Veronica rated TV-MA for disturbing images

In 1991 in Madrid the police responded to a 911 call in an apartment complex.  What they found frightened and baffled them.  This case is listed officially listed by the police as "unexplained".  Then the film backtracks to a few days before the opening sequence.  During an eclipse three teenage girls including one named Veronica (played by Sandra Escacena) sneak away from their classmates and play with a Ouija board to contact their respective dead loved ones.  Something strange happens while they play with the Ouija board although Veronica doesn't seem to remember.  Over the course of the next few days paranormal events start happening at Veronica's house although only the children see or experience anything.

Like many other people I got sucked into the hype of "this is the scariest film on Netflix"  and how only "1 in 10 people have been able to watch it all the way through".  Just like the others I'm sure, I recognized hype but I decided to watch it anyway with low expectations.  I wasn't disappointed but I know it was because I went in with low expectations.

The acting was very good especially by the lead actress Sandra Escacena.  I was impressed to learn that this was her first film.  She certainly didn't give any indication that this was her first film.

Overall the horror had some similarities to other demonic films. There were a few jump scares but I thought that they were appropriate considering.  I personally enjoyed the film more than I anticipated and I do recommend it to those who are curious.

Regarding the "based on true events" aspect I did research the real story as best as I could.  Of course everything that I found was articles that were biased one way or the other.  They all claimed to have real photos and real statements from the incident and media outlets that covered it.  I personally believe in paranormal things particularly involving demons so I found the real story very frightening.  I liked how the movie incorporated aspects of the the real story although there was some understandable condensing and slight creative license taken.

It's nice to have a film based on true events actually present the true events to a larger degree than Hollywood tends to.  Future Hollywood productions based on true events should borrow a page from this film's filmmakers.  They would have better films based on true events.

A word of caution regarding watching this film.  There are two Spanish films on Netflix called Veronica, both are horror movies, and both were released in 2017.  Look for the one involving teenage girls playing with a Ouija board.

Hell House LLC Not rated there is some violence, language, and disturbing/frightening imagery

A documentary crew is investigating the mysterious events that resulted in the deaths of tourgoers and staff at a haunted house attaction called Hell House.  One lone witness who was a staff member named Sarah (played by Ryan Jennifer Jones) comes forward with new evidence including video recordings leading up to that final tragic tour.

This is a newer found footage film movie so if you don't like found footage films then this movie isn't for you.  I personally don't have issue with found footage films so I thought that this film was surprisingly good.  I say surprisingly good because there have been so many found footage films and some are so similar that they feel like the same movie.

 When I first started watching the film I was skeptical and put off by one of the main characters Alex (played by Danny Bellini).  I felt that the actor was trying too hard to be a douchey tool so I stopped watching it.  A friend who is a huge fan of found footage films, strongly urged me to give the film a second try.  I did with some reluctance, fully prepared to be disappointed.  I was pleasantly surprised by the film.  I thoroughly enjoyed it and continue to watch it often lately.

The story was interesting and part of its appeal for me is what the filmmakers left out for the audience to piece together/imagine.  I personally love it when filmmakers grant audiences the chance to make films scarier/more interesting by leaving stuff to the imagination as long as it is done well. 

I was also pleasantly surprised by the lack of reliance on excessive anything whether it was violence, sexuality, gore etc.  Unfortunately many horror movies especially modern ones seem to rely heavily on either sexuality and/or gore.  There also wasn't a lot of jump scares which can get tiring after awhile.   

Alex grew on me and the rest of the characters made sense.  Very good job of presenting a "believable" horror story.  The visuals were also good considering this is a found footage film.

What We Do in the Shadows (2014) rated R for bloody violent content, some sexual material, and language

This film (which led to the show of the same title) is a "documentary" on a group of vampires living in modern times in Wellington New Zealand.  Viago (played by Taika Waititi), Deacon (played by Jonathan Brugh), Vladislav (played by Jemaine Clement) and Petyr (played by Ben Fransham) are all sharing a flat together and have allowed access to a private world.  A film crew follows these flatmates as they go about their daily lives, including following a chore wheel, hunting, and meeting/interacting with new people while dealing with the challenges that being undead can bring.  All throughout the film comedic hijinks ensue.

