quite stylish in its execution. The cinematography and rock version of the theme are cool and Paul Rudd is fun and sexy as a grown up Tommy Doyle. Sure it's filled with cliches and it's all a bit goofy but it's another solid entry in the Myers franchise.
-
This is it! We've officially hit rock bottom with this franchise! Not only does Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers feature cheap jump scares, but it also features even more cheap jump scares, followed by even more cheap jump scares! Okay, but in all seriousness, this film truly was atrocious. It's quite disappointing considering the beginning of this film was actually somewhat interesting. I'll admit it, I was hooked! I had hope! Unfortunately though, what followed was an abundance of muddled plot holes, an uninspiring storyline, and predictability at an all-time high. Funny enough, some of Michael Myers's kills were hilariously absurd. There was also a handful of hysterically bad moments in terms of character decisions that certainly had me laughing. The film additionally feels highly unfocused in the predicaments it presents which can majorly create confusion among viewers like myself. Overall, the film's attempts at being horrifying usually comes off as comical, and it's strive to revitalize an already dying franchise feels substantially inconsiderate. (Verdict: D)
-
JBoze31310 December 2000H6 is one of the best sequels in the series if you ask me. I think the film had an awesome look to it. It's hard to describe, but there's something about it that makes it look like a really well made horror film that is entertaining and scary. The scenes in the barn are pretty good, as are most of the rest of the film...but the barn scene is basically your first big look at the movie, and it leads into a really great movie that keeps you on edge the whole time. H20 sucked badly...it was made for teenagers, like Scream and IKWYDLS, etc...H6 was made as a horror movie, NOT a teen horror movie, and there is a big difference. The film has decent acting...no wonderful performances or anything, but most of them are no name actors. The mask in this movie is pretty awesome looking, I think...even tho Myers looked fat in the film. He looked a lot stronger and menacing. Paul Rudd, who went on to become a bigger star than he was at the time, totally put down this movie and said he was ashamed he was in it...I think he's crazy, because I liked his character, and I think he did a good job of making you like the character. 8/10
-
SnoopyStyle16 April 2016Jamie Lloyd gives birth in a cult. Michael Myers is coming after her and the baby leaving a trail of bodies. She manages to call a radio station and broadcast out a warning. Retired Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is visited by Dr. Terence Wynn (Mitch Ryan) from the first film when they hear the warning. Loomis returns to Haddonfield, Illinois. In Haddonfield, Halloween has been banned for years. Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd), whom Laurie Strode babysat in the first film, is obsessed with Michael Myers. Michael kills Jamie Lloyd and Tommy finds her baby. Back in the original Myers home, Kara Strode (Marianne Hagan) has returned home with her son Danny. Her father John is abusive with her mother and brother suffering. Tommy, Kara, and Danny are on the run with Jamie Lloyd's baby.
The first problem is that Danielle Harris doesn't return for Jamie Lloyd. It's hard to understand that it's Jamie Lloyd without her. Donald Pleasence does return for a few scenes in his last outing for the franchise. It's really too bad that the movie isn't better. None of it scary. The jump scares don't work. Maybe the other versions work better and is scarier. To some extend, it's because I don't care about these characters. Other than Pleasence, these characters have connections with the franchise but are played by newcomers. It's a bit of a history test to remember where all of these characters fit. It is interesting to see Paul Rudd when this came out around the time of Clueless. This episode tries to continue the franchise but the only connective tissue is Pleasence and he isn't in it enough to hold this movie together. -
eric20other200219 July 2002This sequel to John Carpenter's Halloween isn't terrible, but it's not good either. The makers of this film were obviously in a rush to get this cut of the film finished. It's evident enough. I have both this version and the Producer's Cut and I think the PC version is better because it explains more about Michael and the Thorn cult, which by the way is a real cult that happens every so often on Halloween night. So in closing I hope the makers of this film decide to make a DVD that has this version and the theatrical trailer, because we owe it to Donald Pleasance to show as much of him in the film as possible. R.I.P DR. LOOMIS. THEATRICAL VERSION 3 OUT OF 5 STARS; THE PC VERSION 4 OUT OF 5. OH AND SOME PC SCENES CAN BE FOUND ON THE TV VERSION OF THIS FILM.
