Halloween 4 : Le Retour de Michael Myers

It is ten years after Michael Myers escaped from the psychiatric clinic and went on the rampage and he has been in a coma ever since being burnt at the end of Halloween 2. But one of the ambulance drivers transporting him somewhere lets slip that he has a niece in Haddonfield and before you know it he's making his way back there.

Myers has become seemingly indestructable by now. He was seen emerging from a hospital as a human fireball at the end of art 2 and yet he seems to have escaped more or less unscathed. And howcome he can see anything when he was blinded in Part 2 just before being roasted alive?

However, if you overlook these points you'll find this is an entertaining and well-made film. Dr Loomis returns to Haddonfield after his ex-patient, played by Donald Pleasance at his best, and there are plenty of interesting characters and situations.

One of the better of the Halloween series, certainly much more worthwhile than the dismal Halloween 5 or most of the repetative Friday the 13th films.

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

After the failure that was the 3rd Halloween sequel, the writers knew that was mainly due to the absence of Michael Myers. So what did they do? They invited Michael back in for the 4th sequel and back into the story of Halloween. Even though I did enjoy the 3rd sequel, I do agree that I missed Michael. He's my favorite boogeyman, so it'd be cool to see him return and do what he does best, slice and dice and scare the heck out of me. Well is this really scary? Not too much, but still it's a fun sequel to get into and watch in the dark. I like the story and how they are continuing into the Myer's past and how far Michael will go to destroy this blood line. Although I was disappointed to not have Laurie Strode in this one, it was interesting to see how her legacy lives on with her daughter and now she will have the struggle with Michael Myers.

Michael Myers has been in a coma for ten years, when his massacre was stopped by Dr. Samuel J. Loomis and Laurie Strode. Myers is being transferred from Ridgemont Federal Sanitarium to Smith's Grove Sanitarium. He awakens when he hears that Laurie Strode, his sister, is deceased, but her daughter, Jamie Lloyd is alive and well in Haddonfield. He kills the ambulance crew and escapes. Dr. Loomis races to Haddonfield in an attempt to bring Myers' killing spree to an end once and for all. In Haddonfield, his niece Jamie Lloyd, has been adopted by the Carruthers family. She has frequent nightmares about Michael, though she does not know who he is. On Halloween night, Jamie goes out trick-or-treating dressed as a clown with her teenage foster sister Rachel. Her uncle, Michael, follows them. Meanwhile, Loomis arrives in Haddonfield after an exhausting journey, and contacts the police department to inform them of Myers' escape. He and Haddonfield's new Sheriff Ben Meeker begin to search the town for Michael and Jamie. Myers has also blacked out the town's electricity by throwing a technician onto a electrical box and singlehandedly annihilated the entire police force. The girls barricade themselves in the Sheriff's house, while awaiting the arrival of the state police where Michael follows them and you'll have to see the movie to see the exciting conclusion.

So over all Halloween 4 is a good sequel, it's not the strongest in the series, but it's one of the better stories of the franchise. I do like Jamie Lloyd, she was an interesting addition to the story and the writers are making these movies very interesting. I'm glad they brought Dr. Loomis back in, it brings us back into the original Halloween and he'll never give up until Michael Myers is gone for good, which we know is not going to happen since we still have 4 more sequels after this one. But the 4th installment into the Halloween franchise is a good one so I do recommend that you see it if you get the chance.

6/10

The fourth movie of the Halloween series sees the return of Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis. Surprisingly, considering what happened to both of the them at the end of Halloween 2. But, it seems that they brought back Michael Myers for three reasons. First, it is 1980's and it's all about the horror sequels baby!!! Just like Friday the 13th, Amityville, Psycho, Howling, and Nightmare, Halloween couldn't resist the fun. Second, it was the 10 year anniversary of Halloween, so they had to honor Myers by bringing him back again, just like the 20th anniversary for H20. I guess will also see the 25th and 30th anniversary of Halloween with Myers escaping the nursing home on Halloween for these sequels. Finally, they brought him back because of the utter disappointment of Halloween 3, which shouldn't have ever been made. But after these reasons, it isn't that bad a sequel. Good for a late 80's horror movie. ** out of ****