I first became aware of this film when I saw a preview for the show of the same name.  Afterwords I  learned of the movie.  I personally find that so far I've liked what little I've seen of Taika Waititi's work so I was sold as soon as I heard about his involvement.  I wasn't disappointed at all.

I loved the dynamic between the cast.  Viago is a sweet earnest nice guy who obviously wants to live but seems genuinely concerned about everyone around him whether it is his flatmates or his victims.  Deacon is great fun as a this bombastic party guy who is selfish and self-centered but he's really not a bad guy and he does care about his friends.  Vladislav is probably the most "familiar" in that he is a "traditional almost old-school" type vampire.  He's been around for awhile, he's seen and done some things and he's not ashamed but he's also more refined than perhaps the younger "generation".  Finally we have Petyr.  He is the silent stoic type probably because he's a Nosferatu and he's the oldest of them all.  We see the least of him but the film did a good job of keeping him in the present despite his being in the background.  The characters are well rounded off by the side characters who do a great job of holding their own.  I also loved how all of the actors were so wonderfully generous.  You never really forgot about any one of the side characters while keeping your focus on the main three.

The comedy was great for me.  I was laughing the whole time.  I'm very happy that I was able to procure a dvd copy of this film because I love it and apparently it was at one time hard to find. If you're looking for a great original comedy this is one to watch.

Jojo Rabbit rated PG-13 for thematic content, violence, language, and some disturbing imagery

Johannes "Jojo" (played by Roman Griffin Davis) is a 10 year old German boy growing up in Nazi Germany.  He desperately wants to be a Nazi, so much so that his imaginary friend is Hitler (played by Taika Waititi).  He lives with his mother Rosie (played by Scarlett Johansson) while his father is off fighting in the war.  While working hard to do his part to be a "good Nazi" he finds out that his mother is hiding a Jewish girl named Elsa (played by Thomasin McKenzie) in the attic.  This puts him in a conundrum of being torn between being a "good Nazi" or trying to protect himself and his mother. 

This all sounds very dramatic and it is.  But there's a wonderful mix of surprising humor woven throughout this satire that I would also consider a bit of a coming of age story.  It's Nazi Germany so there is going to be so sad and harsh things that happen in this movie so be prepared. 

This is a wonderful wonderful movie that I think everyone should watch. 

I had heard that this movie was not promoted as well as it should have been due to studios being afraid of upsetting people with a "Nazi" movie.  I don't know if this is true or not.  If it is true, the studios missed the point of this film. 

If you are at all curious don't miss this gem of a movie. 

Cooties (2014) rated R for horror violence and gore, language including sexual references, and some drug use

A small group of teachers and students struggle to survive against other students when a mysterious illness aka "Cooties" breaks out and seems to rapidly infect every child that comes in contact with it.  It's a horror comedy zombie movie.  This film stars Elijah Wood, Rainn Wilson (Dwight from the American version of The Office), Alison Pill, and others.  It is a cute and slightly gross movie that will make you think twice about chicken nuggets.  The opening sequence is gross but once you get to Elijah Wood, you're pretty much in the clear. 

It (1990) rated PG for mild language, mild violence, and some scary/frightening images *spoilers*

In part one of this miniseries a group of seven 12 year old children are brought together to fight an ancient evil in the form of a clown called Pennywise (played by Tim Curry) who murders children in their hometown of Derry Maine. 

In part two the adults who were the children who fought Pennywise the clown return to Derry to fight him again and hopefully defeat him after another series of child murders begins in Derry.

