|Page 1 of 61:||          |
|Index||604 reviews in total|
What can I say? If I've seen a film worse than this, it certainly
doesn't spring to mind right now. I managed to get to the first
screening in the local area and, even though the audience was fairly
small, I still counted eleven people who walked out at various points
in the movie and never came back. Now either Michael Myers slashed them
up on their way to the lavatories or, like me, they were bored stiff by
this absolute CLUNKER of a flick.
The plot, or what little semblance there is of one, is simple yet completely ludicrous. An organisation called Dangertainment, headed by the entrepreneurial Freddie Harris (Busta Rhymes), gets together a group of six students (!) to spend the night in serial killer Michael Myers' childhood home, in the hope that they will "find clues" as to what drove Myers to kill and kill again. Quite why, 25 years on from the murders, they think they will achieve anything by sending a group of teenagers into a house that, in the real world, would probably have long been demolished, is beyond me. Surely it is the job of police psychologists to dissect the minds of serial killers anyway? The film conveniently forgets the previous five sequels (with the exception of "H20"; this gets an irrelevant reference in the gratuitous opening scenes which serve merely as an excuse to waste Jamie Lee Curtis' talents in some customary 'running around' antics) and throws us almost immediately into the environment of the house, where each of the six kids are given a little handy-cam to strap to their heads and told to go searching for clues... You with me so far? Well, that's pretty much all there is to it. Needless to say, Myers himself shows up at the house about 10 minutes into the movie (how? why?) and decides he wants to kill everybody one by one, in the style we've now become accustomed to.
This paper-thin tale is told so badly, it's almost hard to believe what you're seeing on screen and that anyone was dumb enough to spend time and money filming it. I suppose you could almost see it like a series of noisy soundbites strung together randomly. It keeps things simplistic to the point of being nonsensical, presumably to avoid confusing its target audience of dribbling inbreds. I think I could've written a better, more entertaining and reasonable script myself on the back of a beermat. Nothing is ever explained or justified, no matter how implausible and ridiculous things get, and yet, bogglingly, the film still seems to take itself fairly seriously. It tries desperately to shock with a series of boring but bloody knife murders (nothing we haven't seen ad nauseam in any of the previous films) and innumerable 'false' scares with flashlights and toys falling out of cupboards. It's all so by-the-books and done-to-death that you'd have to have never seen a single horror film in your life to find it even remotely tense or scary.
I think what bugs me the most about the film is just how terribly made it is. Even forgetting the GAPING plot holes, there are loads of obvious continuity errors and a sad, desperate style of direction that seems to drag every scene to the point of agony in a desperate attempt to pad out the already-short running time of the film. The cast do nothing to help things - all the characters are cardboard stereotypes and the ugly, plastic teens seem to be having a battle to see who can be the most skin-crawlingly irritating. I think it ends up as a tie between Katee Sachoff's hyperactive, squeaky airhead and Bianca Kajlich's jitterbug 'heroine', who spends the entire movie simpering and screaming loudly every time someone drops a pin. Oh, for the record, Busta Rhymes is absolutely ATROCIOUS in this. His entire purpose in this movie seems to be to deliver the worst examples of wisecrack-by-numbers dialogue I've ever heard (ie: "Trick or treat, motherf**ker?") and he plays his role as a cross between Eddie Murphy and Vin Diesel, but without the charm or charisma of either.
I'd like to say John Carpenter would be ASHAMED to see such a horrible mess made out of his characters, but when you consider the maestro himself is making films almost as bad as this these days, he probably couldn't give a toss so long as the money keeps rolling in. I think this fact in itself proves just how much horror movies have changed since the first "Halloween" was made and, to its credit, "Halloween Resurrection" would be a perfect example of an "of its time" product you could stick in an 'early 21st century' time capsule for future generations to balk at. It is every bit as throwaway and pointless as the culture that spawned it. It is loud, crass and in-your-face constantly, despite having absolutely nothing to say when it gets there - it's like the movie equivalent of an annoying little brat screaming at you, desperate for attention. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm being noisy and irritating!"... I would highly advise, for your sanity's sake, that you don't look since, like that annoying child, you'll only encourage it and I, for one, don't think I could cope with another sequel this bad... This film is utter garbage and I fail to think of a single way in which they could've made it any worse. A resounding 0 out of 10.
