The late 1980’s was the debut of a new action star – Steven Seagal. By the dawn of the 90’s, he had already done Above the Law and Hard to Kill, but he was still finding his footing. However, Marked For Death finds him successfully planting his feet and launching forward with a gritty, hard edged action blockbuster. Helmed by Dwight H. Little, who I’ve found to be a very solid director starting with Halloween 4, this delivers qualities that I find severely lacking in modern action cinema. Here, Dwight Little demonstrates his merit alongside Seagal in excellent fashion. This is my best friend’s favorite Steven Seagal film. So, I hope I do it justice for him.
Burned-out after losing his partner on the job, Drug Enforcement Agent John Hatcher (Steven Seagal) hopes to find some calm and serenity by returning to his hometown. But things at home have changed and not for the better. Jamaican drug lords, led by a black-magic high priest named Screwface (Basil Wallace), have completely infiltrated the small town. But this gang soon learns that they’ve met their match in John Hatcher, and all the mystical voodoo in the world won’t be enough to stop Hatcher’s wrath!
I think this would be a great double feature with Predator 2 due to the Jamaican drug gangs in both. The spooky ritualistic and mystical atmosphere around them is very compelling. Screwface, a hell of a weird name if I’ve ever heard one, is a scary, psychotic bad guy. He’s right off the deep end, and like something from your darkest, twisted nightmare. His piercing eyes are haunting, and the fact that he almost never blinks when that fiery intensity is burning inside him enhances that quality. He masterfully builds this aura of mystique around him with a very effective and authentic Jamaican accent. This is a wickedly awesome villain that adds so much horrific danger to this film.
I will admit that Seagal has never been a very dynamic actor, but he carries the dramatic weight and emotional drive of this film well. Along with Dwight Little’s direction, you see the subtle emotion surface when he sits at the hospital bedside of Hatcher’s niece portrayed by Danielle Harris. Seagal can bring some charm and light charisma to the screen in the right moments. Then, when he gets into the heat of the action you see that ass kicking wisecracking bad ass that made Seagal the action star that he was. He’s entirely confident and sharp in this outing showing that this is his signature style, and it couldn’t have been showcased in a better, smarter action picture.
Teaming him up with Keith David just makes everything more bad ass. He brings a wealth of charisma and weight to Max, Hatcher’s old army friend. He’s a tough guy who is ready to take back his community because he cares for the children he teaches every day. So, there’s the light-hearted friend, but also, the skilled soldier ready to unleash a maelstrom on these gangs that are decaying his neighborhood. David’s wide range of talent from the tough bad ass to the heartfelt humanity makes Max a strong complement to Seagal’s more cool, calm, reserved, yet dead-set, bone breaking violent style.
If you want to see Seagal in his most violent, hard edged prime, this is it. These Jamaicans are ruthlessly and graphically violent, and so, John Hatcher has to be a man who is equally as severe. The action highlights are many, but I really enjoy the shootout and fight in the high end department store. It starts as a car chase that crashes into an awesome assault with guns and martial arts violence. And this film keeps upping the action, peril, and explosive caliber. As Screwface becomes more dangerous, so does Hatcher. This is sharp, sleek action with tons of punch that will leave thoroughly satisfied and then some. It’s all evenly paced allowing the story’s momentum to build up tightly while delivering something fresh, dynamic, and exciting at a regular interval. It’s really damn good stuff.
I also find it admirable that this film makes a point to show that they’re not making a stereotype out of Jamaicans. There’s a Jamaican police assistant who is an honest guy that aids Hatcher later on. The film even takes us into Jamaica where we see the people in their vibrancy and hardships. While it was not necessary for the filmmakers to do this, I find it the mark of a well developed and fairly balanced crafting of ideas. If they are going to delve so much into the culture for these abhorrent criminals and killers, it adds more depth and richness to show it in context to the reality of the Jamaican people. The score by the incredible James Newton Howard blends those Jamaican sounds and beat into the film appropriately. His music highlights and drives a fair amount of the action, and brings the flavor of the narrative to just as much life as the visuals.
It’s oddly appropriate that the director of photography on Marked For Death also shot the last film I reviewed, Cobra. Here, Ric Waite gets the chance to work with the wider scope format, and he does a remarkable, rock solid job. He crafts a great atmosphere when Screwface is in his element through smoke, candles, and just excellent moody lighting. The action is perfectly framed with some occasionally intriguing angles, and all around, it’s a greatly lit and photographed film.
