Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) User Reviews (739)

20 years later...and worth the wait

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 16 January 2018]

John 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. The exception however is 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later'. It's not perfect and nowhere near as great as the original, but it's the only sequel that's above average, let alone good and by far the best since the original. It does a great job breathing fresh life into a series that had gotten stale as quick as one can down a can of coke gone flat and such a welcome addition after the badness of the fifth and sixth films.

'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' has its flaws. It is too short and at times erratically paced, sometimes rushed and then taking a bit of time to get going after the opening. There is not enough breathing room for development of characterisation, which generally is shallow apart from the central relationship and the script tends to be weak (not unexpected, though actually it's far worse in the previous sequels, at least it sounds complete).

On the other hand, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is the best-looking of the sequels, the first half in particular being close in style to the autumnal look of the original, something that none of the previous sequels did. The editing is coherent, it's not shot too darkly and there is an eeriness to the setting which can be properly appreciated as a result. The music is a welcome return to being an asset than a drawback like in the previous two sequels. While not quite a character of its own like in the original, it adds to the atmosphere and enhances it.

Luckily there's nowhere near as much unintentional camp, out of place humour or bizarre subplots or idea that muddle the story. Instead much of the film is fun and there is a tension, creepiness and suspense, even poignancy at times, that the previous sequels were sorely lacking in. The deaths are the most creative and shocking since those in the original, while the opening scene is unsettlingly tense and the ending is creepy and touching. The central relationship is handled quite well.

Although the characters are underdeveloped, none of them are annoying and they do have enough personality to stop them from being too dull. The direction is in control of the material and is at least competent and often well above that, especially in the second half when the film really does come alive. Of the sequels, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is by quite some way the best acted, Jamie Lee Curtis' wonderful performance being the film's best asset.

In summary, the best of the sequels/follow ups and worth the wait. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Forget "Resurrection"--the series ends here.

[Jonny_Numb · 6/10 · 9 September 2006]

Back before Lions Gate (now Lionsgate) held the monopoly on mainstream genre pics, Dimension Films was the go-to place for horror and suspense of the 'indie' sort. In 1998, with Wes Craven's 2 "Scream" films maintaining the public interest to great financial success, Dimension decided to put their acquisition of the "Halloween" franchise to good use (especially after the atrocious "Curse of Michael Myers") by making a sequel to end all sequels (at least until the atrocious "Halloween: Resurrection" turded up multiplexes).

In addition to being one of the most instantly-recognizable titles in all of horror, "Halloween: H20" came to screens with an added incentive: it marked the series return of original protagonist/victim Laurie Strode (played with cat-like veracity by Jamie Lee Curtis). Curtis' presence, in addition to the reliable skill of director Steve Miner (who cut his teeth on two "Friday the 13th" sequels), plus a story that wisely disregarded the incidents of all the sequels past "II," set "H20" up as the series payoff I was so eagerly awaiting. After leaving the theater, I was more than satisfied with the end result.

Years go by. Dimension becomes a notorious den of re-cuts, re-shoots, and re-castings (just ask Wes "Cursed" Craven) still trying to mine the 'Fresh-Faced-Teen' demographic that doesn't seem to exist anymore. Upon re-examination of "H20"'s box/poster art, I noticed a recurrent motif (from "Scream" to "Phantoms" to "Nightwatch" to "Rounders") in design: the proliferation of airbrushed faces looking Deeply Concerned about something, in addition to an over-reliance on bold, exclamatory blurbs from dubious sources (WWOR-TV, anyone?).

But I'm not reviewing the marketing tactics of a company whose former glories (namely Tarantino and Rodriguez) are now its only source of revenue.

"Sin City" notwithstanding, "H20" might have been the last good movie to come out of Dimension. At its core, it is a surprisingly compact (86 minutes, including credits) horror-thriller that moves so briskly we are never able to get too cozy with the characters. Miner goes for the subtle compositions that marked John Carpenter's original, and is fairly successful: the film refrains from the obligatory sex and self-referential attitude that would have been profitable at the time. From frame one, "H20" feels like a continuous, flowing set-piece...but the way it sidelines its characters leaves a hollow echo when it's all finished. Also unfortunate is that the suspense is so heavy-handed it seldom creates tension; this might be attributable to Chris Durand's overly self-conscious portrayal of the menacing Michael Myers. The relationship between Curtis, her son John (Josh Hartnett), and Myers is the film's intriguing familial triangle, but is disappointingly underdeveloped (though for the sake of the series, it wraps things up well enough).

In the end, "H20" is Curtis' show. She imbues her character with as much straight-faced commitment as she did in '78, in addition to a toughened exterior bent on preserving family values at any cost. The denouement, which contains a moment as touching as it is creepy, gives new meaning to the phrase, "tough love."

Pretty good,but nothing really groundbreaking.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 11 January 2003]

"Halloween H20:20 Years Later" made by Steve Miner("House",the second and the third part of "Friday the 13th" series)is quite good,especially if you liked John Carpenter's classic "Halloween".The film disregards Parts 4-6,which is not necessarily a bad thing.Luckily it has plenty of suspense,and a good amount of scares-especially the prologue is quite terrifying.There is only a little bit of gore,so gorehounds will be disappointed.Jamie Lee Curtis is pretty good as a Laurie Strode,but the other characters played by the supporting cast are shallow and empty.The score by Marco Beltrami sounds exactly like the one from "Scream" and this is surely big mistake.All in all I enjoyed this one and you should too if you are a fan of "Halloween" series.7 out of 10-a solid horror flick!

