IMDb > Halloween: Resurrection (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Halloween: Resurrection
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Halloween: Resurrection More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 61: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 605 reviews in total 


Author: TheShape from Michael Myers' House
7 June 2003

Can ANYONE explain to me how Michael Myers is still alive? The movie did a LOUSY job of explaining it. I mean, the man had his head CUT CLEAN OFF in H20! Now they're saying it was somebody else?! And the only question that was asked was - why didn't the guy say something? Because Michael crushed his larynx! That's it? Here's a follow-up question - if it wasn't Michael under that mask, why didn't the INNOCENT man take off the mask before he was killed?! I would - but then again I'm smart. Halloweens 2 - (whatever # we're on) completely ruin the mystique and brilliance of the first film!

Was the above review useful to you?

Suck fast... (spoilers)

Author: SPaS from Finland
19 May 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Halloween: Resurrection is a very, very, VERY bad movie. Blame it on what you want, I blame it all solely on the director. The script was elevated from a few clever ideas, but most of it didn't have anything fresh, and the treatment was bleak and ugly, but not scary; most likely they didn't have a screenplay at all. Add in some cardboard-character teenagers who are portrayed by some twentysomethings who can't act (I blame the director who doesn't give them even a chance!) and could have well been cast in the last minute from some shopping mall. Halloween 2 was watchable, how can director Rosenthal go downhill?? Shouldn't he have gained some experience on directing? How come Resurrection looks so... well, bleak and ugly. Low-key, low-budget. Reminds me of Blair witch 2.

Things Rosenthal should have done: 1) Bailed out. We really didn't want another Halloween. Not after H20. In my opinion, the only reason Curtis was in this was that SHE at least could finally bail out of the series.

or 2) Even so much as try! A couple of re-writes and especially re-casting! Busta has one hilarious moment and one cool one-liner to Michael and that's it! The rest of the movie, he just sucks. And that blonde who gets her head chopped off was esPECIALLY annoying! The rest of the cast is, as I said before, just your basic gore fodder. Weren't we supposed to care for these people...?

Sadly, I could have done this better. So could have YOU.

Was the above review useful to you?

Evil should find its way to the grave - may I be the one to show the way?

Author: Old Crow-2 from Finland
17 May 2003

Those people who find these stupid slasher movies scary should see a shrink and start watching quality movies like The Ring. All these Halloween and Jason movies are for brainless people who like watching pure garbage and teens getting killed. Yes, I did rent Halloween Part I-can´t-even-remember, but I could watch only the first 15 minutes or so. Now someone thinks I was scared... Hmmm, in a way I was scared: scared of what this kind of crap could to my mental health. Halloween Part One was good, Part Two was okay and H20 was surprisingly good. I have no interest what-so-ever to see Parts 3-6. Once I actually saw some parts of Halloween 6 on the German RTL and I must say it was pretty awful. So, as Halloween Resurrection begins we are told that it wasn´t Michael Myers who lost his head in the end of H20. Oh really? What an original plot twist. Now Michael´s back for Laurie who (finally?) gets butchered. I feel sorry for Jamie Lee Curtis whom I´ve always found a decent actress, to say the least. But to see her in a crappy film like this shows that she´s really in need of (good) movie roles. Why did you do this, Jamie?

Michael Myers isn´t scary. Jason Voorhees isn´t scary. Freddy isn´t scary. Those people who saw this movie in a theater, now those guys are scary! And guess what, Michael´s still alive! I can imagine the screenwriters trying to come up with a surprising ending: "Hey guys, I have an idea... What if Michael didn´t die in the end? Now wouldn´t that be cool and spooky?" And one one saw it coming, honest! I just came up with an idea... We could put all the people responsible for stupid brainless scary movies in a house, lock the doors and put all the lights out. Then we could give knives to folks who like quality stuff and let them butcher every single horror freak in the house. That would be so much fun and we would be praised by the following generations who were saved from having to watch horrible movies. I´m willing to pay for all the knives. I really hope that all those who were involved in Halloween Resurrection never get to work again, unless they manage to do something well. Which is very unlikely, judging from the work I just witnessed. I guess they are all like Michael... You can run, but you can´t hide from them. Oh crap.

Was the above review useful to you?

Why are they still making these??!!

Author: HORROR_FAN_1 from Liverpool, England
8 May 2003

It was just simply because it was titled 'Halloween' that I decided to show respect for John Carpenter's excellent opening 2 films. Boy, was I dissapointed. For a start I wondered how the hell they were gonna make serial killer Michael Myers come back for another killing spree when he was decapitated in H20.

