There has been one conspicuous omission from my reviews of the Halloween franchise, and it is this first sequel. The reason for this is, one, I have never really written a full review of it before, and secondly, I’ve never really cared for it at all. This stems from the fact that it has very little to offer me as either a fan of John Carpenter’s original or as a big slasher movie fan. Simply said, so much of it just doesn’t appeal to me. From the reworked score to the bland hospital environment to the clear shift from atmospheric horror to a reliance on gore, this isn’t the Halloween sequel that I want to see. Even the ones that are technically worse films, they have an entertainment value that I can indulge in on some level. There are many reasons why this film doesn’t even give me that much.
Picking up exactly where the first film left off, it seems the inhuman Michael Myers is still very much alive and out for more revenge as he stalks the deserted halls of the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital for Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). As he gets closer to his main target, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) discovers the chilling mystery behind the crazed psychopath’s actions
It might sound somewhat unfair, but the vast majority of my gripes with this film are in comparison to John Carpenter’s original. However, with the fact that this film picks up exactly where the first left off, it demands that comparison because it is trying to convince us that this is a seamless continuation of that movie. The problem is that it doesn’t feel seamless in many aspects, and they are largely on the technical side. Still, there are issues with the quality of the script, and just the effectiveness of Halloween II as a horror movie that I wish to address.
To be straight up honest, I do not like the score for this movie at all. Yes, they are the same themes with John Carpenter and Alan Howarth doing the score, but the overly saturated synthesizer sound has never been to my liking. It doesn’t sound like a horror movie score to me. It sounds silly and over bloated. The first film’s score felt far more subtle and artistically applied. To me, the score for Halloween II just evokes no sense of tension, suspense, or chilling atmosphere for me. There are many instances where a strategic use of score could have been utilized to craft great suspense and nerve-racking tension, but instead, it’s dead silent. This score relies more heavily on the musical stingers, and feels poorly implemented overall. Carpenter’s scores usually craft a brilliant soundscape for a unique auditory experience, but there seems to be a significant lack of score in the moments where it should flourish.
Now, this is a very well shot movie, done so again by acclaimed director of photography Dean Cundey. It has some very good lighting schemes in certain scenes, and the continued use of the Pana-glide camera work is excellent. Director Rick Rosenthal does make an effort to emulate John Carpenter’s visual style, but I have always felt that the color palette of Halloween II was never quite right when compared to the first film. The hospital interiors feature a terribly bland color scheme, as most hospitals do, and because of this, it doesn’t have any of the visual pop of the first movie. There are no daytime scenes to soak in that late autumn feeling as this is all set at night, and really, it feels like it could be any night of the year. The film also lacks the atmospheric blue tones that Cundey used in the original as well as several other films he’s shot. Also, when I look at this film in certain instances, the lighting just doesn’t look quite right. The feeling, the mood, the balance of light and dark, at times, doesn’t feel consistent with the first film. This is especially evident when new footage is spliced into the revisited footage from the ending of Halloween. It’s not even knowing that it is new footage married with old footage. Back to the Future, Part II did this sort of thing seamlessly, and was also shot by Dean Cundey. These issues, I think, also stem from the fact that the first movie was a late 1970’s independently produced film while this is an early 1980’s studio produced sequel. It is inevitably going to have a slightly different visual feel due to extra money, studio mandates, a shift in filmmaking aesthetics, and a change of directors.
Even then, Rick Rosenthal’s film was tampered with by the studio and Carpenter as they felt it was too tame in comparison to other recent slasher films. While I can see the clear evidence of that since there is a definite lack of suspense, although much of that is, again, due to the absence of a score in key scenes, this is a sequel that didn’t stay true to its predecessor. Yes, of course, this is a slasher film that is going to follow many of the tropes of the genre which were originated in Halloween. However, this sequel feels like it’s trying to fit in with the Friday The 13th style slasher film craze instead of staying true to the Halloween style slasher. The genre exploded after the success of Friday The 13th, and it became very indulgent in gore and sexuality. It essentially became exploitative in that regard, and this film embraced that mentality whereas Halloween was a film built entirely on suspense and atmosphere. There is some suspense here, but it is especially sparse. Instead of holding to what made Halloween successful and effective in the first place, Halloween II tries to conform to what was popular at the time, and thus, feels second rate to me. Rick Rosenthal tries to match Carpenter’s style in many regards, but then, Carpenter comes in and tries to veer it away from what he originally did. It’s certainly not a film that is one director’s vision, and even then, Rosenthal isn’t given much to work with to make this as good as the first movie. I really didn’t get the feeling that there was enough creative effort put into this film to make it succeed in the creative vein.
One of the bigger problems here is that Halloween II feels scattered. The first film had a distinct plot progression as elements gradually converged with one another in a tight, cohesive way. This sequel is extremely loose in that regard. Laurie is essentially a stationary target throughout the movie, spending a good chunk of it asleep or screaming, but Michael Myers roams about the hospital killing everyone else while Loomis is out scouring the streets for Michael. No longer is Loomis in sync with his prey anticipating his psychology and instinctual impulses. He’s tagging along with the police instead of driving the narrative forward. Even the majority of his dialogue feels retreaded from the first movie as he re-explains the history of himself and Michael, and his talk about evil incarnate. It entirely feels like it is only there in case someone watching this movie never saw the first one. Even Donald Pleasance seems a tad monotonous delivering this reworked dialogue. While his performance is still of a high quality, there’s just nothing new for him to do here. The film also hardly feels like it’s building any momentum. John Carpenter reportedly had a very difficult time coming up with a story for this film while writing the script, and it really does show. Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode have next to nothing to do here except uncover newly conceived secrets about Michael and Laurie’s past, which amounts to nothing. There’s no mounting tension heading into the third act, and Laurie’s chase scene earlier on is very mild and slow paced. This film doesn’t offer a sense of escalating threat until the last few minutes before Loomis engulfs himself and Michael in an inferno. The pacing is very monotonous because the story is very loose and lacks directional momentum.
The supporting characters here are mostly a lot of interchangeable hospital staff going about their mundane duties getting killed, and an audience likely couldn’t care less about any one of them. They feel like standard, hollow slasher film fodder, but without even the crutch of a stereotype to make them funny or entertaining. Carpenter’s original was smartly and greatly cast filling out very lively characters, but here, there are just so many throwaway characters with very little personality that very little care was needed to put together a memorable supporting cast. Even Sheriff Brackett vanishes from the film after learning of his daughter’s death, and so, we get new police officers who have really nothing fresh or pertinent to contribute to the story.