The Best Sequel of the Series

[RyanCShowers · 2 October 2018]

"Halloween H20" is the most accomplished sequel of the "Halloween" series, and a film that would deserve a "10" for its potency, conviction, and intelligence if it weren't for a few non-Laurie scenes earlier in the film that feel less than what other films achieved at the time.

You can't talk about "Halloween H20" without discussing the impact the "Scream" trilogy had on this era in horror cinema. The post-modern references, thrilling and modern style, sexy stars, and heightened feminist protagonists that made the three "Scream" films so successful are borrowed by "Halloween H20" and are used to the film's triumph.

The single best aspect of "Halloween H20" is Laurie Strode's character development. Though it's a bit more heavy-handed than Sidney in "Scream," it's effective, thorough, and aided by Jamie Lee Curtis' phenomenal, unforgettable portrayal. The last 20 minutes are first-rate 1990s horror.

"Halloween H20" feels as scary and fresh today as it did in 1998.

BY FAR the best Halloween film!! Boy, I loved it!

[paulclaassen · 7/10 · 12 October 2018]

Finally a Halloween film I enjoyed! This installment is head and shoulders above the rest. This film ignores the events of Halloween 4, 5 & 6 (Halloween 3 was an entirely different story) and follows on Halloween 2. The script is good, the dialogue is good, the music is good, the characters are likable, good camera work, and it just felt more realistic. This is the first film I actually found suspenseful. At least we get to know the characters (they're not there just for the kill) and maybe that's why it was more suspenseful. The film even had some really great funny moments. Everything makes perfect sense in this film. In fact, I found it better than the original. Jamie Lee is back, and that's a huge bonus, and boy is she fabulous in this film!! I especially loved her attitude during the film's final moments, where she's finally had enough of Michael. This was exceptional! I was so happy with the ending, I wanted to applaud it! Loved it!

Hail to director Steve Miner who not only made one of the best Halloween films (the best in my opinion) but also a classic, thoroughly entertaining horror film. Well done!!

Glad Jamie Lee Curtis is back, but it could've been better

[MissCzarChasm · 7/10 · 29 April 2002]

Some may be turned off by this film because it is the 7th installment of the Halloween series. However, the filmmakers of this feature seem to treat it as the third since they totally disregard 3-6. Too bad 4 had to be in that group of forgotten movies because it was actually quite good and better than this sequel in my opinion. The main highlight is that it takes place 20 years after the original and it brings back one of the greatest horror heroines to ever grace the screen, The original scream queen, Jamie Lee Curtis. Essentially this is a project made for her and in that aspect it totally works, however as a Halloween film it feels out of place. It seems to have picked up on the new millenium horror trend of adding hot teen actors into the mix and is basically shot like an episode of Dawson's Creek. Kevin Williamson even did some polishing on the script. In this aspect it doesn't work too well, but for the 7th installment in the series i guess it could've been worse.

As i said this is a showcase of Jamie Lee Curtis. It's very interesting to see how her character has changed in 20 years. Her performance is very good and is much more assertive than she was in the first 2 installments of the series. The problem is she is one oft he few characters worth any interest. Josh Hartnet as her son, and Michelle Williams as his love interest are the only 2 teen actors in the film worth mentioning. Josh Hartnet and Jamie Lee Curits share a very good mother/son chemistry that is vry effective in the film. Michelle Williams is more believeable than most potential teen slasher movie victims in her role. The rest of the cast is DOA. The supporting characters are vastly under-written. LL Cool J is funny in his scenes but they are too far and in between for him to become very interesting character. The other teen actors are just there to be slaughtered. The only oher interesting cast choice is Janet Leigh(shower victim from Psycho) in a Cameo. very cool to see mother and daughter together on screen. Michael Myers just isn't scary in this film. No because his presence is wearing thin because this is the 7th installment but because he isn't portrayed well by the actor/stuntman.

There are good things though that raise it above most of the sequels. The second half comes at you with full force. After a rather long set-up things move into high gear once Michael begins to wreck havoc. His showdown with Laurie is good but i wish it could've been longer. Another interesting thing this sequel does is gives us some closure. you'll see once you view the film. It's very rare that a series does this and it's very effective in this film.

I recommend this film based on the performance of Jamie Lee Curtis. If you want to see how she has been in the last 20 years than this is a film for you. Fans of the series should see this. I just worry that Halloween Ressurrection will ruin the semi-good note this film ended on, when it's released this summer. I hope to god they have a reason to bring Michael back for THE 8TH TIME. Evil never dies apparently and neither does this series even when it does have a fairly good finale.

I don't care if I get in hot water for this, but I thought Halloween H20 was stagnant. The film wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. It was kinda dull. Mediocre at best.