The cast in both of these parts are great.  They all fairly accurately portray the characters as they were written in the novel.  This miniseries is a great example of how the filmmakers of the newer It films could have tried following the novel while making slight cosmetic changes and still staying true to the story.  You care about these characters and you can probably relate to some of them (apart from the scary clown and living in a haunted town of course).  They cut out a lot of details but the story is still well done.  I don't think that they had the budget to bring the novel more fully to the screen but still it's a great movie.  The special effects haven't necessarily stood the test of time (particularly the spider) but it's pretty good all things considered. 

Tim Curry is amazing as Pennywise.  He is the reason that I was and still am scared of clowns. He was so convincing that even as an adult I can't fully reconcile him as the same person who plays Pennywise versus other beloved characters (for me) that he's played over the years.  His portrayal is more like the novel in that Pennywise is supposed to be a clown so that children feel safe to approach him so that he can get them.  In the newer versions they tried too hard to make Pennywise scary.  No child in their right mind would approach the newer Pennywise.  He even looks like he is possibly crying tears of blood from a distance.  Tim Curry's is warm and cuddly.  He's friendly.  He would never hurt you.  As I said in another post I'm very glad that no one has tried to replicate Tim Curry's performance.  It simply can't be done and no one should ever try.

Everyone gets caught up in how fake looking the spider is and how stupid the spider is.  While the special effects aren't great, imagine for just a moment that you are being faced with a giant spider like that.  Until the spider kills you, you would be scared too I don't care who you are. 

I'm going to give a bit of spoiler from the novel that might help you better appreciate the spider.  Quite a few people are like "It is a spider?!"  and immediately think how stupid that is.  I myself was one of those people when I first read the novel.  Silly me.  The novel explains, from It's perspective no less, that It is a spider because It is trapped in that form.  It isn't really a spider, that is simply the closest thing that the children can reconcile what they are seeing with.  That's part of It's problem  It is bound by whatever images that It's victims come up with, It transforms into whatever It's victim is scared of and It can even simlutaneously be two different things when two different people see It (there's a few scenes in the novel where this happens).  Unfortunately for It, It has become trapped in spider form because of the Loser's Club.  It's pissed off because of this.  As an added frustration for It, It is bound by that form to have the same weaknesses and vulnerabilities.  For example, because It is a spider, It can be injured and/or killed as a spider.  So don't get caught up in the spider.  It actually makes a lot more sense if you give it some thought. 

Don't get caught up in the weak special effects.  They did the best that they could considering their budgetary and time constraints and their presentation of It is better and more accurate than the two newer films.   

If you haven't seen this miniseries, give it at least one full watch.  You might not like it for whatever reason but give it a shot.  It's worth the four hours (four hours!?  Yes, four hours.  Each part is two hours long and there are two parts.  The newer film versions are longer so don't sweat it.) 

Hopefully whenever It is remade again (and it will be I hope) the filmmakers of that future version will refer to this miniseries and the actual novel when it comes to making their vision.  If they consider the newer versions at all it is hopefully to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them and/or make worse mistakes. 

It Chapter 2 rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout,

As before, if you haven't read the novel and/or watched the original miniseries and/or It part 1, there are spoilers in this post.

Also I'm including some of my personal opinions/interpretations in this post.  They are simply my opinions and I don't mean any offense by them.  My opinions and thoughts are not representative of anyone attached to this film in any way, shape, form or fashion.  If you choose to be offended, no offense is intended.

27 years after the events of the first movie, the adults who dared to try to face down It as children are called back to their hometown to finish It or die trying.

The cast was pretty good in my opinion.  Obviously Bill Skarsgard is once again doing a great job of playing Pennywise and putting his own spin on it.  I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the cast members most notably Bill Hader and James McAvoy.  James McAvoy is usually a treat to watch as he is so talented in my opinion.  Bill Hader is underrated regarding his more dramatic roles and he didn't disappoint me in this movie either.

Once again the filmmakers were handed gold to work with in the form of the novel.  Once again they started to make me happy with some of the special touches from the original novel that weren't included in the original miniseries.  Once again they let me down.