And it really is a shame that Jamie Lee Curtis got hooked into doing this film. It is an utter waste of her talents. She spends the majority of the film either laying in a hospital bed, running away from Michael Myers, or hiding in a parked car. This is a sequel that brings people back to simply do nothing new or challenging. To me, it’s another sign that there was a lack of creative drive behind this. Every character feels either generic or wasted. Also, since Jamie Lee Curtis had since adopted a shorter hairstyle, she had to be fitted with this blatantly obvious bad wig. This just further adds to the nagging inconsistencies between the two films.
Now, I know there are people who are fans of Dick Warlock’s Shape, but I have never liked his lethargic, robotic movements at all. If this movie is supposed to pick up at the exact moment the first left off, there should have been a demand for consistency. Nick Castle’s Shape moved with a relentless fluidity. He felt like a shark hunting his prey with a fierce single-minded focus. Warlock is so horribly stiff that I see no ferocity or cunning intellect here. Before, Michael’s actions had a clearly evident intelligence and deliberateness behind them. He stalked his prey with patience and purpose. He observed them before striking. Here, he just shows up and starts killing like a mindless machine, and to me, that’s just not interesting or intriguing at all. Warlock is a great stuntman, but as Michael Myers, he does nothing good for me.
I can appreciate some bad slasher movies because many of them at least show that they are trying. Their end result might not be creatively successful, but the filmmakers put forth a visible effort to make a somewhat effective horror film. For me, Halloween II doesn’t even give me that much. I find it to be a very dull, bland, and boring slasher movie. It has none of the atmospheric tension or magic that John Carpenter harnessed for the first movie, and the story is very lazy even for a slasher film. I think Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is the vastly superior sequel in every aspect. Also, released the same year, I passionately believe that Friday The 13th, Part 2 is one of the best slasher films ever made. I don’t hate Halloween II. It just doesn’t do enough either way to motivate a passionate response from me. Any other films in this franchise I don’t end up reviewing are simply because I don’t wish to subject myself to them again or even for the first time.
This has become a very well known version of Halloween 6 to fans over the years, most deeming it superior to the theatrical cut. It has never been officially released by Dimension Films, and can only be found in bootleg form on both VHS and DVD. Today, you can actually find the full cut freely on YouTube. Among other things, the altered ending is also due to the passing of Donald Pleasance following principal photography, but that was hardly the catalyst for the extent of these changes. As explained in the review of the theatrical version of this film, Halloween 6 was turned into a mess of a film in post-production following poor test screening reactions and severe creative differences between director Joe Chapelle and the film’s producers. Thus, this version of the film was dubbed “The Producers’ Cut.” Suffice it to say, there are distinct and dramatic differences between this version and the theatrical cut.
The setup and premise for the film remains basically the same as the official theatrical release, but this cut follows a slightly different chain of events. There are alternate death scenes with some happening later in the film, allowing characters to survive longer than in the theatrical version. One of those is that Jamie Lloyd is not killed by Michael, but rather, dies in the hospital later on by the hands of the Man in Black. This adds back scenes of Loomis and Wynn in the hospital that better explain how Tommy runs into Dr. Loomis there. Overall, the film gives more time to developing the relationship between Doctors Wynn and Loomis. Right from the start there is an extended introduction scene, and as the story goes along a different chain of events, there are more scenes of them together which build them into a stronger, more prominent part of the plot. More foreboding seeds are planted towards the rune of Thorn as well.
Music cues are also different in mostly eliminating the false scares throughout the film, and you will find no trace of wailing rock guitars anywhere. The score is more in the traditional Halloween style with a focus on atmosphere and tension. A definite difference from the start is Donald Pleasance doing the opening narration instead of Paul Rudd’s Tommy Doyle. We also get a flashback to a never used, never seen ending to Halloween 5 where Jamie, portrayed by Danielle Harris, is abducted by the Man in Black. Of course, where this version of this film departs from the theatrical version is more in the final act. I won’t go spoiling much, but everything after Tommy and Loomis are knocked unconscious is almost completely different. The film follows through on the occult aspects it establishes instead of the nonsensical genetic cloning swerve the theatrical outing offers. Several scenes throughout the final twenty minutes were re-shot with a heavily revised script, leading to the more ‘by-the-numbers’ ending we eventually got. The Producer’s Cut ending is less action-oriented, and more plot centric using the idea of the runes to cancel out Michael’s own power to allow for a potential escape for some.
I believe this version is a definite improvement over the theatrical cut. The film follows its own logic throughout whereas the theatrical cut veers off track, essentially disregarding the development of the story at the start of the final act. The Producer’s Cut retains a consistency and continuity within its own story, and with its predecessors. While it requires the story to delve further into bizarre territory, it seems more satisfactory. More importantly, it is all rather well explained through the course of the overall film. This is mainly done by Tommy, but in the final act, Terrence Wynn goes further in depth about the motives behind it all. The film doesn’t envelop itself in clichés or formulaic horror film scenarios building up to or during the film’s conclusion. It presents a climax and ending which respects the development of the story, serves the tone and themes appropriately. It also leaves a much clearer opening for a sequel with a definite storyline to follow down. Unfortunately, this storyline and its continuity were shelved and ignored by the makers of the subsequent sequels. While I would’ve liked to see such a proper continuation, I don’t believe it would’ve been successful. Any non-fans would be turned off and lost with such a continuation. This is merely by the fact of long-stretching mythology and continuity that newcomers would be unaware of. Of course, this would allow for even lower box office numbers. I’m sure the death of Donald Pleasance wouldn’t leave much confidence in the franchise’s future along this path, either.
I don’t see a real point in reviewing the acting since the quality of the performances don’t change from one cut to the other. Rarely, if at all, does an alternate take appear, and it’s more a fact of extended and additional scenes appearing throughout. Although, aspects of the editing should be addressed. Whereas the theatrical version is far gorier than previous Halloween films, this cut removes a good deal of the gratuitous bloodshed. This helps to put it back on track with the other Michael Myers outings, and much like with Alan Howarth’s score, keeps the horror focused more on atmosphere and suspense than on shock gore value. I believe both cuts of the film were done by the same editor, Randolph K. Bricker, and so, the quality of the editing is quite consistent between both versions. Of course, without a doubt, the story flows much better in this version. This is probably because there’s more story here to work with between various characters. Even the timeline alteration of Jamie’s death offers up a well-timed plot turn, and a slightly tighter pace about one-third of the way into the film. It also keeps the idea of the Man in Black alive where he’s barely present in the theatrical cut. Also, bare in mind, the Producer’s Cut was put together first. So, the theatrical version’s gratuitous gore was all added in later, but still, several small character moments were excised in the theatrical version. In regards to the Strode family turmoil, while they are nice touches, I don’t think either cut is exceptionally better or worse because of their presence or absence. Still, it helps to give an extra touch of depth to one or two characters.