[ironhorse_iv · 5/10 · 31 October 2019]

First off, I really hate the silly gimmicky confusing title. The movie directed by Steve Miner sounds like something that Aquafina would put out during the fall season. It's not scary. The title doesn't even roll off the tongue. It's very wordy. Second off, the film itself is somewhat polarizing as it ignore the continuity of the previous last three films of the Halloween franchise. So if you were a fan of the Curse of Thorn storyline. You might not be happy. Those events are not really considered canon anymore. However, in executive producer Kevin Williamson's treatment of the film, those events would had been acknowledged in certain scenes involving a classroom report here. Nevertheless, they were cut from the final version. Yet, bits of that's treatment are still in the movie with newspaper clippings and a photo of bloody scissors in the opening scene. Sadly, the filmmakers didn't replace those themes with much of anything new. Although it's the only film in the series not to take place in Haddonfield, IL. The film about Michael Myers (Chris Durand) finding Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in hiding as a headmistress of an California boarding school felt like a typical slasher film with all style with no substance. It's sad because I like original creator John Carpenter's idea of having Myers being more of a ghost. It would explain, the off screen teleportation in which, the boogeyman can suddenly appear in front of their intended victims despite said victims clearly being able to outrun them. Also the psychological approach of Strode getting haunted by spirits would add something unique. It would make her struggle with trauma and alcoholism seem more compelling. Yet, this concept was rejected by the producers in favor of a multiply copycat killers 1996's 'Scream' angle. Nevertheless that idea was also cut from the final product, leaving jarring plot holes like the killer's lack of burns and good eyesight. Despite that, Durand does do a good job capturing the mannerism of the shape very well. I just wish, the eyes holes of all the masks they use, weren't so big. It's so bad that you can see the actor's bright pupils in certain moments. It humanize the monster who supposed to have the blackest of eyes. Aside from the many jarring different looking masks & the poorly done CGI one, the film needed more intense suspense. The voyeurism POV perspectives from the first movie was greatly miss. Because of that, the movie's visuals didn't felt that creepy. It need more unmounted camera work to keep us unsettled, off balance, and vulnerable to shock rather than cheap jump scares with loud sudden noised. Without it, the film get boring and drawn out between the bloody kills. The movie tries to fit in some comedy with LL Cool J's idiotic character of Ronnie, but the jokes with him don't really landed for me. As for sex appeal. Since the movie doesn't really have nudity. The misogyny & misandry toward sex is not as noticeable as the other movies. However, some of the teens like Charlie (Adam Hann Byrd) & Sarah (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) are bit unlikeable cartoony horny for normal people. Not the best acting from them. As for Josh Hartnett as Laurie's son, John. His poor delivery of lines was mostly flat. While he was indeed nineteen at the time. He didn't look like one. His adult like presence playing a kid was also a bit jarring. His underdeveloped character along with Michelle William's Molly don't really add much to the film. I felt that the filmmakers could had explore John's unseen estranged dad, a little more as well. As for cameos. Joseph Gordon Levitt & Nancy Stephens were nice to see. However, it's Curtis's real life mother Janet Leigh that steal the show. Seeing her mention the shower is clogged and getting in a car that is similar to one she drove in 1960 film 'Psycho', with a piece of film's score playing in the background was memorable. Thank goodness, they got her, instead of PJ Soles from 1979 'Halloween'. Seeing her again in the same franchise would be too weird. I just wish the film didn't repetitive ham fisted the audience with exposition about the original Haddonfield murders, a billion times. Those dialogue callbacks from Curtis really got annoying with the redundancy. Nevertheless, it was nice to see Curtis back in the role. Still, it wasn't as bizarre as the jarring out of place recycled music cues from Marco Beltrami's soundtrack for 'Scream' and "Mister Sandman" from 1981 'Halloween 2' played over of the majority of the film rather than the iconic theme from Carpenter. I don't get that, if they want to focus so much on the original, why not have that memorable score play. Regardless it was nice to hear a triumphant sounding version of the theme plays in closely minutes even if they largely scrapped composer John Ottman's score in favor of it. The final conflict ending between Laurie and Myers was indeed really good. However, it doesn't make up for the lack of thrills during the majority of the movie's 86 minute runtime. In the end, while this film was written and intended to be the final chapter in Halloween Saga. Executive meddling from the studios prevented that & in 2002, the film 'Halloween: Resurrection' was released; kinda killing the nice conclusion. Nevertheless, 2018's 'Halloween' retconned the whole series. Because of that, this movie written by Robert Zappia & Matt Greenberg doesn't have much rewatch value. It's pretty pointless to check out unless you want to know where 2018 film got the public bathroom scene idea from. Overall: While truly better than most of the Halloween series sequels. I still found this dated watered down film to be dead in the water. One not worth revisiting.

Surprisingly Good

[evanston_dad · 6/10 · 1 November 2005]

"Halloween: H20" makes an obvious effort to return to the franchise's roots and recapture the qualities that made the first one so good. It doesn't come close to succeeding, but it does manage to become, in my opinion, the second best of the series, though that's pretty faint praise.

There are some creepy scenes early on in this film (the one in the deserted rest stop bathroom, most notably), but this movie really exists for the sole purpose of having Jamie Lee Curtis kick Michael Myers's ass, and the catharsis in watching her do so is worth the price of admission. There are some obligatory killings, but they go for gruesome rather than frightening, which was not John Carpenter's approach. But when Laurie Strode takes matters into her own hands and comes after Michael with guns blazing (so to speak), hold on to yourselves--violent tendencies seem to run in this family.

