Before we talk about Halloween 4 proper, I want to mention the idea John Carpenter and Debra Hill wanted to pursue for this fourth film. They had the idea that Haddonfield banned Halloween out of fear of Michael Myers. In their efforts to keep the memory of Michael Myers buried, the fear they create ends up bringing him back. I actually like this idea. Of course, it would need a good treatment, and the right people behind the camera, but I liked that it was going to move past the sister plot, and bring Michael back as on object of pure fear. Of course, after the “flop” that was Halloween III, the powers that be (executive producer Mustapha Akkad) didn’t want to back another “concept movie.” He didn’t like the idea, and with that, Carpenter and Hill sell off their share in the Halloween series and depart forever (this was true when I wrote it several years ago. Carpenter is actually returning to the franchise as a producer).
Akkad wanted to go back to the basics of the original. Words that should be coming to mind when you read “back to the basics” are: copy, derivative, uninspired, unoriginal and of course, inferior. While these words may accurately describe Halloween 4: the Return of Michael Myers, the fact is that if you like slasher films, and have a particular affinity for the Halloween series, number four here isn’t bad.
Before we continue, we need to bring the term “retcon” into our mutual vocabulary. It stands for retroactive continuity. To recon something means to change something pre-established as fact. For example, we both know that Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis died in a fiery blast at the end of Halloween 2. At least that’s what we thought, anyway. Turns out they are both alive and well. Myers I can believe. After all, he isn’t human (as the dozen or so bullets and multiple stab wounds he lived through can attest). So, what’s a little fire? On the other hand, for Loomis to have survived, with naught but some scaring on his right side, is hard to believe, even by the standards of this series. Also, fiery blast induced comas, apparently, are great for the physique, because damn, did Myers power up for this film. Not only does he survive what is basically a firing squad (and getting hit by a car, beat, etc), but he is now able to jab his thumb through someone’s skull. He was always extremely strong, but this takes it to the next level.
As far as the plotting goes, Halloween 4 is trying to ape Halloween 2 by way of the original. It tries to borrow the feeling of normal suburbia invaded that Carpenter created, but is still has Myers trying to kill his next of kin, now his nine-year-old niece Jamie. So yeah, thanks again Halloween 2. Now the whole series is saddled with that asinine plot development. As far as 4 goes however, the whole film is unoriginal from top to bottom. There is very little that is new or groundbreaking here.
With all of that, why would I call this film decent? As derivative as this film is, it copies enough right of the right stuff to make it worthwhile to fans of the genre. First, it is time to put the original Halloween out of your head. No other film in this series will come close to it. Make peace with that and then you can accept some of these films on their own merits. What are those merits, pray-tell? Well…
Dwight Little does a good job creating a realistic environment for the slaughter. The houses, streets and people all create a believable town. The chase scenes are well staged, and with the exception of Myers seemingly being able to teleport around town, don’t strain credibility too much.
The script does a reasonably good job at keeping the story simple. Slasher films that try and add “depth” to their plot by adding motive to the killer or complicated backstories tend to end up tripping over themselves. Halloween 2 and unfortunately, 5 and 6 are examples of this. Of course, the problem that you run into is that, if they don’t try to add plot twists, it becomes, literally, the same story over and over again. Of course, that means slasher films really shouldn’t franchise, but whatever… Here, Myers is trying to kill his niece, and that is that. The vigilante mob and love triangle sub-plots don’t amount to much, but at least they tie into the main thrust of the film, and in reality, not too much time is spent there, anyway. The love triangle in particular I wish had been excised. Had Rachel and Brady had been in a stable relationship, it would have made Brady’s sacrifice more moving.
The dialogue is a little rough sometimes. It generally does the job, but there are some howlers. When the vigilantes accidently kill an innocent man, the leader’s reaction (aided by a delivery that sounds more annoyed than anything) is, “shit Stu, that’s Ted Holister.” That cracks me up every time. Also, Alan B. McElroy doesn’t really have a handle on how children talk. Jamie doesn’t talk like a 9-year-old, and seems to have lost her inner monologue. These aren’t deal breakers, but are worth mentioning.