I can honestly say that I do find more enjoyment in watching this version of the film, but watching a multi-generational bootleg copy, no matter what lengths skilled fans go to improve the experience, is not something I would do often. I really feel that if Dimension Films had any intention of releasing the Producer’s Cut officially on a properly mastered DVD or Blu-Ray release, they likely would have done it already. Still, it is an investment in time and money, and there’s no guarantee that they still have all the necessary elements to present the complete film. Sometimes, audio tracks or film elements are lost. Beyond that, who knows what condition the master print is in. I’m not saying these are absolute certainties, but there are numerous factors to take into consideration. Of course, if they don’t show the initiative, we’ll never know. Regardless, if you ever have the opportunity to view this version of the film, I believe it is worth your while if the more occult aspects of the story intrigue you. Like I said, it’s readily available on YouTube, for the time being, so it costs you nothing to give it a look.
The early-to-mid 1990s were generally not a good era for horror films. The slasher craze of the 80s was dead, and the few surviving franchises were really limping along, creatively and/or commercially. Now in the hands of Dimension Films, who had already begun tarnishing the Hellraiser franchise, Moustapha Akkad pushed forward with a sixth installment in the Halloween series. It would explore the origins of Michael Myers, and follow-up on the events in The Revenge of Michael Myers. It had good beginnings, but what could’ve been a very solid and satisfying film for certain fans, turned into a real mess with an obscured potential. It just goes to show that certain franchises shouldn’t be given to certain studios.
Following six years later, much has changed for our familiar characters. Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) has retired after suffering a stroke during his last encounter with Michael Myers. Almost everyone believes that Jamie Lloyd and Myers died that night. Although, it is October 30th, 1995, and things are about to change further. In actuality, Michael survived, and Jamie (J.C. Brandy) has been held captive by the Man in Black and his cohorts all this time. Jamie has since been impregnated, and is now mother to a newborn baby boy. In an escape attempt, Michael pursues her relentlessly. Meanwhile, shock jock Barry Simms (Leo Geter) holds a radio broadcast about the return of Halloween to Haddonfield, and one of his callers is a panicked Jamie Lloyd, calling out for help. Among those listening are Tommy Doyle (Paul Stephen Rudd) as well as old friends Dr. Loomis and Dr. Terrence Wynn (Mitch Ryan). Of course, it is not long before Michael claims his niece’s life in quite a gory fashion. While the child is lost to The Shape, Tommy soon tracks the baby boy down, and chooses to protect him. Loomis & Wynn soon join the hunt for Myers, but ulterior motives loom in the shadows for some. Meanwhile, relatives of Laurie Strode – including Kara (Marianne Hagan) and her young son Danny – now occupy the old Myers home, and are in danger of Michael’s boundless evil. Tommy, quite obsessed with the truth about Michael Myers, believes he has discovered the origin of his evil, but how this version of the film progresses, it eventually becomes irrelevant.
It is rather easy to see how this entry in the series failed to be a serious success. The main factor is that, after poor test screenings, Dimension Films ordered the third act to be re-shot and much of the film to be re-edited to be a much less intelligible story. However, the original version survives in the bootleg market as “The Producer’s Cut.” In this, the theatrical cut of the film, there’s much left to be desired regarding the plot. What begins as a supposed occult plot surrounding Michael eventually takes a sharp swerve towards some form of genetic cloning, and all things occult are bafflingly washed away. The film also goes for a lot of cheap, false scares which only degrade the quality of the film. Re-casting or dispatching with the character of Jamie Lloyd didn’t win any fans over either. However, Danielle Harris did not like the script, or what happened to Jamie in it. So, she passed, forcing the role to be given to another actress who did a fine job, but the re-casting does affect the impact of what does happen to Jamie here.
What I do enjoy a great deal about this film is what many don’t like – the entire Thorn / occult plotline. Many despise it, but it’s much the same as I like Jason Goes To Hell. It offers up a better explanation than just “he’s evil.” Evil alone doesn’t make you immortal and impervious to injury or pain. There has to be a reason, and after a while, you need to add something more to the stalk and slash formula to keep it interesting. Whether it succeeds or fails depends on how well the explanation is integrated into the established mythos. For me, I think screenwriter Daniel Farrands did a very exceptional job tying all the little bits and pieces scattered throughout the films into a credible storyline. While the entire Thorn mark on Michael in Halloween 5 was purely random, trying to give Moustapha Akkad some thread to continue with into the next sequel, I find it is quite a valid revelation. Like it or not, John Carpenter did set this up, partially, years ago. When filming additional scenes for the network television broadcast of the original Halloween, he introduced the plot twist that Laurie was Michael’s sister. He also introduced the idea of Michael being linked to Samhain in his and Debra Hill’s script for Halloween II. Despite which belief system you categorize it under, Samhain is directly linked with an array of paranormal and supernatural events and rituals. All of which involving the relationship between the living and the dead. Therefore, while none of this origin came from a singular stream of consciousness, it all eventually fit together with perfect logic. If for nothing else, in my honest opinion, it’s a better and more creative origin for Michael Myers than what trash Rob Zombie tried to feed us. I don’t believe in making evil incarnate a sympathetic figure. You shouldn’t feel sorry for evil, but you should respect its power and legacy. The one person who survives throughout these films is the one who respects and never underestimates the evil that is The Shape, namely Dr. Loomis.