I thought that they actually would have had him walking around with a bit of glue stuck on his neck to signify him sticking his own head back on!. That probably would have been more plausible than the explanation of his come back. He dressed up in a paramedic's outfit, then just so happened to crush the innocent man's larynx?!. Gimme a break!. Bit of a coincidence then that the innocent paramedic dressed up in myers' clothes and mask would answer to the name 'Michael' when Laurie Strode speaks to him near the end of H20.

What mainly lets the film down are the terrible actors. They are just so typical of a horror flick nowadays. In the Myers house we get the usual:

1. Doing drugs - means they are gonna die

2. Sex scene - means they are gonna die

3. A typical hero (Busta Rhymes) who just happens to be a Bruce Lee

and down right stupidity for going back there.

Busta Rhymes is an absolute joke in the movie, every other word that he says is a swear word, what is the need?. As for him doing a Jackie Chan and kickin' Myers' ass, well as I watched it with my brother, we both erupted in laughter. It's hilarious.

I've already voted for this film and yes, you've guessed it, gave it a 1 rating. I am a die hard fan of the 'Halloween' series but could simply could not rate this film at all. Why Jamie Lee Curtis wasted her time doing this is beyond me, she must be buying a new house in real life or something and needs a bit of extra cash.

Hopefully this is the last we see of Busta Rhymes (except if it's in a comedy, which, after all, is the way I look at this film, as a joke)

Rating 1/10. Trash.

Was the above review useful to you?

Let the Shape rest in peace already.

Author: Andy (Incubus092084) from Maine
7 May 2003

'Halloween: Resurrection' is the one film in this series that I honestly wish was never made. I am a huge fan of the Halloween series; the first one has been my favorite movie, ever since I saw it at the age of 11 and I appreciate all of the sequels on a certain level. However, this movie is just stupid. There is absolutely no point. It is the first Halloween film without a plot! After 'Halloween: H20' they should have just ended it. Although I didn't think it was the best ending (or even an outstanding movie) it was a nice way to wrap up the series and end things on a high note. So many horror franchises go out on tasteless notes and end up returning again ('Jason Goes To Hell,' 'Freddy's Dead'), I was at least hoping Halloween could go out with some dignity. Except for the conclusion of the Laurie Strode character and the inclusion of Mikey, this has no connections to previous films. We follow a bunch of cliches around the Myers' house and watch as they slowly, but surely die in predictable ways. This is like something that would have been made in the 80's. It's just sub-par stalk n' slash fare. Nothing interesting or original here. The whole reality thing is about 2 years past it's expiration date. The cast is full of some big names, but they all die anyways. If you are a fan of the series, check it out, but in my opinion, they need to just put it to rest. Things are getting too complicated (We have two different ways the storyline of the series goes now) and Michael is pushing into his mid-50's. I hope Halloween 9 manages to lay this legacy to rest once and for-all. This is the only Halloween movie I don't like, and I LOVE these movies.


Was the above review useful to you?

The Night HE Came home...Not that there's anyone left alive to would know anymore...

Author: Chris Bayliss from Victoria, Australia
17 April 2003

Halloween H2K: What do I say.. where to begin?

If the movie had been flipped and the opening scene had been the climax, I would have really enjoyed it.. but as it was.. I was thrilled with the opening, firstly Jamie Lee had returned, secondly the movie was continuing the H20 storyline and doing so with credibility, tying up all the loose ends (with exception to where the hell is her son!??) and opening with the perfect setting for a new movie.. a sanitarium.

When Laurie Strode has Michael up on the roof, and has so perfectly planned his demise almost to the smallest detail I thought it was brilliant, but I knew something was up, when something this brilliant has happened in the first ten minutes of the film.. If the film had ended at the the sanitarium perhaps because Laurie was'nt at home in Haddonfield as Michael may have expected where a web cam debarcle was taking place after slicing and dicing all the twits at the Myers house, he may have tracked her to the sanitarium where a showdown could have been staged... For someone who has been living in fear for twenty three years of their was a rather quiet ending for Laurie Strode.... As it was for Jamie LLoyd in H6.

Apart from the opening scene of this movie.overall the movie lacked substance.. Why did Michael go home? If the movie is at all trying to follow through with the THORN storyline from H6, when in actual fact Michael Myers has no living blood relatives any more and should be able to rest in peace.. if it's not.. which obviously is'nt considering only murders from H1, H2, and H20 were mentioned then what now???