The supporting actors do a fair job, of particular note is Beau Starr as sheriff Meeker. I like that he takes Loomis’ warning seriously, as opposed to ignoring him until there is a body count, and actually tries to take steps to keep the town safe. The majority of the credit for the film working, however, falls at the feet of our two lead actresses: Elle Cornell and Danielle Harris. Cornell, as Rachel Carruthers, is a terrifically likable presence, and pulls off the role of girl next door and devoted big sister perfectly. She is exactly the kind of hero a film like this needs. You immediately grow attached to her and actually care whether or not she lives. That isn’t something to be taken for granted in a film like this. Harris, as Jamie Lloyd, manages to convince as a child in peril without ever becoming annoying. This is quite a feat for her, especially since she is saddled with some rather unfortunate dialogue. It is doubly impressive since she spends most of the movie in a haunted, almost dour mood. Donald Pleasence is fine as the increasingly crazy Dr. Loomis, but we will talk more about him in the next film.
The reason anyone remembers this film is the ending, however. I have to admit, when I saw this film for the first time (I think I was a freshman in high school), the ending kind of gave me the creeps. Maybe I had let my guard down, but I didn’t see it coming. The image of Jamie standing there in her bloody clown costume, having just killed her step mom, with Loomis screaming, terrified in the corner, is a hauntingly perfect note to close the film on for two reasons. First, it’s a creepy, and that’s how you want to end a horror film. Second, and even more importantly, it is the perfect end to the series. It brings the story full circle. Michael Myers is dead, but now his niece repeated his crime, and will, in turn, become the boogeyman. Why did this happen? Evil, that’s why. Beyond that, we don’t know, and we don’t need to know. That’s why it works. Evil has once again become unpredictable and unstoppable. It ends with the exact same question the first film asked in the beginning.
Halloween 4 acts as a reboot of the series in a way. They took the story that had been established in the previous films, changes some things they found problematic with the last film and moved forward. It deals with mostly new characters and starts the story afresh (fresh in a derivative way). The retcons in this film don’t bother me like those of Halloween 2. We have already thrown continuity to the wind. While 2 rendered problematic the (actually) brilliant first film, 4 merely changes some facts from the ending of an already inferior film. The fact that 4 is better than 2 makes it easy to accept.
So, that’s what you have: two strong performances, a well thought out ending, and a derivative but reasonably well done story. In truth, this is more than you will get from your average slasher film, and it is enough to make Halloween 4 worth a look for anyone who loves slasher films. There is one other problem I have yet to mention, however. You see, despite being a fine ending for the series that never really meant to be a series, Halloween 4 made a good amount of money, so that could only mean one thing…
Halloween 5: the Revenge of Michael Myers, or, as it is known in some circles, That Massive Dump I Just Took.
Yep, this film takes a Cleveland steamer all over the fourth film. Oh where to begin? Well, let’s start with the retconning of the wonderful ending that closed out the last film. Remember what I wrote about the fourth film being smart keeping its plot simple? Well, there is a good reason for that. If things start happening that require an explanation to work and you don’t adequately explain them, it will seem really half-assed. Of course, if you explain it away, you risk making the already absurd beyond ridiculous, but we will get to that when we talk about the next film. Here, we are half-assing it. It turns out that Jamie only attacked (not killed) her step mom at the end of the last film because Michael told her to. See, they now have a telepathic bond. How, you ask? We don’t know, and more importantly, neither do the writers.
After Halloween 4 was a success, they immediately rushed part 5 into production. The reasonably well thought out plot of the fourth film was replaced with an unfinished rough draft. The plot wanders aimlessly between set pieces, and it piles up plot contrivances. Not only are we expected to believe that, for some reason, Jamie and Michael now have a special psychic connection, but Loomis starts speaking about a “rage” driving Michael that will consume him. Loomis tells Myers that he needs to return to his childhood home, so Jamie can take away his rage. Not only does Michael actually show up for his therapy, but his childhood house (but a normal suburban house in the last three films) is now a mansion. What is this driving rage you ask and how could Jamie help him? We don’t know, because, more importantly, neither do the writers.