The film has a solid setup giving us plenty of mysterious and haunting elements that create suspense. Having the Man in Black haunting Danny Strode was handled nicely, and created a driving plot element which passionately involved Kara Strode. She’s not being randomly stalked. She is fighting for the safety of her son, and thus, naturally forms an allegiance with Tommy Doyle. Bringing back a character from the original film, and developing him down this path is something I’ve always strongly enjoyed. He could’ve been the Halloween franchise’s allegory to Tommy Jarvis from the Friday The 13th films – a young protagonist who has dedicated himself to understand the evil that once stalked him, and seeks to destroy it, once and for all. Doyle is very smartly handled in this story giving the character enough weight to bring credibility to everything he says. Just as how Dr. Loomis could come off as very preposterous if wrongly cast, the same goes for Tommy Doyle. Where Loomis has always brought a dreadful urgency to the plot, Tommy brings a scary vibe of mystique as he explains the truth of Michael Myers. The addition of Dr. Terrence Wynn mixes both of those into a heavy, frightening threat, regardless of which cut of the film you view.
While all the Strode family drama was quite unnecessary, it at least has some bearing on the story and the characters. It creates enough emotional turmoil for Kara which makes her more vulnerable and emotionally open for an audience to connect with. However, on the down side, I definitely get that John Strode is not meant to be likeable in the least, but he actually comes off as far too stereotypical, dumb, and tiresome. He’s a dull thud of a character that I just wanted to be rid of, and if the film spent less time with him, I would have been perfectly all right with that. That is really the only character which fell flat for me. Actor Bradford English just didn’t seem like a very solid fit for this role, and does little with it for anyone to take him very seriously. He comes off like a bull-headed buffoon. Even the crass shock jock character of Barry Simms is vehemently unlikeable, but he’s supposed to be, and Leo Geter hit the role perfectly on the mark.
Now, what further drives this away from the tone of a Halloween film is the excessive gore. The splatter level here is more akin to that of a Friday The 13th film. The Halloween films have, generally, been more focused on atmospheric horror than shock gore. I can only fault director Joe Chapelle for a good measure of this. He was the one Dimension Films called on to re-shoot sequences for Hellraiser: Bloodline. Thus, essentially butchering everything that film had left going for it after the Weinstein’s kicked Clive Barker and original director Kevin Yahger off the project. He’s clearly not a filmmaker who strives to fight for his vision or establish his own identity. He does what the studio wants him to do, even if it means butchering his own film or someone else’s. Chapelle also perceived Donald Pleasance’s performance as “boring,” and cutout several of his scene from the film, further showing Joe Chapelle’s lack of sense for good talent. Clearly, there was a good movie under all these re-shoots and re-edits that Chapelle deserves some credit for, but he really loses a lot of that credit and respect due to his track record with this film and others.
Fortunately, the acting rises far above anything that might be lacking in the director’s chair. Donald Pleasance, as always, delivers what had always kept this film series so unique. He provides a dramatic and emotional weight which brings an honest credibility to the film, despite what strange turns it might take. Paul Rudd and Marianne Hagan bring equally real and solid performances. Rudd fashioned a definite eerie quality for Tommy making it quite apparent that he’s had a weird time of it since Halloween, 1978. I always find myself especially intrigued by his character, hoping that a subsequent film would follow him in more depth, but that really became a dashed hope. Beyond just the change of direction in the franchise, Paul Rudd emphatically made it known he’d never work with these filmmakers again. He signed onto what was supposed to be a high caliber suspense film, but the studio ultimately decided to take the low road. That being said, aside from my previous comments, there’s hardly a weak link amongst the cast. Mitch Ryan was a welcomed addition adding some extra strength and stability. He does an immensely effective job in his plot twisting role as Terrence Wynn.
Lastly, George P. Wilbur returns as The Shape. He previously took on the role for Halloween 4. The performances are about the same, but he gets to do more walking here. You see more of his movement, but it doesn’t have that natural fluidity that Nick Castle had in the first film. It seems everyone who portrays Myers always tried to emulate the robotic and rigid performance of Dick Warlock. I cannot explain this approach as I believe Castle’s more natural movement made Michael seem more eerily human, and in a way, more frightening and relentless. He seemed to move with more purpose, more determination, and thus, showed he was more motivated.
Alan Howarth, a frequent collaborator of John Carpenter’s, and the man responsible for the scores of Halloween 4 & 5 returned here. He takes things in a different direction this time out. This is a much heavier score with the synthesizers regularly slamming into the soundtrack with a more overbearing presence, at times. The familiar themes of the series have a more atmospheric or polished synth sound, which I do enjoy. It gives this film more self-identity that works, but there are undesirable elements of this score. The music in the climax is overwhelming with shredding electric guitars in a very 80s pop-metal style. It’s like a second rate Eddie Van Halen wannabe took over the scoring job on the film and did a terrible job at it. This is not scary or suspenseful. It’s just obnoxious Now, this is something exclusive to this cut of the film. It was another decision made by people less interested in creating a coherent and effective horror film, and more interested in just making whatever’s going to give them one extra dumb dollar – even if only makes the film worse.
Thankfully, the film is shot very well, in most part. The cinematography has a serious approach with focus on dramatic weight and eerie atmosphere. The lighting creates some uneasy moodiness. The bleak visuals create a sense of foreboding and unease. You get the feeling all the way through that this is a film that is taking itself seriously with intense, unrelenting horror, and a storyline that’s supposed to have dire consequences. I really love how the film was shot. It takes the blue tones of the first and fourth films, and adds an extra layer of depth and grit to enhance the more grim tone of this film. I give much praise to cinematographer Billy Dickson on this production.
Generally, I feel this version of the film is less fascinating than its bootlegged counterpart. Based on its own merits, the film boils down to a mindless slasher with a messed up plot progression which ultimately negates itself. While it does have strong acting and solid production values, the studio heads botched it all up to cater to stupid fourteen year olds who wouldn’t end up being able to see the film in theatres anyway. The whole film seems meant to build up towards answers and revelations regarding the origin of Michael’s evil. Sadly, it’s all thrown out to introduce a new ending which makes no sense, and doesn’t bother to explain itself. I’m not one who demands that all mysteries be solved, and all questions be answered thoroughly and definitively in a film, but things need to make some degree of coherent sense. Simply said, the fact remains that this ending does not fit to this story. It washes away all plot points and hints at answers the film establishes, and introduces brand new ones which come to no light. It’s a cliché, shallow, and hollow conclusion to a film which laid the seeds for so much more. Satisfaction, at least for me, does not come from this version of Halloween 6.