"They don't make 'em like that anymore," friends of the horror genre often
remark on their web sites in reference to killer films from the late 1970s
and 1980s era. They are right.
It's not just that sentiments of nostalgia have turned those films into little treasures in our memories. It's because current horror films stink. Not all of them, but plenty or more anyway.
Ever since Dwight H. Little last captured the right Halloween spirit and atmosphere in 1988's Halloween 4, the series deteriorated into a ridiculous, messy and pathetic show. I don't care how many fans of the series curse part 3, it was a pleasant watch compared to what came after part 4. Halloween 5 was a complete prank and lacked any sense of storytelling (compliments to Danielle Harris, who managed to perform extremely well under the circumstances). Part 6, well, let's not waste any words on that one. H20 had its moments and decent acting by Jamie Lee Curtis, but a Southern California private school seemed like a poor replacement for Haddonfield. The producers dedicated it to Donald Pleasance, ignoring the fact that his last name was Pleasence (with an E) and had been spelled correctly on all earlier installments that involved his acting. So much for Moustapha Akkad's commitment to the project!
Halloween Resurrection had a nice opening scene. A 1960s home movie at the Myers house, with the sounds of Johnny Angel performed by Shelley Fabares. It was cut. Of course, the Akkads in their infinite wisdom must have thought, why bother young people with an old song from someone they have never even heard of! Let's keep the film simple (and let's take a popular hip hop artist as the lead actor).
But, thank God, Rick Rosenthal filmed one other decent scene. It involves Jamie Lee Curtis's character hospitalized in a mental institution. This actually is quite a nice scene, with the actress performing wonderfully. It provides a satisfactory and surprisingly original bridge between the events at the end of H20 and the current state of affairs in "Resurrection", with Laurie Strode at the end of her wits and a killer still on the loose.
And after this? We might as well have left. After the promising Jamie Lee Curtis opening scene there seemed no budget, and more important: no inspiration left to come up with something, anything. It's a bore. It's a drag. The prospect of a replica of the original Myers house showing up is a joke. We're allowed one glimpse, and even on that one occasion it is very unsatisfactory: a big car is parked in front and taking the view, as the camera briefly glances up from a low, moving position. It beats me why they even bothered rebuilding it. The interior scenes can be ignored in this sense: it may have been any old house that Busta Rhymes's character Freddie Harris decided to do his online reality show in. And about these characters: have they ever been this flat in ANY Halloween sequel? NO! The characters in Halloween 5 or 6 were drawn brilliantly compared to what is presented to us here! Okay I realize this is actually pretty much of an achievement. Credit to Larry Brand and Sean Hood. It's amazing. The unimpressive cast (I'm not counting Curtis) is highlighted by 'stars' Busta Rhymes (pop artist who is kindly given the chance to act) and Tyra Banks (model who is kindly given the chance to act). Let's suffice by saying that in this case the actors have been given the roles they deserve.
Enough said. Or... We often are told one should not apply the same criteria to a horror film as the ones that apply to drama or classics. But why on earth not? I admire more than one horror movie, but that does not mean I feel I should appreciate the crappy ones by the grace of the good ones. I can see when a film is made with no heart, no spirit and Resurrection is the key example of that. Furthermore, if these films -as we are told so often by people like Moustapha Akkad- are made for entertainment (read: cashing in) purposes only and not for quality acting, complex storytelling or great photography then why, why, why do they so vigorously renounce that one basic goal, the goal of being entertaining???
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
What the heck was this? Seriously, Halloween H20 was a perfect ending
to the Halloween franchise and so help me God if this was their "final
sequel" this was the worst way to end it. I remember seeing this in the
theater and afterwards just everyone saying how much they hated this
movie. First off they have Jamie Lee Curtis all crazed looking and
drugged up and then
they kill her off! Oh, my, God! How could they?!