It is this vagueness that permeates the film. It sort of has the structure of a slasher film, but not really. I guess Myers still wants to kill his niece, but he doesn’t have any urgency. He seems to wander around, killing people here and there, hoping that Jamie would eventually cross his path. Why does he want to kill her? I know she is family, but that reason barely held water in the last two films. They are well past the point they can leave that question hanging there. So, we have questions that are barely asked, let alone answered. We have a story that just lingers there without building to anything. A killer that seems to be farting around town… looking his lost shaker of salt, maybe? Does this film have anything definitively good, or at least definitive, about it?
Well, it does have the wonderful Elle Corrnell back as Rachel Carruthers. At least, they had her for 20 minutes or so before they kill her off. A film filled with half thoughts and aimless wandering, and the only thing definitive they lay down is killing off the best thing the film had going for it. Now mind you, I have nothing against killing off likable main characters in a shocking manner. There are few films I adore more than Psycho, for example. Of course, had Halloween 5 been directed by Alfred Hitchcock and written by Joseph Stephano, they might have pulled it off. But it wasn’t, and her death was a huge mistake, one the executive producer Mustapha Akkad even admitted to. Rachel doesn’t even get a good death scene. At least they get her naked before she dies. Am I right, guys? Am I right? … sigh
Now, to those who think that I am over praising Ellie Cornell, and her presence in these films, I command you to look upon Wendy Kaplan and DISPARE!!! I’m not saying that it is an award caliber performance, but films like this need likable central characters like Rachael to anchor the story. See, for everything that Ellie’s Rachel Carruthers is (strong, likable, easily relatable); Wendy’s Tina Williams is opposite. She is shrill, annoying and absolutely the last person you want to be watching for the next 90 minutes or so. The fact that Tina and Rachel share a few moments together before Rachel dies makes the disparity between characters ever more pronounced. I am not saying that all films, even all slasher films, need to have the same kind of likable protagonist (in fact, a later film in this series is a wonderful exception), but if they insist on following the formula already set out by the films that have come before, then having a character you are supposed to root for become so annoying is a major mistake.
When Tina dies protecting Jamie, we don’t feel a loss, we just thank our lucky stars that we don’t have to watch Wendy Kaplan anymore. Now, imagine if you will, that Tina never existed, and that Rachel returned as Jamie surrogate big sister and protector. Rachel taking a knife so that Jamie could escape would have been the exact kind of moment this film needed. Her death would actually have an emotional impact on the audience. The film is sorely lacking any real emotional involvement by the audience, and this would have been a huge improvement. The rest of the supporting cast is either forgettable, or even worse, annoying like Tina. So, we need not bother discussing them.
Going back to the aimless quality of the film, I still didn’t mention the strange old who lives by the river and nurses Myers back to health. Myers just lies there for a year; I guess being fed by this man. Did he bath Myers too? If he didn’t, imagine the smell. Or how about the strange man in black, who spends the whole movie wandering around only to pop up at the last minute to break Michael Myers out of prison? There were theories flying around the cast as to who the man in black was. Of course, none of them knew for sure because, say it with me folks, NEITHER DO THE WRITERS.
The irony of all this is, perhaps because I was expecting this film to be terrible (possibly the worst in the series), it was easier for me to pick out the few things Halloween5 did do well.
- 1. There is a crackerjack chase scene where Jamie gets caught in a laundry chute. As a self-contained set piece, it is very well done.
- 2.Speaking of Jamie, Danielle Harris turns in a terrific performance. The fact that she is mute in the first half of the film is a dual blessing: it gives Ms. Harris a chance to do some good non-verbal acting, and it allows her to avoid the film’s crappy dialogue.