Another sequel, released approximately one year later. Clearly, it was a rushed production, and the pitfalls of that are blatantly obvious throughout this film. It’s not a pure failure, but the volume of problems and bad ideas are impossible to ignore. Director and co-writer Dominique Othenin-Girard is probably responsible for many of them. His résumé consists mostly of French films, but he was also responsible for the generally panned and dismissed Omen IV telemovie. The films’ other two screenwriters, Michael Jacobs and Shem Bitterman, have nothing else of note on their filmographies. If this film is any indication of their talent, it seems to make sense.
One year after the events of Halloween 4, things are not as expected. Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris) is merely locked up in a children’s psychiatric hospital, acting weird, but not homicidal in anyway. Michael Myers, ultimately, is still alive, and has been laying dormant in the company of a derelict by the river. With the coming of Halloween, he rises once again, and starts on his killing spree towards Jamie all over again. This time, Jamie has a psychic link with Michael, able to see what he sees, and generally know where he is. Of course, most everyone doesn’t believe her wild claims, believing she is indeed insane, and ultimately, allows for many more to die because of it. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), as usual, is there to head up the endless fight against The Shape. Meanwhile, a mysterious man in black makes his way into Haddonfield for unknown reasons as Michael maliciously slashes through the town.
I have to say, first off, that this film suffers mostly from an underdeveloped script due to the rushed production. Where Alan McElroy put together a rather intelligent script for Halloween 4, the three screenwriters on this film did everything possible to make it stupid and stunted. From the pair of lame, dumbass cops to the annoying character of Tina to most any other new characters, it’s a real chore to consider anyone likable here. Aside from the returning cast of Harris, Pleasance, Cornell, and Starr, the acting is rather poor and irritating at times. Don Shanks’ Shape doesn’t really stand out. There’s not much for him to really work with, and the mask he’s saddled with is terrible. Granted, it follows within the continuity that this film establishes, but the filmmakers weren’t forced to make it dirty and ugly. Part of the symbolism of the mask is to reflect a blank, emotionless visage of the killer, and scuffing it up takes away that stark, striking visual.
The direction that Othenin-Girard takes the film is very visually gothic. Everything appears grittier, dirtier, and more grim. Although, the most horrendous and objectionable change is that of the Myers’ house – which bares zero resemblance to any other Myers’ house throughout the series, before or after. Obviously, continuity wasn’t a real concern for Dominique. I will give him credit where the film’s tension and suspense is concerned. He handles it very well, and creates many scary sequences throughout various parts of the movie. It’s simply the harsh and drastic departure of visual style and art direction that detract from its quality in the overall series. The entire film has a far more cryptic than atmospheric style compared to the rest of the franchise. This doesn’t tend to go over well with the fans, and considering the film’s other stated flaws, it’s stance within the franchise is quite expected.
Halloween 5 also planted the seeds for what became Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers with the mysterious Man in Black. However, as another example of a rushed production and poor screenwriting, even the screenwriters themselves didn’t know who the hell he was supposed to be. They just decided to throw in some ambiguous character with no idea of what to ultimately do with him. That’s sloppy work to pawn off onto another screenwriter who would work on the next sequel. I’m sure that’s something screenwriters of sequels hate – cleaning up the undeveloped or unresolved garbage left over by the last screenwriter. At least the Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street movies had the courtesy to kill their respective slashers off at the end of every movie allowing for a generally clean slate for the next movie. In Halloween 5, the Man in Black was partly portrayed by Don Shanks at the thought that the character might be a blood relative of Michael’s, possibly a brother. Obviously, any intentions these filmmakers might’ve had about the Man in Black’s identity were irrelevant by the time of the sixth film’s production. During this production, tensions and conflicts were abound. Pleasance and Akkad disagreed with each other, and they both disagreed with Othenin-Girard about the direction of the story, and the direction of the film. Not many were happy with the outcome, and it resulted in a rather uneven and terribly unpolished film.
This is a film that tries to be taken deathly seriously, but there’s just so much bad crap smeared all over it that it’s hard to take it seriously. While I would not speak ill of children with disabilities, they don’t make for good characters in horror films. They simply add to the irritating bevy of new characters we are subjected to. There are the aforementioned bumbling rejects from the Police Academy franchise who couldn’t be more out of place, and they are even given their own silly music theme to go along with their goofy antics. Then, the entire psychic link between Jamie and Michael comes off like something from a Z-grade rip-off of The Dead Zone. Maybe, and that’s a huge maybe, the idea could’ve worked in more talented hands, but the execution comes off as terrible. The entire time Dr. Loomis is shouting at and shaking Jamie like a total madman trying to force her to tell him where Michael is, and that alone is just bad on so many levels. Donald Pleasance does the best job he can with the written material, but there’s just too much incoherent madness for him to make much of it.
While this is meant to be a continuation of Halloween 4, it comes off more like a transitional film meant to segue from Halloween 4 into a different storyline altogether in the eventual Halloween 6. It never feels like a self-contained movie since it hardly resolves anything from the previous movie, and has no resolution to any new plot elements it introduces. I think more than its slasher juggernaut counterparts, the Halloween franchise has been the most mismanaged. There was too much cluttered continuity and mythology that almost every new screenwriter or filmmaker who came in tried to twisted around into a new direction, or simply disregard altogether on a whim. While Jason & Freddy have had their continuity inconsistencies, you rarely ever had someone come into either franchise trying to drastically alter the nature of the characters. The tone of the films might’ve changed, but what you knew of Krueger & Voorhees from the first film or two remained set in stone throughout the franchise. Their origins were plainly known, and anything that was added to them later on felt natural and logical. Not with Michael Myers. Every new film has tried to find a new rationale for the existence of the character whether or not it jibed with what came before. Moustapha Akkad never attempted to put the series on a set path of tone and story. That is very strange considering how thick Halloween 4-6 are with an overarching storyline that’s supposed to make sense, but is really just a fortunate cut and paste job assembled by three different sets of screenwriters. Halloween 5 raised a number of bizarre, ridiculous questions it never intended to answer, and while that’s surely not it’s worst attribute, it does degrade the artistic and creative potential of the film.
As I said, this is not a pure failure, but it’s a real mixed bag of problems. While it is enjoyable if you dumb yourself down and not care much about continuity, it’s far away from being one of the better films of the series. In contrast to Carpenter’s original, this is real schlock. On its own, it’s still schlock, but potentially enjoyable to some varying degree. Suffice it to say, this film could’ve stood from an extra year of development as well as a far more competent and talented director. This was a terrible drop-off from a rather respectable and enjoyable Halloween 4. It’s worth seeing, but not worth any good expectations.