Many seem to forget that the original Halloween was a great film despite its ridiculous premise, not because of it. Its sole purpose was to scare the audience and, as horror critic Kim Newman aptly put it, "its only message is "boo!". A feminist statement, commentary on teen sexual awakening, or political allegory, were not even notions during its development (Carpenter has expressed this sentiment repeatedly). In my opinion- and I am sure I am not alone on this- the beloved series has morphed into something virtually unrecognizable over the last few decades, largely due to the changing priorities of the studios and the expectations of the newer generation of filmgoers; Michael must be bigger and badder than ever and must kill off a character every ten minutes in the most gruesome ways imaginable. Easter eggs, cameos, and callbacks are a must. And Jamie Lee Curtis must kick a lot of butt. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but if that's what you're looking for, then Halloween 4 will be a snoozefest for you.

This third sequel to Carpenter's game-changer was fashioned more as a tribute to the original than a mere straight-up continuation. Director Dwight H. Little and company took the project as seriously as possible, treating the property with the utmost while not underestimating the audience's standards and expectations. Halloween 4 is not Carpenter- nor does it try to be. It invokes the original's mood and the spirit, if not necessarily the style. Little and writer Alan B. McElroy had a fairly straightforward blueprint to follow, but are clever in how they reappropriate certain beats and iconic shots from the original without merely carbon copying them: for example, take the moment when Sheriff Meeker and Deputy Logan are chatting about securing the windows as Meeker lights the lamp. If you blink, you will miss the outline of the Shape standing in the background behind a wall-an effect similar to when his white mask protrudes out of the darkness behind Deputy Logan by the stairwell. These sporadic, yet deceptively simple "now you see it, now you don't" motifs are genuinely creepy because they don't call attention to themselves; they also serve as a nice counterbalance to the film's more sensational, exaggerated moments that make up the final act. However, Little never strays too far from the simple formula that worked in the original, taking a cue from Carpenter in the way he prioritizes atmosphere and suspense over blood and guts.

Written in a scant eleven days, McElroy's script is surprisingly smart and well constructed (despite dialogue that is occasionally bland and over-expository). Particularly noteworthy is how he avoids "idiot plot" syndrome- a term Roger Ebert coined, in which the stupidity of the characters' actions makes it easier to kill them off and/or prevents the story from being resolved too soon. The characters in "Return" make smart and sensible decisions, for the most part. You will not find two horny middle-aged adults 'skinny-dipping' in a Jacuzzi in a desolate hospital after hearing reports of a murder spree taking place in the nearby vicinity. This time, our protagonists barricade themselves inside an unassuming location with firearms on hand and two very no-nonsense deputies at the helm, with an army of state troopers en route.

"Return" probably marks the official moment in the franchise where it is clear that we are no longer dealing with a flesh and blood psychopath, but something more omnipresent, spectral-like, and formidable ("You're talking about him as if he were a human being. That part of him died years ago," Loomis laments). By solidifying this version of the Boogeyman, the film lessens viewers' incredulity as his ability to be in several places seemingly at once becomes apparent. As with the first two, and unlike several of the series' subsequent entries, Halloween 4's presentation of evil incarnate is not meant to be taken literally.

The film ends with a final image that could serve as a prognostication of what the horror genre, for better or worse, would become in just a few short years to follow- reinforcing the underlying theme of Carpenter's original: that evil, of course, never dies. And the destruction of innocence is indeed one of the most tragic forms of evil.

Again, Halloween 4 is not Carpenter, but it's the last pure Halloween film in the franchise- on par with the 1981 sequel. Thankfully, even though he was motivated by dollar signs (has there ever been a producer who wasn't?), at least Moustapha Akkad didn't take the easy way out and pile on a lot of sex and gore to ensure higher box office returns. And I can't think of any other film that stretches a meager 3-million dollar budget as far as this film does (IMDB states its budget is 5 million, but I was corrected by the director himself).

On a final note: This film was made to be seen on the big screen. If you get a chance, catch it on its 35mm presentation. It's far better in almost every respect than its digital format and will help you overlook the 1:85 aspect ratio, continuity blunders, and those shoulder pads.