-
snappy939331 October 2007I am a big fan of the Halloween movies, but this one was a little off. First of all, how could any of the Strodes NOT know that was Michael's house? Had they been living under a rock until then? Everyone knows where Michael's house is. Secondly, it was a great idea to have little Tommmy all grown up and in this movie, but his part was too strange. And the actor was terrible. He was way too "drama queen" with every line he said. It would have been better if Jamie had been allowed to stay around a little longer. The Strode father was very good, or rather bad!
Overall the movie was pretty good. Especially the uncovering of the boot man in the cloak. A lot of good gore. And Michael was exceptional, of course. -
I planned on watching all of the Halloween movies after enjoying the first so much but what the hell did this one lead to? It would seem like a good idea having Tommy all grown-up after the event in the first film but instead it was a desperate attempt to write-up another sequel. Michael returns to finish off the remaining Strodes living in his very house where he killed his sister. Little do they know, Michaels hot on their trail with Loomis in the lead! Overall there was a good lot of gore, a fair few jumps and a better looking Myers mask but it still doesn't make up for the cheesy storyline.
A good Halloween fan should watch this, otherwise avoid at all costs! -
TheLittleSongbird16 January 2018John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a prime example of this, a film with very little to recommend and just very poorly done in many areas.
Starting with the very few good things, Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasance, in his last film before his death from heart failure not long after (although his screen time is far too short and was clearly severely truncated), come off in a good way in the acting department.
The exploding head death is a pretty fun one and the setting is eerie. As far as praises go, that is it.
'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' was directed by someone who had an apparent dislike for Pleasance, the main reason for his limited screen time most likely, and had no interest in directing the film or the 'Halloween' series in general, and it shows loud and clear on screen. Even the direction in 'Season of the Witch' and 'Halloween 5' wasn't this indifferent or inept.
Sadly the effectiveness of the setting, which actually is eerie, is hindered by the filming and editing being pretty amateurish, the photography often is far too dark and drab and the editing makes bacon-slicer-like editing seem coherent in comparison. The music, like the previous film, is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the first four films. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
Everything looks, sounds and feels like it was made in a rush and with absolutely no heart, accounting for the constant sense of incompleteness. There is nothing scary or suspenseful, it's unintentionally campy, uncomfortably strange and by the numbers with a convoluted story that makes no sense whatsoever, an abrupt ending, dull pacing and the man in black/cult plot that is just bizarre and just muddles everything. Michael Myers is just not creepy enough and looks goofy.
Very like the previous sequel, there is nothing interesting or endearing about the characters (though none are quite as annoying as Tina in 'Halloween 5'). The script especially sounds incomplete and the acting, apart from Rudd and Pleasance (whose screen time, as said, is far too short), is subpar to put it lightly. J.C. Brandy is a pretty poor replacement for Danielle Harris.
Overall, don't expect any terror, scares, fear or thrills here, you'll be disappointed. 3/10 Bethany Cox -
I liked this movie since I was kid and as I got older, I understand the hate. Jamie being impregnated by her uncle. The weird Satanic cult. The unnecessary cliche sex scene. Paul Rudd's weird voice. The crazy edits and being able to survive and still walk from falling out of a house. This movie was a hot mess but the edgier score played over the bad edits gave me life and I loved Paul Rudd's facial expressions especially when facing Michael. He was all of us the hallway scene. Of course, Donald Pleasence in his last role as Dr. Loomis was always refreshing and gave a sense of legitimacy to this franchise being in five Halloween movies. It's quite obvious he enjoyed giving his Shakespearean presence to this franchise for seventeen years. He was ill during the filming of this movie and died the year it was released. I loved Paul Rudd. This was his first starring role, but I'm confused because the first time I saw him on screen was in Clueless which also came out the same year. Yet, he looks the same in Knocked up, Ant Man, etc... The man doesn't age but he's a great actor and he was fun to watch playing Tommy, the kid Laurie babysat in the original Halloween. I have nothing to say negative about this crazy, ridiculously fun movie with a great score bringing a new life to the series and a dash of classic Michael Myers' horror. The movie went through production hell: delayed production for years due to poor audience reception of Halloween 5; legal issues; lowballing and insulting Danielle Harris out of reprising her role as Jamie; studio changes; poor audience reception then having to rush in post production to re-edit the movie, the death of Donald Pleasence, weather issues, and so on. So yes, it's obvious it's been heavily edited but it's the best they could under the circumstances. So I enjoyed the final product and the conclusion to the Jamie Lloyd trilogy of the Halloween franchise.