The changes that were made to this film were so fundamental that essentially this movie was inspired by the novel rather than based off of the novel.  As such the story was changed too much to where it doesn't even make sense.  One of the biggest changes that is really the whole problem of this film is using Mike as the "leader" rather than Bill.  Bill is the leader in the novel because he is the one who inspires the others.  He is also the leader because of his brother Georgie being murdered by It.  Of all of the characters, none are as affected as him.  Even in the novel it says [and I'm paraphrasing] that It might never have been challenged much less stopped if Georgie hadn't been killed by It.  That is why Georgie dies.  It is through this that Bill finds the strength and determination to try to kill It.  It is through Bill's strength and determination that the others are pushed beyond their limits to rise above with Bill to fight and defeat It.  Alone they can't do it.  However, as strong as Bill is, he does need their help and support.  He needs them at his side.  Each of them feels even as children that they would gladly die for him.  It even knows that he is the head and that if he were killed the others would easily be stopped.  Or so It thinks and It is probably right.

Mike as the leader doesn't make any sense at all.  He is the "lighthouse keeper".  He is also the keeper of the history.  He is really the only person who has any idea of the true scope of It and It's reign of terror.  That doesn't make him a weak character by any means.  If anything it could be argued that he is one of the strongest characters because he knows the full extent of everything and still stays in Derry.

I didn't like that Mike is not only portrayed as the leader, he's a weak leader.  He sputters when he talks.  He is demanding rather than even trying to be understanding.  He doesn't seem to take responsibility for the fact that his call brought them back.  He seems to have absolutely no consideration for the danger that he is putting all of his friends through much less the emotions and feelings that they are feeling.  He doesn't seem to care at all for them only that his agenda is accomplished.  It could be that the reason(s) for this is entirely due to bad directing, bad writing, or simply excessive/bad editing.  Whatever the reason, it suck and does a serious disservice to the original novel/character.

In the book and the original miniseries, Mike knows full well what he is asking (not demanding) of his friends.  He takes responsibility for calling them back as well he should.  Sure they made a promise but he struggles at first with calling them back knowing that he is yanking them out of the relative safety and comfort of their current lives and possibly bringing them back to die.  He is so aware that he waits to call them until he has overwhelming proof that there is a problem and that It is back.

In every story, there is always at least one "strong" character and one "weak" character.  In the novel Bev is the "weak" character.  She is very reactive and seems to generally need protecting or saving.  However she is also the heart of the group.  She is an inspiration in that the guys are able to take their minds off of their fears out of love for her to protect her and to save her.  Also she's their "archer"/"artillery".  If they can keep It away from her, she can shoot it and save them all.  She has an empowering moment that actually translates ok from the novel to this movie when she stands up to her abusive husband despite her fear of him and bravely leaves him to join her old friends.  In this film the filmmakers chose to make her stronger when it comes to facing It.  This sounds good on paper but it fundamentally takes away from a major aspect of the story in the form of Bill being the leader.  He was the one who rallied the group repeatedly both as a child and an adult.  Sometimes he got caught up in emotions and each of the other kids took turns helping to rally Bill from whatever emotions he was caught up in.  It never fell exclusively to Bev and it shouldn't have. 

Both of those changes felt nothing but political in nature and it's sorely disappointing.  It's all well and good to have strong female characters in movies and/or to have strong non-whites in movies.  However I don't feel that there was ever any kind of negative intention for Bill to be the leader and/or Bev to be weak.  Everybody can't be strong.  Everybody can't be the leader.  They were written that way because that's the way that they are.  It's disappointing that the filmmakers of this movie chose to interpret the original novel in a negative way rather than just presenting the story more straightforward.

This movie only half-assed the "smokehole scene" and they badly executed that.  In the original novel Mike and Richie are the only two who successfully share the vision during the "smokehole scene".