The producers of this movie use a bigger budget to add some modern "scary" sound effects for atmosphere and fill out John Carpenter's original score with a sweeping orchestra--it's like John Williams' version of the Halloween theme. The whole thing feels like it's running on an I.V. drip of pure adrenaline. But fans of the series, or at least of the first two films, should enjoy it.

LL Cool J is totally wasted in the token black character role, and Janet Leigh makes a pointless appearance as well, but listen for the brief strain of Bernard Herrman's "Psycho" score in one scene with her.

Grade: B

Well, at least there ain't no Druids...

[Robin-97 · 4/10 · 7 September 1999]

The fact that this latest sequel stars Jamie Lee Curtis and is willing to disregard the dreadful "Halloween" sequels that have preceded it does not necessarily guarantee that it will be a satisfying film. Despite the fact that it has abandoned the inept plotting and filmmaking which occupied its joke of a predecessor, "The Curse of Michael Myers" (as I stated above, you can take comfort in knowing that there are no Druids in this time around), it has not gone the extra mile to actually be something special, and as a result, it comes across as a disappointingly mundane, forgettable slasher film. The film is loaded with plenty of nice in-jokes that could make this a potentially memorable finale to the "Halloween" saga (I especially loved seeing Nancy Stephens reprise her role as Nurse Marion from the first two "Halloween" films), but alas, the director of this material is Steve Miner ("House", "Friday the 13th Part 3"), who is competent enough, but hardly in John Carpenter's league when it comes to pumping up the adrenaline of an audience. His murder scenes are presented in such a humdrum fashion that you end up saying to yourself, "is that it?". What's most sorely missed in "H20", however, is the presence of the late Donald Pleasance. Without his wonderfully campy scenes of him describing the pure evil of Michael Myers, the film feels undernourished, so we end up with many overlong stalk-and-slash scenes that barely push the film up to its scant 85 minutes.

However, while on an overall scale, "H20" is hardly a satisfying conclusion to the saga, it does come up with an ending that would be the ideal way to close off the series. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that it perfectly sums up everything that the entire "Halloween" saga has been about, and for the first time, makes one finally think that yet another sequel would be impossible. If the 80 minutes that preceded this conclusion had been just as strong, we might have had a really special motion picture to close off the past 20 years of slasher mayhem.

A Very Good Franchise Movie

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 30 October 2005]

Don't ask me why but I couldn't help being involved in the pre title sequence of H20 . I mean how many times have we seen a madman stalking his victims in a dark house ? Too many you say ? I couldn't agree more but director Steve Miner has managed to make this sequence tense and exciting

The story is held up slightly after this as we're introduced to the characters . Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode who having survived the previous encounter with Michael Myers now has a drinking problem . Perhaps not the most radical or original example of character development but character development of a sort . Obviously Michael Myers is just as you'd expect him to be . He says nothing and goes around killing horny teenagers

Interestingly enough while horny teenagers having sex are expected to be bumped off in this type of movie there is no on screen sex in this movie and there's nothing to indicate that none of these teenagers have lost their virginity . They're no angels but they're not promiscuous sex pigs either . Deliberate post modernism on the part of the writers ? Possibly since we see two teenage girls watching a clip from SCREAM on TV so make up your own mind and it's good to see a horror film with some lighter moments which come from a performance by LL Cool J as a cop while at the same time the humour never becomes OTT

By no means a classic example of cinema H20 is a fairly impressive movie for what it is - Yet another sequel in a horror franchise but one that kept this sometimes demanding viewer entertained

Halloween Lite

[mentalcritic · 1/10 · 19 October 2004]

In the 1970s, John Carpenter brought us a remarkable, atmospheric horror film called Halloween. Like all good films that are remotely successful, the moneymen of Hollywood just had to drag this one down into the mud of sequeldom. Twenty years later is a good subtitle for this film, as during a period of twenty years after the innovative original was released, the cinematic abortions that have had the name Halloween attached to them have sunk lower and lower.

One reason audiences cared so much for Laurie Strode in the original is that an inordinate amount of time was invested in building up her character. John Carpenter wisely invested a great deal of time in giving her a third dimension, and it paid off in spades. Her struggle with the massive shape hunting her hit a note with audiences because they were able to imagine themselves in a similar position. That, combined with another masterful score from Carpenter, proved just how much more important atmosphere is compared to gore in horror.

In case you haven't guessed by now, I've spelled out everything that is missing from Halloween H20, or Halloween Lite as it should be called. Nothing is known about most of the characters. Those who do have a background, Laurie and Michael, only achieve this relative feat due to the previous films. Laurie's son, his girlfriend, their schoolmates, they all might as well be cardboard for all the weight they add to the story.

People complain that there is a lack of blood or gore in this Halloween, but that isn't a fair comment. This film is no more or less bloody than the original Halloween, yet it has less than a tenth of the impact. The reason for this is as simple as it is obvious. Halloween spent a good portion of its running time setting a mood, be it through storytelling, immaculate photography, or one of the best scores ever composed by human hands. Halloween understood that the whole was greater than the sum of the parts, and gave as much as detail as it could. In spite of running only six less minutes, Halloween Lite gives the appearance of containing profoundly less.