-
brooksy24109513 February 2008In my opinion, this was the worst Halloween film. Because of the ending of Halloween 5, I thought this was going to be great but I was totally wrong! The story is really bad, the music is like it was made for an action film and the acting wasn't very good (Apart from Donald Pleasence.) But the stupidest thing about the film is Dr Wynn. It turns out he is a leader of a group of evil druids who study pure evil, they kidnap Jamie Lloyd and make her pregnant so the baby will be a final sacrifice for Michael Myers and he will be able to kill it. What makes it so stupid is that he worked with Dr Loomis for all those years and was worried when Michael escaped from Smith's Grove sanitarium in 1978 and it turns out he was the voice that told Michael to kill his sister and he was the 'stranger in black' that lurked the street and set Michael free in Halloween 5.
Nearly every time Michael kills someone you see him in the background or know it is going to happen, So this film has no suspense also and not one bit scared me! But Donald Pleasence's acting was perfect as always. R.I.P Mr Pleasence -
Michael Myers19 July 2001This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best.
-
drownsoda9013 August 2004For some reason, I always enjoy movies that people hate, when I really don't think they're that bad - and this is one of those films. In the case of this movie, I think it is way too over-criticized, I really isn't that bad of a film at all. In fact, I think this is one of the better sequels. "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" begins on the night before Halloween, where Michael brutally murders Jamie Lloyd (who was taken captive by the "Man In Black" in part 5) after she gives birth to his baby. We are then introduced to the Strode family, who is now coincidentally living in the old Myers house (which seems to change in each film). Kara and her son Danny are the main characters, along with Tommy Doyle, the now adult boy who survived the original killings. They must fight together to save Jamie's baby from an evil cult that takes care of Michael, while Michael himself is driven to kill by an old Celtic ritual where he must sacrifice an entire family in Haddonfield.
This is surely one of the best sequels in the series, in my opinion anyway, and I can't understand all of the hate it has gotten. It had some nice suspense, an interesting plot (but sometimes confusing, I'll admit), some scary moments here and there, and plenty of gore and knife slashings to appease all of you gorehounds. Not all of the acting wasn't particularly great, but it was convincing enough for me. Marianne Hagan is the leading lady and she is very likable. Paul Rudd plays a grown-up Tommy Doyle, and is also very talented and plays his part nicely. The rest of the supporting cast (besides the brilliant Donald Pleasance) isn't much to praise, but it wasn't too bad either, all things considered. I'm still not sure if giving an explanation for why Michael kills was completely necessary, but it turned out to be okay in the end and I wasn't upset with the way they tied everything together. The open-ended conclusion was also kind of eerie, but could have been something more.
I have also seen the infamous "Producer's Cut" of this film, the original cut of it, and I think that in some respects, it is better. It further explains the Thorn curse that drives Michael and has some extra scenes that really helped support the film, plus the ending was a lot better in my opinion. It felt more natural than the conclusion that we're given in the studio cut of the film. I wish that Dimension would release this alternate version of the film, because I personally think it is better. The chances of that are very slim though.
Overall, "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" is a very good sequel and will please all of the fans of the series. This movie isn't the best of all horror movies, but it's definitely worth renting if you want to see Michael do his thing. Just don't expect brilliance, and you'll enjoy it. 7/10. -
JJSM2216 July 2022This is probably the stupidest movie in the Halloween film series, makes no sense to add a supernatural theme, If they'd just focused on Michael targeting the Strode family instead of all this Druid crap it might have become a somewhat tolerable movie.