And this film has an amazing twist at the end with Screwface’s perceived magic. Not at all would I spoil this for anyone because it’s stunning moment of awe when it happens. Just when you think Hatcher has all things vanquished, it turns around on everyone, and results in another fantastically executed action sequence. I mean, who doesn’t love a good swordfight? It’s one bad ass ending the trumps even what came ten minutes before, and solidifies the hard hitting, take-no-prisoners action intensity of this picture.
Pack all of this in tightly to a 90 minute runtime, and you’ve got an action film that strikes out with killer excitement. This is undoubtedly one of Seagal’s absolute best films, if not the best. He pulls no punches, takes no prisoners, and delivers a performance that adds some sly wit in between the emotional fire underneath and the up front bone-cracking bad assery. Adding further to that bad ass quota, the opening sequence features a small role by Machete himself Danny Trejo. Backed by a director who I’ve always thought deserved a more high profile career because he is that damn good, Marked For Death delivers it all. Today, you got a lot of ridiculously over-the-top action films that devolve into cheesy and even campy indulgences. In this film, you get a lean, hard hitting movie that never softens the blow with those silly distractions. They can have their place in the genre, but we do not get action films like this anymore. Not this well made, and not going straight on for the throat leaving no blood un-spilled. Just go watch it, now!
Urban legends in general are quite fascinating to me. I’ve spent many late night hours reading through whole websites dedicated to these modern day myths, and they are a fertile ground for an imaginative horror movie. Of course, this movie came out in the wake of Scream and does a lot to follow in that style. Unfortunately, it was an extreme rarity that any of those types of trend cash-ins were any good. I clearly remember seeing this on opening weekend and regarding it as not scary at all. In no way do I expect that sentiment to change after fifteen years. I’m reviewing this because it was high time I got back to some very critical reviewing, and nothing’s better than a disappointing post-modern slasher film for that task!
When New England college student Natalie (Alicia Witt) finds herself at the center of a series of sadistic murders seemingly inspired by urban legends. Natalie and her friends are all involved in the Folklore class being taught by Professor Wexler (Robert Englund). Wexler regales his class with urban legends, which include Pendleton’s own urban legend about a Psych professor who murdered six students at Stanley Hall 25 years ago. As the fraternities prepare to celebrate the macabre anniversary, and Natalie’s friends fall victim to this axe wielding murderer, she discovers that she is the focus of the crazed killer’s intentions in the ultimate urban legend – the story of her own horrific murder.
This is not a badly made movie. It has respectable, polished production values and top notch gore effects. Cinematography is wholly competent with solid compositions and smart camera moves punctuating the dramatic moments. The editing is mostly great, side from the gimmicky flash cuts. So, I think the problem with the effectiveness of this movie is that these urban legends are so terribly familiar to us that the movie becomes damn predictable. There’s little tension or suspense when you know how the kills are supposed to be plotted out. While playing them out verbatim perfectly fits in with the killer’s ultimate motives, creatively, it would have been more effective to put a fresh twist on them. Have them play out not exactly as you would expect them to, but still be evocative of the classic tales. Of course, the various false jump scares don’t help matters either.
The red herrings we get as to the identity of the killer are also quite underwhelming. They are dashed about as quickly as they are brought up. This sort of thing worked better in Scream where no one was ever entirely absolved of potential guilt in the eyes of the audience. Everyone was an equally viable suspect, but here, the suspects are not very credible nor are they main characters. They show up for two or three scenes total. The main characters are not implicated as the potential killer, and that evaporates a lot of heightened tension and paranoia that could have existed in the movie. As it is, there’s not much focus put on who the killer is, but more the methods that this killer uses.
And one last negative critique would be that the look of the killer is not all that intimidating. A relatively small statured person in a hooded parka leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of chilling imagery. All the great, iconic slashers have not only a instantly recognizable, unmistakable look to them, but they also have a distinct personality in how they move and act. This slasher, which doesn’t even have a name to its credit, comes off entirely generic with no distinct personality in its movements. This takes away a lot of the menace this killer could have had, and thus, further adds to the lack of effective horror in this movie. While Ghostface was a different person in each Scream movie, the image of Ghostface was iconic and carried a strong weight of horror with him. The Urban Legend slasher is just terribly forgettable. If this killer wasn’t wielding an axe, you wouldn’t feel any serious imposing threat from him/her at all. I think my critiques hold weight with the makers of the sequel Urban Legends: Final Cut since they entirely revamped the look of their killer.