One day, Hollywood is going to realize how tired the public is of films that try to be hip. The more you have to tell your audience that you're the in thing, and are so cool you can't be ignored, the more you aren't. It's like a natural law. A variation on the law that states the more you tell people how hardcore you are, the more hardcore you aren't, but one that applies all the same. Still, more excruciating examples of what happens when you forget this principle exist within the Halloween franchise. Just look at the next godawful sequel.

I gave Halloween Lite a one out of ten. If you've seen the original Halloween, there is no good reason to see this installment. Nostalgia, hype, or even flat-out lies couldn't save this sequel. It's enough to make one wish Hollywood would stop bringing out so many films every week and instead concentrated on finding some new ideas.

A great sequel.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 23 October 2018]

After so many poor follow ups, H20 serves up thrills and spills, with the franchise managing to go bigger, and yet get back to basics.

It's well acted, very well paced, and entertaining from start to finish. It's also nice to see the hunted become the hunter, great to see Laurie get revenge on her sadistic brother.

Curtis is great, Hartnett is cool also, although why's he wearing a shirt six sizes too big for him?

Some great moments, it's very suspenseful, kind of builds on the success of the Scream franchise, it very much has that vibe as opposed to it's predecessors.

One of the best. 8/10

The final act is fantastic

[clarker-26019 · 7/10 · 7 July 2022]

The first two-thirds might be a little uneven and unfocused, however, the final act is absolutely fantastic and I would say that alone makes this worth a watch.

Too clean, too many plot holes, too many false jumps, and self-referencing

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 25 July 2016]

Yet another HALLOWEEN sequel, this one directed by Steve Miner, the guy responsible for Friday the 13th Part 2 and HOUSE. As to be expected, it's not much cop, following the modern horror conventions too closely and therefore failing to generate any surprise or thrills by the fact that we already know what's coming. The plot is terrible, with events which occur not being explained or explainable, and details being passed by or glossed over in favour of dumping the cast and the killer in a deserted school.

Watching this film, you will spot many take-offs of other movies (Michelle Williams looking out of the window and seeing Michael just like Curtis did in HALLOWEEN). The director would call these "homages", I myself call them "lack of ideas". Also, surprisingly, there are many continuity errors and mistakes. I wish they could have taken a little more time to polish things instead of rushing this out and leaving all the errors in, it really makes the editors look incompetent.

While no actor is particularly bad, nobody really shines in this film. Adam Arkin (in some medical television series I believe) is pretty bland as Curtis' grey-haired lover who wears jumpers just like my old grandad. LL Cool J lends some comic relief as he recites erotic stories to his wife on the phone, but this humour is out of place in a HALLOWEEN film and just doesn't fit. Can someone explain to me how he was shot seven or eight times (twitching as the bullets entered his body) and yet manages to survive? The last we see of him is his corpse, laying in a pool of blood and riddled with bullets, then he returns at the end to tell us that the bullets only 'grazed' him. Yeah, right.

The young cast are all pretty bad and sort of merge into one, nobody is memorable. Michelle Williams is in fact awful as a female token love interest, but to be fair she is given literally nothing to do in the story apart from run around. The only one who's at least partially adequate is Josh Hartnett who plays Laurie's tough son, he manages to be both believable and likable. Unfortunately he is in it too little, as Jamie Lee Curtis dominates the film. Much has been made of how Curtis puts in a brilliant portrayal of an alcoholic woman plagued by nightmares, but to be honest she wasn't that brilliant. Good, perhaps, but not brilliant, and her performance was definitely not enough to make this film into a classic.

Which leaves us with Michael himself. Once again he's played by a different actor and he's even more absurd this time around, with his spiky hair bushing around the sides of his mask. Excuse me? Not the Michael I know, get yourself a haircut man. Unfortunately the camera dwells on his eyes far too often, making him not in the least bit scary, for as they say, the eyes are the windows to the soul. The murders are all clichéd and generic, the only good bit being where a girl has her leg broken and nearly ripped off. Otherwise it's the typical slashings and stabbings which we've seen millions of in these past few years.

Leave it to Kevin Williamson to pepper the film with unwanted in-jokes. Janet Leigh has the PSYCHO music playing, while characters watch SCREAM and SCREAM 2 on televisions. These I could have done without; this is meant to be a horror film, not a comedy horror like SCREAM was. What an arrogant fellow that Williamson seems to be. There are other elements which are pretty nauseating too, like a poor actor doing an impression of Donald Pleasence (they dedicated the film to him, but managed to spell his name wrong in the process!). HALLOWEEN H20: TWENTY YEARS LATER is better than the previous sequel (thanks to a refreshingly short running time), but even so it's only average at best, marred by one too many false jumps and a lack of real scares.

The crowning jewel

[Realrockerhalloween · 12 August 2016]

H20 was the twentieth anniversary that features the return or I like to call it revenge of Laurie Strode.