Halloween 4 is probably the one sequel which most closely matches the original. I would attribute this to a few factors. The most significant, maybe, is that it was before each new film tried to introduce some new twist to the story. Some new element to either explain The Shape, or just utilize a gimmick to sell the film as something supposedly worth seeing. It stays closer to the spirit of John Carpenter’s original film, focusing on a simple stalk-and-slash idea coupled with relatable characters.
The film picks up ten years after the events of the first and second film. Despite developments in later, contradictory sequels, Jamie Lee Curtis’ character of Laurie Strode died in a car accident, leaving behind a daughter – Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris). She is taken in by another family, and raised alongside their older daughter Rachel Caruthers (Ellie Cornell). Meanwhile, Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) has been in a comatose state, and Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) remains persistent in his belief that Myers is indeed evil incarnate. As Halloween approaches, The Shape stays dormant no longer, and Loomis must take chase of him before he claims new victims. It is clear to the obsessed doctor that Jamie is to be his ultimate target, but it will be a Halloween night caked in blood before the horror is over.
After the fallout from the unsuccessful Halloween III, Moustapha Akkad wanted to bring back Michael Myers to revitalize the franchise. After all, it was essentially his only meal ticket. Akkad only produced five other (unsuccessful) films outside of this franchise in his 75 year life. Thankfully, this was a solid sequel. Nothing that tried to shake up the idea of the franchise, just inject new life into it, and be as faithful to the style and vibe of the original. Dwight H. Little directs, and does a fine job at it. It’s very difficult to rival Carpenter’s film, but Halloween 4 doesn’t try to be superior. It only tries to be a respectful continuation, and it does succeed. Little focuses more on atmosphere and suspense than gore. While there is a decent amount of it, it’s not obscene. It’s enough to give the film the needed deadly horror aspect, but stays away from being a splatter fest. There’s a constant tension through the main meat of the film with little tinges here and there to keep the momentum going. This allows the film to flow at a decent pace; not allowing it to grind to a halt anywhere, or get wound up too soon. Dwight Little’s name has regularly appeared as a director on television series like Bones, Castle, Prison Break, and Dollhouse. I’m always glad to see that his talent has taken him far with a steady career.
Alan Howarth’s score also helps to keep a strong connection with the first film. The themes are slightly rearranged, but are more similar to those of the first film than the overly-synthesizer themes of Halloween II. For me, that is a welcomed return to form.
The cast and acting of The Return of Michael Myers is indeed solid. Everyone holds their own weight, and convey a realistic array of emotions. The young Danielle Harris really stands out. Where a lot of young actors tend to come off as annoying or phony, she showcases such wonderful innocence and vulnerability. An audience can’t help but truly feel for her all the way through. Danielle has gained a long, successful, and seasoned career birthed from this performance. She’s helped along quite a bit by Ellie Cornell who is very likeable as the loving big sister, but also proves to have a lot of strength. As Rachel, she doesn’t take anything lying down when she discovers her supposed boyfriend messing around with another girl. As the film progresses, she’s put right into the thick of the harrowing danger with Jamie. She maintains better courage under fire than Laurie did in the first two films, and certainly wins over the heart of the audience being Jamie’s sisterly protector.
Donald Pleasance, as always, is excellent. He continued to bring a real credibility and dramatic weight to the series. Some actors, if delivering a lot of the dialogue he had to, might come off as inauthentic or laughable. With Pleasance, he had the talent to make you believe every word. He gave it all the urgency and consequence of the grave. The emotion in his eyes, the fear and the pain, transcend through the screen, and hit you deep within. Where in the first film it was a weary doctor uncertain what Myers was entirely capable of, Loomis is now a man afraid of reliving the nightmare. He has seen the carnage before, and is intensely adamant about preventing it this time. With this in mind, Pleasance delivers a much less reserved Loomis. He hasn’t time for reason or diplomatic talk. Evil incarnate is loose in Haddonfield, and he needs people to take immediate action.
Beau Starr takes up the mantle of Sheriff of Haddonfield as Ben Meeker, and has a much more assertive and take charge personality than Leigh Brackett did. Starr makes Sheriff Meeker a fine counterbalance to Loomis’ almost unhinged psychology. He shows authority and urgency while remaining focused and calm. And while I stand firm in that Nick Castle was the best Myers, George Wilbur does an admirable job, but he doesn’t get much chance to show his movement. He tends to more just appear out of nowhere, figuratively, than stalk people over long distances. However, he does seem less stiff than Dick Warlock’s interpretation (which I’m not very fond of as I prefer a more fluid Shape). The rest of the cast, as I said, hold their own very well. They create a solid and realistic community of characters that you don’t second guess their authenticity. This is also due to Alan McElroy’s solid screenplay – writing intelligent characters with depth who don’t fall into the slasher film formula. They make the choices that any one of us would in those situations. When you would run away, they run away. They don’t make stupid decisions or take foolish courses of action. They may act, sometimes, out of desperation making not the best choices, but there is a realistic motive behind them. Amazingly, McElroy wrote this script in eleven days, just before the writer’s strike of 1987 began. Take it from me, a screenwriter myself, that’s not easy to do.
Again, I feel this is a very worthwhile sequel. It does more to honor John Carpenter’s original film than any other sequel (or remake) in the franchise. It retains a similar look and cinematography, despite the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and really stays true to Carpenter’s story and form of suspense. It cannot rival that 1978 masterpiece, but Halloween 4 respectably holds its own. While John might not agree considering his feelings on the franchise, from a fan’s point of view, I feel it is respectful. After this, the films began to become either more bizarre, watered down, or just plain cheesy. Overall, I believe this entry in the series is about as appropriate and proper as you could get. I’ve never cared for Halloween II, feeling it suffered from seemingly lower production values, a badly reworked score, thinner characters, and less-than-inspiring direction. So, with that mindset, Halloween 4 comes off as the better sequel, and the one I would’ve bettered expected to follow the 1978 film. It’s not as intensely haunting or fascinating as John Carpenter’s Halloween, and quite as brilliantly shot (a 2.35:1 aspect ratio for this movie may have changed that sentiment more), but I believe it was more of a step in the right direction than anything before or after it.