Shame on these stupid people, this is a pathetic attempt of the MTV
generation trying to add technology to the Halloween series. What did
the very first Halloween present to us? A killer who stalks babysitters
and wanted to kill his family off, nothing else, that's it. Very
simple, why do they try to crap up the story? How could you make a
Halloween movie bad? Apparently this stupid director must have been
drinking or doing some illegal substance because this was just a shamed
attempt at giving us a few scares.
Beginning three years after the events of Halloween H20, Laurie Strode, has been confined to a psychiatric care facility. The Summer Glen paramedic located the body of Michael Myers in the dining hall of Laurie's school, Hillcrest Academy High School. When attempting to seemingly do away with the terror from her brother once and for all, she had killed an innocent man. Unable to deal with the crime and the fear of her brother, Lauire was later confined to a sanitarium. Myers had earlier attacked the paramedic and forcefully switched clothing and his mask. The paramedic was rendered a mute from a crushed larynx. On the night of October 31, 1998, Myers cleverly escaped once again. When Michael finally appears, Laurie lures him into a trap, but before she can kill him for good, he turns the tables on her. In a confrontation on the sanitarium's rooftop, she reaches over to pull off his mask to make certain it is actually her brother. He suddenly grabs her and pulls her over the edge with him, stabbing her deep in the back. She gives him a kiss on the lips of his mask, lastly telling him, "I'll see you in Hell." Michael releases the knife from his sister and she falls many stories below to her death. Myers finally accomplished killing his sister, a pursuit twenty-three years in the making. He then makes his way back home to Haddonfield, Illinois. One year later on Wednesday October 30th, six college students win a competition to appear on an Internet reality show in which they are to spend Halloween night in the childhood home of Michael Myers. Their mission is to find out what led him to kill. On the actual date of October 31, the investigation is done in a style reminiscent of the MTV reality show, Fear. On this night, through the entrepreneurial broadcast business Dangertainment, it is shot live on the internet. Of course who is going to be there to ruin it? You guessed it, Big Bird, Happy Halloween.
This is just a stupid sequel, Halloween: Resurrection makes the other sequels look like masterpieces. Halloween 2 started off terrific, we slumped just a little, nothing major, things picked up majorly with Halloween H20, so how in the heck did this movie get messed up? Because the director and writer were looking to relate to today's audience, which are a bunch of ignorant teens and this was just a waste of my time and it will be a waste of yours' as well, I promise you, you're not missing out on anything, don't watch this movie. Let's just forget about it and think that H20 was the way the Halloween franchise ended, oh, Michael, please don't ever do this again, either that or kill the director, or I will! Where's my butcher knife? Happy Halloween.
There are just some times when a good movie franchise is abused and milked
for all it's worth. The first of the series is great and sets the mark ,the
2 occasionally 3 sequels that follow are mediocre and anything after that is
just trying to make money of an audience that has no other place to spend
their money. I, unfortuantely was a member of that audience, as I paid
money to watch HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION, the 8th installment of the once
classic HALLOWEEN franchise.
I don't even no where to start; bad cast, bad acting, boring death scenes (not to sound wierd, but why else do you go see a movie like this), need I go on.
If you noticed that this movie is mostly made up of celebrities, it is no mistake. This is all the movie has going for it, and yet it fails in that department. The biggest mistake a horror movie can make is when it spends most of its time setting up the big death scenes and then knocks off its characters one right after another. That is exactly what happens in RESSURECTION. Every character w/the exception of 2 die in a consecutive chain that takes up about 20 minutes of the movie and the other hour is spent trying to gather of what little plot exists.
The horror doesn't stop there. This HALLOWEEN installment doesn't have the style that made the first two so good. With the exception of a somewhat unexpected opening, the movie is poorly put together.
Clearly an attempt to make some fast cash off a dying series, HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION hopefully is the last time Micheal Myers takes the screen. Yet, I am sure there will find some way to bring back the masked killer. There always is a chance that the executives in charge of this franchise will make a good decision and hang up the white mask and throw away the knife. HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION rates as just a 2/10.