Jamie had realized during lunch that twenty years had pass since the original film and wanted to do a follow up film. She wanted to get the whole crew back and John Carpenter to direct. He refused after divorcing himself after his anthology idea was ruined. I consider Halloween, the fog, season of the witch, Prince of darkness and the thing his true series.

Williamson wrote a script that was quite different from the finished project yet Jamie didn't want her character to be seen as a bad mother.I don't blame her. Who wants to look bad?

The supporting castes were all fresh faced and did fine. The Halloween theme and scream score mix well together.

The only problem is Donald Pleasence passed away before It was even dreamed of.

It truly was the final Halloween in my opinion.

Where the heck?

[anthonyturno · 7/10 · 6 September 2018]

Do all the haters come from? This is a 7.5 out of 10. The best one since the first one. Maybe it's because they aren't used to having an actual plot. Sure it's watered down compare to the first but it's way better than any of the sequels including Halloween 2

Final part of the trilogy

[hellholehorror · 7/10 · 21 October 2021]

I felt quite a strong return to form with this Halloween outing. This was the true final part of the trilogy. It really ramps up the excitement in the last twenty minutes. The story tries to be clever but who cares really. It was violent and there were plenty of scares so it filled the role really well. If you want to save some time then take this as the final part of the original trilogy and forgive the first slow hour.

What really drowns H20...

[ddfcmp8 · 1/10 · 3 November 2007]

Is the stupidity of the times. This could have, and should have been something to end all the endless, mindlessness of the series, especially because Jamie Lee Curtis was involved, and even suggested it to an extent but lo and behold...we have to deal with that jerk-off Kevin Williamson of "scream" fame with this one. He produces this one, I think, and he made darn sure that it mocked his stupid "scream" sensations to the T! You know what? I bet Jamie Lee Curtis is utterly ashamed of this one. Its hardly surprising. Same old stupidness with dumb characters, dumb actors, and horrible dialogue that is supposed to represent the "in with the times" teenager fan fare and it's just stupid. We have the famous, iconic Laure Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) in a different life with a new ID, trying to raise a son that apparently has been dealing with this bad memory of hers for about as long as she has. UGH! We don't give a rats butt about some lame son who offers nothing headaches galore, and you know what else? the mother-son story plays out more like Linda Hamilton and Edward Furlong in T2! I'm not kidding I swear I could mistake Ms. Curtis for playing Sarah Connor in some scenes. Anyway, the former Ms Strode runs a school (surprise surprise), where lame teens with no brains attend. On Halloween, 1998, Mr. Myers comes a knockin' for dear Laurie...20 years later. There is an attempt at alcoholism to give Laurie some depth, but it's just too ridiculous to say. Curtis has always been a great actress but to see her acting alongside a bunch a bad, no talent actors and writers etc (Minus a cameo from her beyond fantastic mother) is not what a Halloween fan wants to see. I think it was all fixed. This movie is a "scream" movie guised as a "Halloween" film, and you know what? Everybody knows it. It is nothing new, nothing original, and certainly NOT a real "Halloween" movie. Hell, a woman with out clothes who gets killed by Michael Myers, after enjoying a night of hot sex is more apt to being alongside the original Halloween than this! This is "scream mockery" and a really bad one at that. It barrows scream score by that ludicrous Marco Beltrami, and has a lot of naughty words and weird teen lingo as uttered in a scream movie. If there was ever a film to end the series with a really bad note, it's surely this one right here!

Halloween has never been so Humorous!

[BettieTeese · 6/10 · 12 March 2005]

I loved Halloween H20,not because it scared the pants off me,but because it kept me in hysterics throughout the whole film! I avoid horror movies like the plague because I am a wuss and cant stand watching brutal and gory murders being carried out,but Halloween H20 is so poorly performed that not even an in-line skate wedged into the face of a teenage hockey player could frighten me. Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode/Keri Tate and her crazy brother Micheal Meyers is back to terrorize her,for another Halloween.Hot young talent Josh Hartnett makes his impressive acting debut as John Tate,the rebellious 17 year old son of Curtis who is sick to death of living under his tortured mother's thumb and yearns for independence.The fact that he is the nephew of a psychotic killer doesn't phase him.Dawson's Creek actress Michelle Williams performs decently enough as Molly Cartwell,Hartnett's intelligent girlfriend,who soon learns her boyfriend's family secret. The real highlight of H20 is the scenes that call for characters to scream blue murder.You'll either be on the edge of your seat,with your heart racing,or like me,doubled over in hysterics.I first viewed this film in the early hours of the morning and managed to wake my house up with my laughter,which is surely an indication that Halloween H20 is not bone chillingly frightening.

Another shameless sequel

[Pete-17 · 1/10 · 13 September 1998]

John Carpenter (creator of the original 1978 horror classic "Halloween") must be doing one of two things: a) laughing his head off at this bore of a horror film and enjoying the royalties, or b) kicking himself for not doing it himself. The only thing that allowed me to survive the 90 minutes of sheer boredom was hearing Carpenter's original "Halloween" score, albeit transplanted from the original, being played over and over.