Miramax are going to have to think long and hard for a new Halloween concept to reenagae the fans.. we're not idiots..and we're not all fifteen year olds who would find it credible for yet another adopted relative to pop up in Haddonfield.

This movie was good..but considering Laurie died earlier.. it could have been better.. I look forward to H9 to see what Michael is going to do now.. hopefully not live under his old house for another three years eating rats..

Was the above review useful to you?


Author: sweetmis75 from United states
5 April 2003

First I would like to that this movie is a piece of crap. I am not into studying movies but I know a piece of crap when I see it. There was no need for this movie to be written. It puts John Carpenter's Halloween to shame. Was there really a need to go on after Michael's only living relative is dead (Lori Strode)? I mean come on he was only Michael Myers only had issues with Lori, so why the need to take this any further unless Resurrection has a new character that is somehow related to Michael. Michael Myers is dead, he can't go on anymore. Sweetmis75

Was the above review useful to you?

The resurrection was a bit premature

Author: Aaron Newcomb (
2 April 2003

Not to be immodest, but I would consider myself somewhat of a large fan of the Halloween series (well three anyway). The very first was (and is) a landmark to the horror genre that has been scarcely surpassed to date, save for two of it's sequel. Halloween 2 did every thing a sequel should, including succeeding where the previous had failed. Then, John Carpenter made a gross error and misjudjement that resulted in, not one, not two, but four, yes four even more brutal mistakes and death-nails to the series. Then, a saving grace. I go to the theatre one evening to see I-don't-remember, and a preview comes on with the scream queen doing what she does best and pronouncing the name of that oh-so-wonderful knife wielding mute, "Michael!" Halloween: H20, breathed new life to a series of movies which had run aground in the mid '80s. It also reaffirmed Mr. Carpenter as one of the pivitol names in horror. The storyline offers a credible response to the three prequels by forgetting them. And the ending, the perfect cap on the trilogy. Needless to say, I was a happy camper. Then, like any good horror fan, I sat in a darkened theatre expecting to see Jason Vorhees hacking up the usual trollops and teens with their pants to their ankles. What I got, however, was a preview I would not soon forget. It began as a fairly typical late nineties teen horror flick about some kids trapped in a haunted house, until a figure flashed before the screen toting the aptly named "butcher's knife." After being shushed for a rather girlish scream, I found that they were in fact releasing another film and I was pleased as punch to see Michael back in his blue jumpsuit. After seeing the actual film, I was somewhat less impressed with how it had related to it's prequels. I didn't feel the story was as developed as it could have been. That being said, the rest of the film was amazing! I loved the camera work (a theory I had considered). I myself have always been a Rick Rosenthal fan and this is not one of his works to be taken in stride.

Was the above review useful to you?

"Are you afraid to die, Michael?"

Author: Backlash007 from Kentucky
25 March 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


The first 15 minutes of Halloween: Resurrection is so promising. It's dark, even a tad bit spooky, and highly reminiscent of part 2 (which was also directed by Rick Rosenthal). We're watching as Michael Myers is stalking the long hallways of a hospital for the mentally insane. We see him make quick work of the security guards. We know who he's after: Laurie Strode. He finds Jamie Lee and chases her out onto the roof, slowly hunting his prey. And then he kills her. Woohoo!! He finally got the b*tch. Okay, now turn the movie off. Trust me, turn it off. It's okay. Or don't listen to me and watch this miserable excuse for a Halloween movie. You could possibly argue that I didn't like H20 because I'm simply a purist of the series. You cannot make that argument for Halloween: Resurrection. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. There's no point to the movie. First off, he's killed Jamie Lee, he has no more purpose. He's no longer hunting his family and I no longer care. Now, maybe the character name Moyer will turn out to actually be Myer in the next installment (if there is one), but for now it doesn't hold water. Even if it did, how many unknown family members can one guy have. Secondly, the entire storyline is dumb. I don't want to see any of this cliched Blair Witch Project stuff; it's a Halloween movie! You don't need it. And lastly, it has Busta Rhymes kung-fu fighting Michael Myers. I was soooo upset at this. They turned Michael into a p*ssy. I could go on and on, and onward still...but just read some of the other reviews. Rick Rosenthal has the distinct honor of directing what are widely considered the best and worst Halloween sequels.

Was the above review useful to you?