Still, the film has a few exciting sequences such as when the killer is chasing Tara Reid’s Sasha. It’s fairly intense and suspenseful as Sasha tries to evade this axe wielding maniac. Shortly thereafter, the climactic chase sequence in the storming rain is pretty good with some good tension and strenuous physicality for Alicia Witt. Proving my point, this is when the killer turns away from urban legend themed kills, and just starts going after people full boar. These are the scenes that work because they’re not so predictable. They keep an audience more on edge in the midst of random peril. They’re surely not wholly original inventions in the slasher genre, but they are staples of it because they are effective. So, it is that final 20-30 minutes which actually become intense and suspenseful, but for a 100 minute horror movie, that’s not very adequate.
On the acting end of things, Alicia Witt delivers a solid leading performance making Natalie sweet, vulnerable, smart, and tough. I like when she punches Joshua Jackson’s Damon Brooks right in the face after a bad come-on in a parked car showing there’s some assertiveness in her. Witt is a strong actress with a lot of talent to her credit. Plus, she’s a beautiful redhead, and I absolutely adore redheads. Jared Leto has a decent performance here as college newspaper reporter Paul Gardner, but his character just doesn’t have much personality on the page to speak of. Paul’s constantly trying to pry information out of everyone for his news story, but he doesn’t come off as the least bit imposing or ethically objectionable as that statement would suggest. Rebecca Gayheart is a fine talent working well as Natalie’s best friend Brenda, but offering little more, initially, than the qualities of the supportive friend. The latter end of the film gives her a lot more juicy material to work with that she really sinks her teeth into, and does an excellent job with.
Now. Michael Rosenbaum is plain awesome. After seeing him for so many years as Lex Luthor on Smallville it’s great seeing his comedic charisma in full swing here as the fun loving Parker. He’s charged up with energy and personality to spare, but Rosenbaum has enough charm to shy it away from becoming obnoxious. Tara Reid has a great promiscuous role as the saucy, sexually charged radio talk show host Sasha. Halloween franchise alumnus Danielle Harris clocks in as Natalie’s Goth roommate Tosh. It’s a good minor performance, and she looks quite hot in all that black garb.
Urban Legend features some notable horror legends in Robert Englund and Brad Dourif. Both of which put in solid performances. Dourif portrays a stuttering gas station attendant at the film’s start, and he’s sufficiently creepy. Englund gives Professor Wexler plenty of dignity and a little bit of theatrical edge for a strong, respectable performance. Both actors put a good measure of enthusiasm and quality into their roles here, and are small highlights that gave this film particular notoriety upon release.
The film’s score is provided by Christopher Young, who also did the music for the first two Hellraiser movies and last year’s highly effective horror film Sinister. Here, he does a far more understated but still admirable job. It has plenty of strong, tense cues throughout, and is probably a notch above the standard slasher film fare.
Now, I do really like the dark, shameful secret that Natalie has in her past, and how it ties into the motivation of the killer. It is all smartly and realistically put together. It makes for a nice twist in the climax that does get setup from Natalie’s story earlier on. The climax itself is pretty decent and typical for a slasher movie, but it’s surely far from terrible. It delivers some satisfaction, but it’s nothing that will stick with you like the endings of Halloween or Friday The 13th. The somewhat quirky coda fits for the movie, but also, doesn’t make a lot of sense. It could’ve used a better resolution that was more pertinent to the actual characters and story. It kind of goes with the half-baked feeling of the movie. It had good ideas, but just didn’t do anything worthwhile with them.
Ultimately, this is a real disappointment of a slasher film that just isn’t scary at all. They had a very talented cast to work with, and a premise that could’ve worked very well if it injected some original thinking into it. Instead, it just comes off as generic and predictable. The killer is entirely forgettable, and offers no menace or threatening presence. Director Jamie Blanks does a respectable job with Urban Legend, but the script is just devoid of ambition. He handles his cast exceptionally well, knows how to shoot a film very cinematically, and shows some talent for suspense. Yet, the film fails because the script uses a gimmick purely at face value without trying to add anything fresh or innovative to it. A killer offing people using urban legends is a clever idea, but screenwriter Silvio Horta progressed it no further than that. I know Jamie Blanks can make a good slasher movie because he did it with his next film Valentine, which I think is quite underappreciated. Given a stronger script, he can certainly deliver a much more effective product. It certainly won’t hurt you to watch Urban Legend, but it’s nothing special you’re missing out on. It did spawn two sequels that really were rather horrible that I would strongly advise avoiding. I saw them each once, and that was more than enough for me. This film is decent enough if you just need a mild way to kill 100 minutes. It likely won’t make you cringe, depending on your slasher film tastes, but it likely won’t excite you either.
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.