That's right, the movie is only 90 minutes long, and (not including the pre -credit sequence murders that try to get the proverbial ball rolling) not one person dies until an hour in. But there are plenty of Kevin Williamson -style false scares (he doctored the script and served as exec-producer) but they get old really fast. Janet Leigh (of "Psycho" fame) makes a cute little cameo to play the maternal character to real-life daughter Jamie Lee Curtis for a scene, but she really serves no purpose to the film.

The bulk of the movie takes place at the prep school Curtis runs which is situated out in the middle of the boondocks--perfect place for Michael Myers to get a few more practice killings in, right? Hence, all those false scares. And there is the little introduction of Curtis having changed her name and no one knowing her relation to the Michael Myers murders, except her son does know and it doesn't really factor in.

"H20" was originally scheduled to have the traditional Halloween opening but it was finished so fast they decided to push it up to summer so as to get a better chance of a profit. My advice: they should have spent more time on developing a truly scary script and taken their time making it. A lot of potential wasted there. And they would have had the perfect opening day, too. Halloween is on a friday this year.

Victim Number 1 Returns

[joshnkentucky · 7/10 · 14 May 2005]

OK this film the seventh in the series of Halloween films is kind of like a remake of part one and two it involves Micheal Myers wondering if Laurie Strode is still alive and is definitely determined to find her so he does at the beginning of the Halloween 7 we see the Nurse from part H1 and H2 she is just arriving to her Home when she steps on a piece of shattered glass from the porch light that has obviously been broken by someone she wondering how could her door be unlocked after it being locked so she takes a peak in to the dark House and realizes what happened her house was broken into so she walks over her neighbors door and knocks a few time until she hears a noise from the other end of the porch and is shortly startled by her neighbors two boys who live next door to her Nurse Marion tells the boys what happened to her house and they call the police while they wait for the police to arrive one of the boys asks if he could check it out just to to be safe the Nurse approves and he walks into the dark creepy invaded House after walking through the house he finds that all of her office papers and files have been wrecked and thrown all over the floor so he continues and goes to the kitchen and steals some beers and is finished investigating after leaving he tells Nurse Marion that there is nothing to fear the coast is clear so she enters the house and starts to look around holding a flash light in her hand and comes to her wrecked office room and discovers that the files on Laurie Strode have been taken so she walks back to the door and turns around to the open door which has been open she panics and runs for for her neighbors house and discovers that they have been murdered so she trys to get out until the legendary Micheal Myers appears and is trying to kill her after she hides behind a couch she comes out and hits Micheal with a fire poker but that does,nt help and the police have arrived she breaks out a window to try and get the police to hear her but they don't so she is killed and Micheal gets away with the files on Laurie Strode after the beginning we see News papers showing all of the News from Halloween in the past twenty years and laurie strodes class of 1978 year book with her picture circled in red ink after that we are taken to a hallway in a private school and the doors of a classroom like place open up and a brief flash back of laurie in the closet in H1 are revealed and her sons picture has a knife in it so she wakes up and it is a dream her son Josh Tate runs in her room to see whats wrong after the morning of Halloween is here Laurie is seen in her kitchen with her son Josh she has cut her hair short and is now a Private school teacher in Northern California as the day goes by we see that she is even more troubled not only by dreams but her own past experience with the ever lasting evil Brother killer she her trauma has caused her to fake her death and move to California under a new name Kerri Tate.......

Good, but not great.

[huntleydevonte · 5/10 · 22 July 2007]

I think this was a good film. But at the same time, it was also a disappointment. It ignores Parts 4-6, which made the series a lot interesting and keeps you thinking, ''what's gonna happen next?'' each one of those films added something to the story. Not repeating the same thing over again. This film offered nothing new to the story, other than the return of Jamie Lee Curtis. I think they should have done this movie a lot better, and should have picked up where 6 left off. That would have made this movie more interesting. I wished they could have done that. I mean, what was the point of ignoring those movies? They weren't bad at all. They were terrifying, and creepy, and each one of those three films ended with a cliffhanger. This movie feels much like Scream, which is making this movie be hated by a lot of people. I think the producers or directer, or anyone could have did this better. They should stuck with Kevin Williamson's idea. Steve Miner made the wrong choose for this movie. He should have included Parts 4-6. They are the films that held the series together. This movie is good in all, but could have been a lot better.

Arguably the best of the "Halloween" sequels, "H20: Twenty Years Later" serves as the wonderful book-end to the story, offering a satisfying and entertaining conclusion.

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 8/10 · 1 October 2016]

Ah, the mid-to-late 1990's... sort-of a rebirth of horror in a way. After all, the period from 1990 to about 1995 was wholly and decidedly a relatively murky period for the genre, with quality releases being very few and far between. Audiences were tiring of the holdover 80's slasher flicks and ho-hum ghost stories, with really only a handful of stand-out creep-shows to keep horror fans satiated. With so few quality-choices (notably the mini-series "It" from the book by Stephen King and the wonderful thriller "Candyman" from the stories of Clive Barker), it was no wonder that the early 90's were considered a "dead" period.

Then, "Scream" happened and changed everything. It proved that not only could horror be widely appealing at the hands of gifted writers and quality filmmakers, but also showed that the old tropes and clichés could be "hip" and "cool" again when handled with care and a degree of nostalgic love.