Enough already! *SPOILERS*

Author: FeverDog from Center of the Universe
21 March 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Why do I keep watching slasher movies? For nearly twenty years now I've been seeing basically the same movie. Sure, the wardrobes change, but they're almost always filled with the same characters making the same stupid mistakes that are accompanied by the same scare tactics we've all seen a million times. I'm beginning to curse that day in my twelfth year I bought a ticket to FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VI - that was my first slasher, and I've been hooked ever since. Sure, I may not see these in the theatre any more, but I still rent them all the time. Hopefully, HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION will perhaps break this genre's hold on me; I'm getting tired of constantly questioning what I'm supposed to just accept in these movies.

H20, the previous chapter in this series, was a wee bit better than average, with a satisfying ending; in my IMDb comments about it I wrote, "I couldn't ask for a better conclusion; very chilling and appropriate (and it means they'll be no more sequels, I hope)." Well, I didn't get what I wanted, but I guess I deserve what I got.

Let me understand how H:R picks up after H20. That was a medic whom Jamie Lee decapitated at the end of H20? His larynx was crushed, so he couldn't save himself? Riiight. Do EMTs usually zip victims up in body bags before checking for a heartbeat? Why didn't the medic just remove the mask before Jamie Lee separated him from himself?

Besides the opportunity to shoehorn Jamie Lee into H:R, I cannot see the reason for the prologue with her character in the hospital. No mention is made of her son, or where this hospital is. Is it in California (where H20 was set) or Illinois (where H:R takes place)? Or is Haddonfield now like the Simpsons' Springfield, existing wherever the plot needs it to? Cut out the pre-title sequence, and the movie improves.

And I don't get Jamie Lee's final line - one that's got so many whiskers on it that I thought it'd been retired. She says to Michael, "See you in hell!" Why would her character, Laurie Strode, believe she's going to hell? This exit line is the lamest I've ever heard for such a long-running icon, and the writers should be ashamed of offing her in such a routine, blasé and unceremonious way. It was very disrespectful to both Jamie Lee and fans of the HALLOWEEN series.

Moving on. The plot of a horror sequel is of no consequence, so I'll ignore it for the most part in these comments; I'll just make note of other questions I pondered throughout this movie. For example, I noticed that the email address of the heroine was "" Just "Sara"? Should we assume she's the only student at her school with that name? Lucky her.

Is the Myers house public property? Who okayed this "dangertainment" to be webcasted from this house? And wouldn't the police raise objections?

Yeah, what about the police force in Haddonfield? With all that's happened in this town over the years, one would think that the PD would be on extreme high alert every October 31, but they don't arrive at the Myers house until long after a 911 call; it took a deadly inferno that burned a building to the ground for them to respond. If I lived in this town, I'd demand to know how my tax dollars were being spent.

I'm also wondering why there was no reaction from the peanut gallery at the costume party to Henry Rowengartner's death. It was clearly on camera; did the partiers take a mass bathroom break at that moment?

I know, I know: I shouldn't ask questions like this during these types of movies. I was occasionally able to put my complaints aside and enjoy some of H:R. Some of the suspense was actually pretty creative; I dug the idea of placing p.o.v. cameras on the actors, which produced some interesting shots. The premise of the movie, unlikely as it may be, worked for the most part, as long as I didn't think too much about the logistics of it.

As for the acting, the cast, with one exception, was adequate. The one exception is, of course, Busta Rhymes. Why did the Razzies snub him? Not since that bitch with the pearls in F13 PART VII have a wanted a horror movie character to die. But did I get my wish? Of course not. Why, like LL Cool J in H20, does the has-been rapper survive? When did B-level hip hop artists become our slasher saviors? Weren't they usually the cute guys the heroines wanted to make out with?

Maybe this was done intentionally, since H:R sometimes seems to mean HALLOWEEN: REVUE. Although Parts 3-6 are ignored again, parts of this movie are lifted from the other sequels. Besides the rapper/hero surviving Michael's wrath to reappear at a crucial point in the final showdown, we've got Michael burning up like he did in Part II. Is this homage, self-plagiarism, coincidence or laziness?

I hope that if they must make another sequel, they go back to PART 5 and explain what happened after that man in black broke Michael out of jail. Bring back Danielle Harris' character, and pick up the series from there. Or, hell, make a HALLOWEEN III PART II, detailing the aftermath of all those kids' bug-infested noggins. H:R, while not the worst of the series (that dubious distinction goes to Part 6, THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS), has led it down a dead end. It's time to again reimagine the franchise. And time for me to quit renting these movies.


Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 61: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history