To say that the Halloween film franchise has been a very mixed bag with very debatable highs and lows would be putting it mildly. Probably the blackest sheep of the family is Halloween III: Season of the Witch. After burning Michael Myers alive in the second film, John Carpenter decided to take the franchise into an anthology format. Each new entry would be generally unrelated to one another except for sharing a Halloween theme. It failed, dismally. Does that mean the film is particularly bad? Well, that’s complicated. The non-sequel was panned by critics and fans alike, and there is true reason to that. In recent times, it has gained more respect apart from its franchise ties. However, before I go further, let’s layout the plot first.
Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) is a physician at a northern California hospital. One October night, a man named Harry Cambridge is carted into the emergency room in hysterics. Grasping a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask and screaming “They’re going to kill us all”. Naturally, he seems to have lost his sanity, but when Harry is murdered in his hospital bed later that night by a mysterious man (Dick Warlock) who shortly thereafter enters into a car & blows himself sky high, Dr. Challis becomes very curious as to Harry’s claims. His interest is furthered when Harry’s daughter, Ellie, tells Challis what drove her father into hysterics. Harry Cambridge was investigating the origins of the Silver Shamrock masks, and to why no orders were being taken for the following year. Daniel & Ellie trek to Santa Mira (the home of the Silver Shamrock Company) to find the answers they seek. They are horrified when they discover that the company owner, Conal Cochrane (Dan O’Herlihy), has implanted microchips, partially made from mysterious Stonehenge rocks, into the masks, and when the Silver Shamrock commercial plays with its special jingle, it will kill countless numbers of children across the country in a horrific manner. As the night goes on, time draws short, and Daniel Challis must attempt to thwart Cochrane’s evil, sinister, dreadful plan. Through relentless android assassins (who all look like Dick Warlock), a treacherous factory, and more, Dr. Challis desperately races against time to stop this living nightmare from happening.
This film is good, but not great. It has a tense and suspenseful story that plays out with some shocking visuals and lots of android gore (they ooze yellow fluid). It’s sort of clever that the film still maintains the opening shot of the jack-o-lantern, but as a video graphic, thus, supporting the film’s technology motif. The film starts off with a suspenseful and mysterious chase sequence which sets up an eerie tone for the film. However, while there are several strong moments of horror and unsettling atmosphere, they feel very far between with little going on in the meantime to maintain a driving plot.
While the score is very identifiable as a John Carpenter / Alan Howarth creation, I think its main shortcoming is a lack of an iconic theme. The music is either a pulsating, rhythmic vibe or just eerie underscore to enhance the danger and creep factor. When the original Halloween is playing late in the film on a television set, the music from that film more than overshadows the original music for this film. Still, this is certainly far from being a bad score. It’s perfectly creepy and ominous from two master composers, but knowing the other work they have done, it seems a little lacking in creativity. The incessant repeat usage of the Silver Shamrock jingle surely becomes irritating very quickly, adding another negative mark against the film.
Director Tommy Lee Wallace doesn’t have the artist strength of John Carpenter, and while the cinematography of Dean Cundey goes a long way to boosting the visual quality of the film, there’s still a definite fall-off in suspenseful innovation. Furthermore, several of the sets and props seem budget-starved. and the $2.5 million budget re-inforces that statement. The lesser grade production values really damage the film’s potential for being taken seriously. If the film had double that budget, perhaps such things would’ve looked better, but it wouldn’t have saved the film. There are simply far more fundamental problems with Halloween III that could’ve been salvaged with the right person at the helm. Thankfully, the special make-up effects are of an excellent gory quality.
Now, Tom Atkins puts in a strong, well-rounded performance here. He shows the desperation of Challis well, and even more so, the intense fear at the film’s finale. It’s a good performance as this womanizing doctor, but at times, you may feel as if he is is out-of-place. Atkins is a big, tall guy, and having him play a less than physically capable man comes off as awkward on screen. He easily does well with what he’s given, but there’s not much of a character on the page for him to appear unique or compelling. Challis doesn’t have a particularly distinctive personality to really distinguish him strongly enough in the story. This is pretty common with every character.
For instance, Dan O’Herlihy does a decent job as the insidious and sadistic Cochrane, but it’s not a great performance. Granted, he’s convincingly evil, but barely more than that. We are given a preview of Cochrane’s intended fate for the youth of the country, and it is truly shocking and horrifying. Unfortunately, that alone doesn’t amplify the character of Cochrane. I feel he needed to be more devilish, more demonic, more purely evil, but O’Herlihy’s performance does not reflect that. His motives are horrific, but the man himself acts exceptionally casual. He exudes very little emotion beyond a slight foreboding tone when he explains his motives and intention to Dr. Challis. Cochrane shows no anger, no contempt, no vindictiveness. Considering his motives, one would expect a more driven, more passionately evil character to come through on screen. A casual evil can entirely work, but it needs more under the surface to make it truly disturbing. One part of it is the script, but the other is the direction. O’Herlihy might’ve been capable of more, but Wallace does nothing to motivate a stronger performance. Basically, there’s no true depth to the performances. You can look back at the wonderfully subtle work of Donald Pleasance in John Carpenter’s 1978 film to see what dramatic depth truly is, and how a great actor can inhabit a role well with the aid of a talented director.
I personally feel that this movie had potential, and if someone were to be bold enough to revamp it into a modern day production, I think it could meet that potential. These days, one never knows what Hollywood will want to pillage next. The premise of mixing mystical forces with a science fiction tinge sounds great to me, but it wouldn’t be an entirely new. I simply believe that, with a proper budget in the hands of a talented director and an updated script, Season of the Witch could be an exponentially better film. As it is, we’ve got a low budget B grade horror film with a fading stain of spite.
So, in the end, we are left with an intensely fearful cliffhanger as Challis screams at the television station over the phone to shut off the final commercial. It’s a thrilling and suspenseful finale, and it should stick with you for sometime. As I said at the start, we have a mixed bag. The story worked, and the film had it’s frightening and thrilling moments. However, the production faltered. Tommy Lee Wallace isn’t a real visionary director, and the score was truly sub par for both Carpenter & Howarth (latter of which would do great scores for the next three Halloween films). There are a couple of films I like just based on their potential despite the film not realizing that potential. I believe this is one of them. I can enjoy certain elements of it, but Halloween III: Season of the Witch just doesn’t captivate me all the way. In the least, I suggest checking it out just so you can make your opinion of it instead of blindly buying into the scorn of decades past.