- 3.Dr. Loomis seems truly insane in this film. You get the impression he would gladly let Jamie, or anyone else die, as long as it would allow him to stop Michael Myers. This is a fascinating idea, and it could have made for a great film. Suppose instead of a hero, Loomis became, in essence, another villain, in his effort to stop Myers. It is a shame the film didn’t (or couldn’t) go there.
- 4.Before a really annoying couple has sex, they make a point about the guy putting on a condom. Yay safe sex!
You get the impression that the writers were called to Akkad’s Office and asked if they had any ideas for a 5th Halloween. The writers mentioned the idea of Jamie being traumatized and mute, and of Loomis becoming dangerous in his obsession, and Akkad responds by telling them to add some dialogue to those thoughts and have it on his desk by tomorrow. The screenplay, for all the reasons stated above, feels unfinished. Akkad, a man who would have milked this franchise until he tore the udders off, even admitted this film was a rush job, and that they should have given it another year.
In a very funny way, Halloween 5 is the sequel most like the original. The first film also was somewhat aimless and uneventful. The difference is that, in John Carpenter, it had a craftsman that knew how to wring unbearable amounts of suspense out of those moments of nothing, and the screenplay was written knowing that. Halloween5 is what the original would have looked like without that talent behind the camera. That is how this film stands. Despite a few interesting ideas, it is a film without a coherent idea of where it wants to go. The worst thing Halloween 5 does is throw a whole bunch of questions into the air, with no idea how to answer them, and leave it up to the next film to deal with them. And, if you feel like opening up THAT can of worms…
Halloween 6: the Curse of Michael Myers
I have a great deal of sympathy for Daniel Fairrens. He couldn’t win. If you are going to follow Halloween 5, and not just reboot, you have to deal with that shitstorm of questions that were left hanging. You aren’t beginning with a clean slate; you are starting backed into a corner. But Daniel Fairrens has balls. He doesn’t just try to pick up the pieces left by the last film, he tries to answer every possible question anyone could have (but really should never ask) from the Halloween series. Trying to tie all of these films together into one coherent mythology is a fool’s errand. He goes for it though: Ancient cults, blood magic, familial rituals, amazing coincidence, retcons. By god, he will fit this square peg into that round hole. Of course, it goes without saying that the film doesn’t work, but I can’t lie and say it isn’t an interesting massive, messy failure of a film. Where does one even begin?
So, Jamie, after being kidnapped at the end of the last film, is being held captive by a strange cult. She is 9 months pregnant (and Michael is the father, so yes, rape and incest are a thing in this movie) and the film begins with her giving birth. She escapes with her baby, but Michael tracks her down and kills her, but her baby finds his way into the hands of Tommy Doyle, the little boy Laurie babysat for it the original, who is now obsessed with Myers. Loomis, dragged into service again by Doctor Wynn (the doctor from one scene in the first film), also reappears and Tommy tells him that Myers is part of the ancient cult of Thorn, and that every generation; one member of the cult would be anointed, and for the good of the whole society, would slaughter his whole family. So, that is why Michael is always trying to off his relatives! Also, it turns out the relatives of the Strodes (the family that adopted Laurie) have moved into Myers old house (because, of course they have). The father is an abusive asshole, the mother is kindly, and the twenty something daughter has a young son (conceived out of wedlock), much to the chagrin of her jerk father. Her son, Danny, has been starting to act strange.
Anyway, to make a short story long, Wynn and others are part of this cult, Michael is going to transfer his curse to Danny, and Danny will kill his family, and Jamie’s baby for some reason. It ends when I don’t know what happens. Tommy stops Michael with some runes and a little blood magic. Maybe Loomis becomes part of the cult against his will, or maybe becomes the new Myers? I’m not really sure. The sequel was going to provide answers (and it actually knew the answers as I believe this film only made up the first half of the screenplay that Fairrens wrote). Sound like a movie you want to see? Not really?