In the original novel Mike doesn't find out about the ritual of Chud, Bill does.  And the ritual of Chud is nothing like the one portrayed in the film so once again you have a fundamental change to where the scene is inspired rather than based off of the novel

This movie felt so cut from the original novel that they cut to the bone.  As good as the cast was I didn't really care if they lived or died.  I wasn't necessarily relieved when the end comes.  I didn't feel emotionally connected to anyone.  Most of these character were way too selfish and concerned about trying to avoid their fate.  Almost none of them seemed to give a crap about the fact that if they didn't fight it, there would probably be no one else and It would continue its reign of terror forever and ever.  They shouldn't have needed the threat of a terrible death if they avoided facing It.  The thought that they could stop It and refused to stop It should have been more than enough to rally them.  They should have been scared but the thought of all of the innocent victims that had been and those that would be should have been the thought and focus just as it is in the novel. 

Very disappointed.  On the one hand I'm a little sad for those who haven't seen the original miniseries and/or read the novel.  On the other hand I'm more glad for them because they don't know what they are missing.  If you choose to read the novel, don't be discouraged by the size of it.  It is a larger novel but it is so well written and interesting that it doesn't feel long.

It is my hope that someday in the future (hopefully sooner than later) that someone will have the courage and take the time to take this wonderful novel and turn it into two, three maybe even four wonderful movies that actually follow the novel.  If ever there was novel that warranted four parts this one is it.

Nothing will replace the original miniseries for me as I'm sure that nothing will replace these movies for whomever loves them.  Still it would be so excellent if only someone and some studio would take a chance and make it happen somehow some way.  The story is already written.  It's simply a matter of generally following the novel.  No modernizing.  No fundamental character changes.  No creepy sex scenes involving children (I heard that there was, at one time, talk of including said sex scenes in either this film or the previous It.  I'm sure that everyone is glad that that didn't happen.)  People like nostalgia.  Follow the novel for heaven's sake.  It is considered a great novel because it is great just as it is.  It didn't become a best seller due to modernizing or making fundamental changes.  To the person/people who choose to take on this project in the future, please please please actually base it off of the novel.

It (2017) rated R for violence/horror, bloody images, and language

If you haven't read the novel and/or haven't watched the original miniseries then this post has spoilers.

In the 1980s a group of seven 11 year olds are drawn together by mysterious and horrible events in their hometown of Derry Maine to fight an ancient evil in the form of Pennywise the Clown (played by Bill Skarsgard).

The child actors were mostly great.  Bill Skarsgard did an excellent job playing Pennywise.  I confess that when this movie was announced I was nervous that whoever played Pennywise might try to replicate Tim Curry's perfect performance.  I didn't know who Bill Skarsgard was but, being familiar with his family, I had hope that he would do well.  He didn't disappoint.  He did such a great job of putting his own spin on the character while giving the impression of giving respect to the original.

Overall the movie was ok and, after reading the novel, I would say that it's more accurate to say that this movie was inspired by the original novel as opposed to being an accurate screen adaptation of the novel.  Just because they got the most basic gist of the story doesn't make this an actual screen adaptation of the novel.  It isn't simply that the novel is so big that it can't be done fully by just two movies.  They full on made fundamental changes that completely miss the mark of the novel and the original miniseries.  It's all well and good to make slight adjustments (see the original miniseries to better understand) but many of the changes that were made took away rather than added to the movie.  It was disappointing because the novel is so good that it should have been easier to make a great movie.  All of the writing was done for them in the novel, all they had to do was figure out how to bring it to the big screen.  They failed on so many levels.

They did do well on jump scares.  This film has quite a bit of jump scares that are for the most part good. 

If you haven't already, read the novel (I know it looks big but it is so well written that you won't notice) and watch the original miniseries.

This movie shouldn't necessarily be avoided but just know that they got it wrong.

Brightburn rated R for horror violence/bloody images, brief nudity, and language

Brightburn is Superman as a horror movie or evil Superman.  It stars Elizabeth Banks as Tory Breyer, Jackson A. Dunn as Brendan Breyer and David Denman as Kyle Breyer.  The title of  the movie isn't the name of the main character but rather references the town closest to where he lands on Earth.  Essentially this is an origin story although, as far as I know, it wasn't based off of an actual comic at the time that it was written and/or filmed. 