So, it should come as no shock that after the colossal misfire that was the previous film ("The Curse of Michael Myers"), the "Halloween" series got a new lease on life with a post-"Scream" sensibility in this 1998 release- "Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later." A minor degree of self-awareness, a focus on modern teenage and young adult culture and a fun blast from the past by way of original star Jamie Lee Curtis made the series relevant and modern in a way that both worked to re-invigorate interest and also pay homage to the series origins.

The film was lovingly crafted to serve as a book-end to the original, cleverly taking advantage of being released on the twentieth anniversary of the John Carpenter classic as part of it's schtick. It was built up as the "Halloween" to end all "Halloween's"... A "Halloween" for the modern era. A "Halloween" for the sharp and post-modern 90's crowd. And a "Halloween" that honored the long- beloved roots of the series.

Directed by Steve Miner, the film revolves around Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode, now living as a teacher under a false name. Still haunted by nightmares of her murderous sibling Michael Myers, Laurie is trying her hardest to move on. But when her brother comes calling, the stakes are set for a final and apocalyptic battle from which only one can emerge alive.

The success of the film really falls onto its clear adoration of the original and the desire to "evolve" and "complete" the story that it started in a new and fresh way. You can feel the love for that film oozing in virtually every scene here, with many subtle homages and call-backs. Yet it also builds and evolves the franchise in a way that previous films hadn't. Whereas prior sequels truly did feel like they were simply trying to re-create the magic of the original to increasingly diminishing results, "H20" actually has the guts to say "No, the best way to pay tribute to the origin of the series is to make homage and continue the story, but allow it to change with the times." A huge part of that is the result of that late-90's self-aware mindset popularized by other films, and I think it works wonders. There are numerous levels of subversion that make you second-guess where it's all leading, there's plenty of banter and humor that satisfies the audience, and it also makes the wise move to make all the characters likable... nobody here really has their own agenda as so many other slasher-sequels have done with their characters.

Miner's direction is strong, with a keen sense of scope, atmosphere and composition. He finds just the right balance between old- fashioned cinematography and 90's era aesthetics, giving the film a unique tone and visual palate that both compliments and contrasts with the Carpenter original.

Performances are uniformly strong for the material. Curtis is a joy in her returning role, giving Laurie a grand sense of pathos but also a drive to finally face her fears. Supporting roles by the likes of Josh Hartnett, Adam Arkin and even rapper LL Cool J round out a likable and believable cast. And there's no sore thumbs to be found. Also of note is voice-over artist Tom Kane, who perfectly re- creates the brilliant dialog of the late Donald Pleasance in a wonderful opening sequence. (Also, keep your eyes peeled for future superstar Joseph Gordon- Levitt in a small role in the opening sequence!)

Should I have to address any negatives, I would definitely have to dock some slight points for a frankly shaky first act, which does fall back on the old tropes and clichés a bit too much. It just feels contrary to the much stronger second and third acts of the film, and it doesn't do much to subvert expectations or built on the legacy of the series. I also take some slight issue with the film's at times break-neck pace... it's already a fairly short film, and it rushes a bit too much for everything to really set in.

Still, those flaws being stated, I can't help but feel that for my money, this is the best of the "Halloween" sequels. It built off of what came before, served as a loving tribute and also book-ended the series with what was at the time built up to be the final entry in the series. To me, the "Halloween" franchise is a trilogy- Carpenter's "Halloween", it's first sequel "Halloween II" and this film, "H20." Everything else to me is pure fan-fiction.

I give "Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later" a strong 8 out of 10 as a horror fan and in particular as a fan of the franchise. Definitely worth seeing. (It's follow-up "Resurrection"... not so much.)

Scary and surprising

[martinandersson_3 · 7/10 · 28 November 2005]

Awesome! When i heard about the movie i thought Michael Myers would hunt Jamie Lee Curtis character Laurie Strode through the school all the time, but i got surprised! The beginning is scary, when the nurse from the original movie (1978) meets Michael again. Then Laurie Strode wakes up from a nightmare, screaming. Thats the first time you meets her son, John (Josh Hartnett). Laurie Strode is the Principal of a school, and John is a student on the school. All students is supposed to go to Yosemite during Halloween. But John and three other students stays at the school. So does Laurie and her boyfriend Will. And this day, Halloween 1998, it's been 20 years since the first movie. Jamie Lee Curtis, Josh Hartnett, Adam Arkin & Michelle Williams is the biggest roles in the movie. Jamie Lee is great, and according to Jamie Lee Curtis herself, she came up with the idea to the movie. After a while it is kinda scary, and so is the beginning. But the rest is more a drama, where Jamie Lee Curtis fears that Michael Myers will return.

John Carpenters classical Halloween theme has been replaced by a tech-no mix.

This was supposed to be the absolutely lats Halloween movie, but another sequel came year 2003 (Halloween Resrrection) and another Halloween 9 is under production.

Tries To Do A Scream-Type Of Film For The Halloween Series And It Fails

[coconutkungfu-30704 · 3/10 · 18 February 2020]

Neither funny nor scary, this Halloween film is only worth it for the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, that seems to enjoy being back in the Laurie Strode role.

It attempts to be a sequel,parody and tribute all at once and fails at all of them.

A lot of people seem to be enjoying this one for some reason.

Bad!