Well, that’s what the people said. As this was the first Halloween film made for a major studio (Dimension), it was subject to test screenings. The ending didn’t test so well, so that meant reshoots. The problem here is that by now, Donald Pleasence had died. So, nothing new for Loomis could be shot (obviously [this was written before seeing Rogue One]). What they ended up doing wasn’t so much change the plot as remove chunks of it. Instead of continuing the cult’s curse of having someone murder their whole family, they are just trying to harness Meyer’s evil. Harness it for what? To what end? As an unkillable assassin? An attempt to build a new world order? As a clean source of energy? We don’t know.
Instead of the ceremony to transfer the curse to Danny, the cultists are going to perform some surgery on Kara’s baby (why, again, we don’t know) and Myers comes in and starts killing everyone (why, again, again, we don’t know). Myers gets beaten down with pipes and chemicals, and, I guess kills Loomis. Unlike the original cut (known as the producer’s cut), which posed questions that it would later answer, the theatrical cut just makes no sense.
Let’s get this out of the way right now; the producer’s cut is easily the better of the two. It isn’t a good movie by any means, but at least it is a REAL film. It sets out a story that it follows to its conclusion. It follows its own internal logic (as wacked as it may be). It is shot and cut like a professional film, and without the stupid, in your face, extreme jump cuts in the theatrical version that are, I guess, supposed to be scary, but aren’t in any way. The theatrical release is a great deal gorier, however.
There are some tradeoffs though. Although the producer’s cut does add back a good amount of Dr. Loomis’ scenes (a plus), they also add new moments with Dr. Wynn (a minus). As played by Mitchell Ryan, who chews the scenery with an unholy vigor, it can actually be painful to watch. With that exception, the cast is, more or less, fine. There is nothing Oscar winning going on here, but nothing that would net you a Razzie, either. It is fun seeing the 26 year old Paul Rudd, and marveling at how he looks almost exactly the same at 47.
Issues with performance and direction (in the producer’s cut anyway) are almost completely moot, as there is no way for the film to succeed no matter how good the talent. For all his effort, there really wasn’t any way for Fairrens to really pull this off. The Halloween series really was at the end of the road here. You have taken a story that, by design, was simplicity itself, and to keep it alive, you are trying to graft onto it a mythology that the story doesn’t need, want, or is even able to sustain.
What is interesting is that The Curse of Michael Myers does actually pay reference to the idea of Haddonfield banning Halloween. Granted, it does nothing with this idea. It just exists as a background plot point. There is so much plot in this movie that there isn’t room for anything else. And before you go and pick this film up thinking it might be an unintentional laugh riot, it never quite hits that low. It is just the regular old bad.
Despite this movie being bonkers, and full of things you might think are worth talking about, I find myself at a loss to say much more. It should tell you something that, despite all the shenanigans, the most compelling parts of the film deal with the familial relations in the Strode house. At least that made sense. As for everything else, I wish some runes and blood magic would make it go away. A more modern comparison for the kind of goofiness we experience here is the last James Bond film, SPECTRE, in how it tried to tell us that the last three films were all interconnected, and one master villain was behind it all. The fact that it was a preposterous notion, and that SPECTRE was easily the weakest of the Daniel Craig Bond films, made it really hard to swallow, much like Halloween 6. Although, to be honest, I would rather watch Halloween 6 again than SPECTRE. Make of that as you will.
So, where does that leave us?
So, what do we have here? We have one run-of-the-mill slasher film that is buoyed by two very likeable performances and a nifty ending. We have one quick cash-in that has no clear purpose or direction. Finally, we have one film that is… a failed attempt to make something from nothing, I guess. It should tell you something that the best sequels are the ones that try to do the least with the story. I think, although this might have been an accident, Halloween 5 had the best sequel material buried within it. Since Myers never really changes, make the film about Loomis, who is so desperate to catch him that he starts turning homicidal himself. That could have been interesting. Actually make the story about the characters. Still, I think it is worth something that John Carpenter wanted to take the series back to its more primal roots, and away from this family absurdness. The fact is that, despite the fact I do like the 4th a bit, should never have been made. But the almighty dollar rules all. And, wouldn’t you know it, three years after the release of the Curse of Michael Myers, Halloween found its way back to the big screen, but this time, something was different.
-ThomasKaira-s.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*)
