Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

. . . considering Halloween 4 came some eight years after the previous Myers-inclusive Halloween, considering Carpenter had even less influence, considering the plot took a slightly different direction, considering most other franchises really suck before they even get to 3 sequels.

The problem I have with most horror sequels is the fact it switches over to new characters every film, and none of the characters really get much sympathy. I dunno if I ever cared about anyone in Friday the 13th. But in the Halloweens (1,2,4,and 5), they've always taken the time to get to know the main characters first and stick with them for at least one sequel. Also in Halloween, we had a staple character besides Myers - Donald Pleasence - who returned to battle Myers every time until his untimely death.

I really liked the Jamie Lloyd character (I mean, getting decent actors in horror is difficult enough, but getting a good child actor in horror? Look at Child's Play! We struck gold with Danielle), her storyline, and the rest of the new characters for Michael to stalk. Oh yes, and of course, Donald Pleasence.

Alan Howarth parts with Carpenter, and takes the score solo, playing some fun twists to the main Halloween and the stalking theme, giving Jamie a theme appropriately derivative of Laurie's theme and intermingling all the themes in various places for an original sound with music that's been with us for 2 movies now.

Hopefully the viewer won't remember the end of Halloween 2 well enough to recall Laurie shooting Michael's eyes out, and him stumbling around slicing blindly as blood ran down his mask--wait, this is horror, everyone's accustomed to inconsistency with horror. Nevermind. Besides, compared to the plot holes of Curse of Michael Myers and then H20 neglecting Halloween 4 & 5, who cares about that minor detail.

Despite the new look, new characters, new tweaks, Halloween 4 can't escape the fact that it is a sequel slasher and so despite everything that's new (that works) . . . it's all the same. That's where my problem with the film lay, and that's why I can't rank this up there with some of my favorite horror films of all time. It's a good Halloween sequel, but there are better, more original films, within this series and especially in other series. Oh well.

After Halloween three, it was obvious that for this franchise to work on.any level, it needed The Boogeyman, it needed Michael Myers.

Ignore the plot, there isn't one, and there is no logic to any of the films, but this film, against all odds, is pretty good. I'd argue it's better than Halloween II, it's certainly less cliché ridden.

The question you'll be asking, what is Michael Myers now, he was shot, blown up, he's clearly not a man anymore. Anyway, he's back, and that's a good thing.

It's well paced, menacing, if features some nice references to the past, including the clown costume. They naturally increased the levels of violence, some scene ls are pretty nasty. The rocking chair scene is an outstanding moment of Horror, and the ending is really rather good.

Sometimes the sound is very tinny, hard to believe it was produced ten years after the first, which is so slick.

It's not perfect, but it is a very good horror film. 7/10

The Good: Maybe it's having just watched H20 and Resurrection, but H4 is a masterpiece in comparison. I almost forgot how scary Michael Myers could be until I re-watched this movie. He truly seems like a force of nature; a spookier Terminator who will kill anyone who gets in his way and you can only temporarily stop him. I think seeing him from the perspective of a little girl really helps; he's the boogeyman and you feel it. This movie expertly generates tension from a creepy atmosphere, in a return to form that must have been SO SATISFYING to audiences starved for Michael Myers back in 1988.

Danielle Harris' performance is truly amazing. She really captures the trauma and terror that her character is put through and is the emotional core of this movie. Honestly, without her powerhouse performance, this movie would not work as well as it does.

Even without her though, this movie is a lot of fun: Loomis is back and crazier than ever, you have the classic horror tropes and a final set piece that makes sense and is super effective. Instead of feeling dated, it almost feels...comforting.

The Bad: Unfortunately, this movie is pretty weak when it comes to kills, an important metric for any slasher. A lot of them are bloodless and generic, save for the opening kill and...well, the final one. It's also more than a little annoying as to how Michael can just teleport wherever he needs to be and becomes outright hilarious by the end.

The Ugly: Not gonna lie, I absolutely lost it at the sight of dozens of schoolchildren running after a little girl chanting: "Jaimie's an orphan!" The 1980s were not a subtle decade, that's for sure.

Its not the terrible movie I was expecting. Scareless but still an ok watch. If you like the first two then watch, following 10 years after the end halloween 2. Id say its perfect runtime though as I feel it would of started to get a little boring if it was any longer.

After serial killer Michael Myers wakes up during a routine transfer to a different hospital, he goes running back to Haddonfield and his former doctor, Dr. Loomis, tries to make it there before Michael can begin yet another bloodbath and murder his niece, Jamie.

Having a young child as the lead victim in a slasher movie is a brave choice. Some will find it tacky and offensive right from the start or, even worse, the child actor might not be seasoned enough to be effective in the role and could just come across as annoying, but young Danielle Harris is so wonderful and winning in the role that you really get invested in her character and want her to make it out alive. Most of the other characters aren't developed enough for you to give a hoot about them, but the filmmakers do handle the suspense sequences well.