ANOTHER slasher pick? Yes, it's the new Halloween, the 7th or 8th in the
series, lost count. No 7th or 8th film in a series is any good, the 4th, 5th
and 6th usually aren't neither, but that's ok. Actually, I had some hopes
for this film, walking in the theater.
The original Halloween was one of the best in the genre, with never-dying
Michael Myers entering the big-screen in spectacular fashion. But the second
in the series was already far beyond par, and the rest was pure formula
(haven't seen any of em though). Then came H20: 20 YEARS LATER, which
benefited again from Jamie Lee Curtis' presence. Not a good film, far from
being a stand-out in the genre, but at least it had SCREAM-writer Kevin
Williamson on the credits, and was actually pretty enjoyable too. So I
thought: well, maybe this new Halloween will have some suspense too, maybe
some surprises (I'm a sucker for surprises). But what I saw...well, I'm
still speechless. This film was even worse than most stupid entries in this
First of all, we get a stupid explanation for the fact that Michael is STILL alive (unbelievable if you saw the previous one). Then we get Jamie Lee Curtis in the mental hospital. What happens next, might show her attitude towards the series by now. The beginning has actually nothing to do with the rest of the film, it isn't even a good opening to this film, unlike the SCREAM-intros. Then we get to see the actual film, which is pretty much, like one of the characters puts it, Halloween meets the Osbournes, or Big Brother, or the German movie DAS EXPERIMENT, or whatever. You put the usual bunch of irritating high-school friends in one house, put some cameras on top and let Mike (umm...Michael) Myers do his thing. Is it thrilling? Nope, it just seems Myers is doing a routine slashing in here. There's no suspense at all, just people getting killed like you knew they would. Not hard to guess that the "smartest" will survive. Is it funny? Yeah, if you can laugh at lame dialogue and the aforementioned irritating characters. If that's your thing, fine, shows why all these dumb-headed high-school comedies nowadays are such a success. Oh, and it's so dumb-minded that you can't even stop shouting at the screen: "Oh, come on! As if..."
But what could you expect from a movie that was directed by the same man that directed Halloween II? It's so formula that you cannot only predict everything from the first til the last minute, but it's so bad that the last-minute surprise is even more irritating than usual. It's so obvious by now that, indeed, "Evil never dies" , that it's even boring to see these people trying to put M.M. to rest, without being ultimately successful. How long will they go on with this and what's the point of making another movie like this if nothing works out in the end. I'm sure Michael must be pretty tired by now. But maybe we get a Halloween: 60 years later, in x years time, where Michael is a geriatric patient, killing off his fellow patients. Maybe that would be a thriller! As far as this one is concerned: it's more of a thrill finding ways to stay awake while Michael is doing his thing than watching this bore. 1/10
AAWWFFUULLLL doesn't even begin to describe it. I went in expecting
something else. But in the Big Brother era, sooner or later there would come
a movie about it.
Listing all thte things that bothered me would be too boring, but the main thing is the predicability. The movie's end is known beforehand halfway in the movie. You could guess thousands of things before they happened.
The casting is really, really, really bad. The only ones that emerge are Luke Kirby, Tyra Banks and the eternal Jamie Lee Curtis. The scary scenes aren't scary; the setting is ridiculous and the screenplay: tedious. The only scenes that had potential were Jamie Lee Curtis's cameo and the girls death chase in the basement, not for director's talent, but for John Carpenter's. For his truly fantastic and everlasting Halloween theme.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Halloween is the best in the series. Halloween H20 is the 2nd best. Halloween 2 is the 3rd best. Halloween 4: the Return of Michael Myers is the 4th best. Halloween: the Curse of Michael Myers is the 4th worst. Halloween 3: Season of the Witch is the 3rd worst. Halloween 5 is the 2nd worst. And Halloween: Resurrection is the worst in the series. I don't know why this movie was even made. Michael Myers was decapitated at the end of Halloween H20. The acting was terrible. there wasn't one original death. And since Laurie Strode died at the beginning of this movie, there are none of the original characters remaining other than Michael Myers himself. And there are so many things that could've been better. 1. the title would've made more sense if Laurie had succeeded in killing Michael. Then he really would've resurrected for the rest of the film. 2. They should've kept the original opening with the home video of the Myers family before Michael killed Judith. 3. They should've gotten a better cast. Even Jamie Lee Curtis was bad in this one. This movie is just plain stupid. Anyway, I'll be reviewing the Friday the 13th movies next. A couple of them were actually dumber than this movie as hard as it is to believe.