Prince of Darkness is certainly one of John Carpenter’s stranger and more underappreciated films. It’s the second installment in what Carpenter calls his “apocalypse trilogy” (which includes 1982’s The Thing and 1995’s In The Mouth of Madness). Simply put, this film is about the coming of the apocalypse, and the arrival of the Prince of Darkness – Satan himself. This is one seriously eerie and creepy film, but it has the slowest pace of any Carpenter film I have seen. I believe this film comes as an acquired taste. It can take multiple viewings to really enjoy it fully, as it did for me.
A group of scientists, students, and priests – led by Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) and Professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong) – have come to study a mysterious canister which has been sealed away in the basement of a Los Angeles church. The eerie green liquid inside this canister proves to be supernatural as it defies gravity, leaking upwards to the ceiling, and soon, it’s discovered that it is self-organizing as part of a living intelligence. This has made way for changes to occur in nature that herald the coming of something evil. And those who come into contact with this liquid are transformed into mindless undead slaves of Satan himself. Outside the church, the homeless and derelicts of Los Angeles become powerless against the influence of hell. The few human beings inside the church are trapped – barricading themselves inside with threats all around them. Theories are abound as to what is happening and philosophies about heaven, hell, and all of creation. But whatever forces are at work, these few people must not only survive these servants of hell, but also prevent the coming of the Prince of Darkness from the other side.
If you choose to watch this film, I suggest you get things as dark and as quite as possible, put in the DVD, get that surround sound just right, and get ready to experience one of the most haunting, frightening films ever. This is possibly the most taut and suspenseful Carpenter film of all-time. The master of terror gives us a film that nobody should easily be able to forget. The score from John Carpenter & Alan Howarth is absolutely mesmerizing and powerful. Right from the beginning, it sucks you into a creepy and absolutely ominous world, and doesn’t let go until the end credits have finished. It’s an absorbing, killer work of musicianship that compliments the film marvelously.
The effects here are great. There’s nothing here as complex as in The Thing (which Rob Bottin really delivered something groundbreaking), but there’s plenty of scary makeup work and visuals to unsettle any audience. There’s such apocalyptic biblical imagery here – including swarms of creepy crawly critters – that it will have you squirming and jumping from your seat. John Carpenter wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym “Martin Quartermass,” and man, he does just such an amazing job eliciting such haunting emotions. The film has such a suspenseful power that it could ONLY come from John Carpenter.
That pseudonym is only one of several that Carpenter has employed in his career. He uses them because he feels uncomfortable with his name plastered all over the credits as if it’s an egotistical thing to take so much credit. Me, I believe in everyone getting the credit they deserve for the hard work they do. The fact of the matter is that I know who Martin Quartermass, John T. Chance, and Frank Armitage are, and it is still John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness.
The cast is full of Carpenter regulars such as Donald Pleaseance (Halloween, Escape From New York), Victor Wong & Dennis Dun (Big Trouble in Little China), and Peter Jason (They Live, In The Mouth of Madness). Also, Jameson Parker from TV’s Simon & Simon is in a lead role as well. It’s very much a Carpenter style cast in that he doesn’t cast big stars, but a lot of strong character actors that give the film a textured diversity. I really enjoy all their talents, and they all put in fantastic efforts. John Carpenter has always been great in the casting department (probably best displayed in The Thing). We even get a cameo from shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and he contributes the title song from the album of the same name. The song only appears in a small scene, and via a guy’s walkman radio. In any case, it’s always nice to see Alice appear in a horror film via an acting role or as a musician. He has no lines, but appears creepy enough as one of the derelict servants outside the church. Overall, this cast gives a lot of life and character to this slow-paced film.
In a way, this is different from most Carpenter movies, mainly in pace. He’s always made very smart pictures, and his horror has never been something you can entirely shut your brain off for. And while Prince of Darkness is full of atmosphere that drives every horror element forward, it is much more an idea and philosophy driven screenplay. There are very few action set pieces as the danger and horror are played through tense atmosphere and chilling visuals. It’s a film that crawls in under your skin slowly, and requires you to stay mentally aware of what’s happening for it to have the proper effect.
There’s a good deal of discussion in the film about philosophies regarding dreams, death, hell, religion, and so forth. This adds to the psychological aspect of the film since it revolves around such supernatural or paranormal phenomena birthed out of an ancient evil covered up by the church. With the film having such a wide ensemble cast, they have plenty of room for differing opinions and beliefs, but don’t let this make you think the film gets bogged down by it. Not at all. As they uncover more truths, it enhances the fearful and foreboding atmosphere of the film. There is a haunting evil taking form in their presence, and it is slowly consuming them either physically or psychologically.
In everyone’s dreams, they see a transmission from the future of a dark figure exiting the front of the church they are all holed up in. They get only bits and pieces, but they all share it getting a little more each time they fall asleep. It is another piece of the foreboding doom that lies ahead of them, and it is immensely effective.
Prince of Darkness definitely has similarities to an old style zombie film where a group of mismatched people have to fend for their lives against an undead army. However, Carpenter just pushes it further with so much more substance and unsettling visuals. This really is a nightmare come to life. A constant theme in Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy is some sort of force consuming humanity and deteriorating it into something entirely inhuman. In The Thing, it’s an actual alien life form that perfectly duplicates any organism it infects which could eventually wipe out the human race. With In The Mouth of Madness, reality is twisted and distorted to where people become psychotic and homicidal in the wake of ancient evil reclaiming our world. In Prince of Darkness, it’s sort of a bridge between the concepts. As an ancient evil slowly claws its way back into our world, it also consumes nature and humanity until they become entirely mindless, inhuman servants. Coming from three different screenwriters on three different films, that is an entirely fascinating conceptual arc.
This film is undoubtedly one of John Carpenter’s finest works. Some don’t take a good liking to it because of its slow, slow pace, and its focus more on suspense than physical intensity. Whatever the case, I find it to be a masterwork worthy of inclusion to anyone’s DVD collection. The cast is very good, fun at times, but solid always. The score is pure gold, a powerful accomplishment for Carpenter and Alan Howarth. As in any Carpenter film, the cinematography is stellar, and the direction is absolutely phenomenal! If you genuinely want to get creeped out to the max one dark, lonely night – this is the one film to watch! I won’t say that Prince of Darkness is a perfect film as the pace can be a detractor to its potential. Part of good tension and suspense is momentum, and it’s not entirely consistent here. However, it is a great flick, and I will give it a great 9 out of 10. If nothing else, the ending will grab you like only a John Carpenter film can!