ViewGuide

Created Oct 29, 2014 08:56PM PST • Edited Oct 29, 2014 08:56PM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   OK 2.5

   Everyone knows that in 1978 John Carpenter forever changed the world of horror with “Halloween.” by providing us with the boogeyman, or the shape, or simple Michael Myers…for a brief period no babysitter was safe. Imitators followed and eventually franchised with Halloween and Michael Myers following suit. Reinventions, reintroductions, a brief stint attempting to launch “halloween” as a brand moreso than a franchise, and many sequels followed. in 1995, after a 5-6 year hiatus, the 6th film in the Halloween series arrived, and it was a feast for my then 13 year old eyes (how was i allowed to see this in a theater with only my 15 year old stepbrother as company?). It was a blood soaked hellride that made Michael Myers seem so cool and unstoppable that the movie was a favorite of mine despite really ever having seen it that once. Of course, more sequels followed (halloween: h20 i very much enjoy despite its “teen horror” trappings, Halloween: resurrection i like for its first person gimmick), but this one stuck with me in different ways: the return of Tommy Doyle, the death of Annie, the thorn subplot, and the cringe-inducing and quite creepy “It’s raining, it’s raining red.” line by the little girl in the park. A fan of the Halloween series will find just about any reason possible to like every chapter in the series, but as much as I appreciate this one, it seriously leaves me wanting more. the thorn angle is never pursued after this chapter, the baby related to the Myers family is never heard from again, and bringing back Tommy doyle (whom laurie strode babysat in the original) who is a basket case obsessed with the thorn and of Michael Myers (and potentially taking over for Dr loomis upon donald Pleasance’ death) are all strong subplots in a strong chapter of the series that lessens the film as a whole that we never seem to get a single answer once the end credits roll. Is it recommended as a film in the franchise? Yes, but it comes with its share of disappointments as well.

4. Acting

   Barely OK 2.0

   Yet another reason why the world owes Paul Rudd a good “thank you”: the acting would be slightly above “atrocious” had it not been for him and the always reliable donald Pleasance as the only character that had at the time appeared in every film (save for number 3) up to that point. Yes indeed it was Paul rudd’s first film, but even then his acting ability was leaps and bounds more apparent and natural than anyone else’s in the movie (a quick imdb search will show you that almost nobody from this movie has had nearly as lengthy career, that’s for sure.). Some actors are better than others, but the script’s faults come crashing to the front every single time one of the lesser actors is given more than a few words of dialogue at a time. There are some “choice cuts” that are chuckle inducing literally due to the abysmal line readings of a few characters. Like I said some are better than others and so it is BARELY passable based upon that, but without a natural ability from Mr. Rudd and the gravitas of a seasoned actor such as Pleasance, most of the cast would have come across as stiff and emotionless as the shape himself; the other members of the cast would have been given clown makeup for their overacted and stage play announced attempts at acting. They always say nobody goes to a horror movie to see the acting but the bloodshed…this is closer to one of those examples.

5. Male Stars Barely OK 2.0

6. Female Stars Barely OK 2.0

7. Female Costars Barely OK 2.0

8. Male Costars Barely OK 2.0

10. Film

    Good 3.0

    the production value was liekly not terribly high for this film, but interestingly it looks pretty good. the darker moments are slightly confusing but not so much that it takes you out of the movie: in fact the beginning is one of the stronger chase/set pieces of the entire film and its entirely at night. the color scheme is decidedly drab and perfect for a “Halloween in October”, and there is a nice sense of foreboding in that color which is ideal for it being a “town of nightmares”. Director Joe Chappelle isn’t well known (nor should he be) but actually makes a very scary film, with stark and frightening design, sound, editing, and savvier direction than was needed. His direction of the actors could have used a little more “tightening of the reins” in terms of getting quality performances, but otherwise a surprisingly good job. compare it to 4 and 5 and you’re see a sheen of smooth transition, color, and and overall quality that makes it feel darker and more ominous than the two chapters before it. When people ask me about the action and scares in this, I ensure to discuss how good everything looks as its happening and how crisply paced the movie is (nary a few moments pass without a scare or kill in this film)

11. Direction Good 3.0

12. Play Good 3.0

13. Music Good 3.0

14. Visuals Good 3.0
15. Content

16. Edge

    Sordid 3.0

    It’s a horror movie, so I hope I don’t surprise you when I tell you that there are scares, and blood, and sometimes things get a bit raucous and violent. Yes, there is some themes of a sexual nature and yes even a scene or two of the act, but it’s not romanticized or even really acknowledged more than feeling like the obligatory “teen sex scene”. the violence in this one is, or at least feels, more intense this time around. there are beheadings, knife attacks, a woman ripped apart on a shredder, a dead body in a tree dripping blood on a unknowing child, an electricution, and one hell of a scene where Michael takes out a sizeable portion of a hospital staff. Until 2007 with rob zombie’s reboot, this movie was easily the film with the most kills of the entire series.

17. Sex Titillating 2.5

18. Violence Brutal 3.5

19. Rudeness Profane 3.1

21. Reality

    Supernatural 3.1

    At this point, michael is a force of nature a la Jason Voorhies, Dr. Loomis probably shouldve died 100 times by now, feats of strength come across that despite being cool are more like “i don’t know” in a couple of instances. the entire “thorn” angle, with the cult, is a neat idea but doesn’t play through completely and because of that makes little to no sense, otherwise that couldv’e been something to behild and take this film into an even more supernatural realm. As it stands, its a franchised Halloween movie better than most but certainly feeling played more for entertainment than realism or grittiness. For that, it can’t be considered much more than fantasy based in the “real world”.

22. Circumstantial Supernatural 3.5

23. Biological Surreal 2.8

24. Physical Surreal 3.0