Seen it on the pictures and i couldn't wait for it to end,thought id
give it another go on DVD with my folks and i was yet again subjected
to 86 minutes of pure trash,my parents fell asleep even before it
ended! The acting is terrible,Busta rhymes is a joke,there is nothing
and i mean nothing new about this entry.It seems the director didn't
give a monkey's behind about this film,i would be embarrassed to have
my name on the credits.Definitely the worst Halloween film by far!!!
I'd rather watch paint dry,at least that would be more interesting...
Michael myers R.I.P (if only) some genius is going to bring out Halloween 9...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Well, the strange thing is that this is part of an odd Halloween set of
films the Jamie Lloyd series follows 1,2,4,5,6 and the Laurie Strode saga is
They say in number 8 that Halloween 2 did happen. So Michael's hands as well as his body should be burned and scarred..... This movie contradicts it's self with many, many details.
The movie had no redeeming features. College students that you really didn't care for thrown into a MTV's Fear kind of setting that is the Myers House.
Tyra Banks by far was the worst actress in this film, she played an idiotic role and was no need for her in it. The whole Internet thing takes the confined spaces that the other films offered and puts it on display like a freakshow for all to see. The Halloween series is supposed to be dark, scary, and extremely shocking. This entry is boring, lackluster, and just plain dull.
*spoiler* And why did they have kill off Laurie Strode? She survived all of Michael's attacks, shouldn't she have been given a reprive?
This movie sucked tho, and that is thanks to Mostapha Akkad, in any interview he does, he jerks his thumb at the statue of Michael that is behind him and says 'As Long As This Guy Is Around, We'll make money.' Sadly, the production, and scripts suffer due to this. Akkad won't let Michael die...and then the films will become a joke.
Rick Rosenthal was ripping off his previous halloween 2 directing days. Michael appears out of the shadows, a character slipping in blood, and 'Dr. Mixer' a character out of H2.... *sigh* Rosenthal should stick with directing TV episodes, which he's done for the past 10+ years. Don't direct a bad movie.
John Carpenter or Kevin Williamson has to come back and write a decent script for this series! If you want to understand what really drove Michael to kill his sister, read the Halloween novel by 'Curtis Richards'. It is much, much better that any of the sequels and ranks up there with the first film.
I thought Halloween 6 was bad, 6 is actually one of the better films in the series compared to this. this is the worst in the series!!!!
If I gave this film any stars, I'd be kidding myself.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So, let's start with the story. It's simply an excuse for us to see
Michael kill people. I mean, what was that all about? A cop guy having
his larynx crushed and mistaken for Michael? I mean, he didn't even try
to remove his mask or something. It sounded more of a joke rather than
a serious story. Plus, how could they kill Laurie in the first 10
minutes? (which was the best part of the whole movie) Story rating -
Let's turn to the acting. Well, there isn't much to say. It's simply BAD! Busta was a complete joke. He was reading rather than acting and couldn't even say two lines with the word mother****er. And the heroine was a stupid, obedient girl who's afraid of her own reflection - 0/3
Not a single death was original. That guy having his head crushed was so Jason-y. And how can a knife like Michael's cut through someones head with just a swing? If it was Jasons knife, maybe. But Michael's knife is simply a big kitchen knife. The only scene which I liked was when the Julianne Moore clone got pushed on that spike. I think that was one of the deaths I never saw before. - 1/4
So, STAY AWAY from this movie. Especially if you've seen all the Halloween sequels (excluding 4-6). It turns Michael Myers' movies into teen slasher movies. Trust me, DON'T rent it!!
|Page 1 of 61:||          |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|