Don't think that because this comes from the producers of Guardians of the Galaxy that this is anything like either of those movies other than being inspired by comic books i.e. Superman.  If you go in expecting that you're in for a rude awakening.

The violence and bloody images could be a bit much for younger audiences and/or people who don't like viewing that sort of thing.  There is a very brief background image of full frontal nudity on a woman.

It is a very good movie as an alternate and very dark take on comics.

Garfield's Halloween Adventure aka Garfield in Disguise Not Rated

In this lesser known gem for all ages, Garfield enlists Odie's assistance in trick-or-treating in order to get more candy for himself.  Both get more than they bargained for when they end up on an island that may be haunted by the ghosts of pirates. 


I grew up watching this movie and I loved it.  However I would use caution and common sense if showing this to young children.  For a kid's movie this film has brief "frightening" images that might scare younger children.  Still, this beloved classic is so worth watching. 

It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown Not rated

Charlie Brown and the rest of the Peanuts go trick-or-treating and to a Halloween party on Halloween night while Linus and Sally wait in the pumpkin patch for The Great Pumpkin.  While all of this goes on, Snoopy as "The Great World War I Flying Ace" works to shoot down the Red Baron. 

This is a wonderful classic that never gets old and is great for the whole family.  It's also a nice sweet break from the horror movies.  If you've never seen it, you should. 

Hereditary (2018) rated R for horror violence, disturbing images, language, drug use, and brief graphic nudity *contains spoilers*

After her mother dies, Annie (played by Toni Collette) and her daughter Charlie (played by Milly Shapiro) try to cope and heal while Annie's husband Steve (played by Gabriel Byrne) and her son Peter (played by Alex Wolff) carry on with life as usual.  After a horrific accident claims the life of Charlie, the rest of the family struggles to pick up the pieces while seemingly supernatural phenomena start to occur particularly around Annie and Peter.  Annie races to save her family but will she succeed?





Honestly I allowed myself to have high expectations after noticing that the cover hailed this film as "This generation's The Exorcist..."  If you've read my entry on The Exorcist then you know how I feel about the movie.  If not suffice it to say that I didn't and still don't think that it's the scariest movie of all time although it deserves its recognition for being ground-breaking.

  I think that it's great that the writer/director took a chance and made his vision come to life but the film felt a little pretentious.

 I was so confused by the title of this movie and the sort of explanation given in the behind the scenes.  My friend who lent me her copy had to explain everything to me.  She confessed that she herself had to look up videos to explain the film.  Once I heard her explanation, I could somewhat appreciate the horror of the movie a bit more. 

The fact that the movie didn't succeed in conveying my friend's explanation made me not like this movie.  Lots of people did like this movie so it might just be me.  I would recommend this movie if you are curious but if you aren't I don't think that you'll miss anything.

Halloween (2018) rated R for horror violence and bloody images, language, brief drug use, and nudity *contains spoilers*

40 years after the events in the first Halloween movie, Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) has a "final" confrontation with Michael Myers/The Shape (played by Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney). 




















A good ending (hopefully) to the franchise.  I was very happy to see that John Carpenter came back for this one.  I had issue with one of the deaths because it made no sense.  If you like the original franchise, you'll probably like this one.  Good job everyone who worked on this picture.

Halloween (2007) rated R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity, and language *contains spoilers*

In this Halloween, the audience gets a backstory on Michael Myers as a  ten-year old child (played by Daeg Faerch) and his home life.  He seems to be sweet to his baby sister Laurie and his beloved mother Deborah Myers (played by Sheri Moon Zombie).  His step dad Ronnie White (played by William Forsythe) is a jerk at best who doesn't really seem to like anyone.  Deborah Myers struggles to work as a stripper while being a good mother to her children and a pretty good wife to her jerky husband/boyfriend.  After murdering his step dad, Michael is committed to a psychiatric hospital into the care of Dr. Loomis (played by Malcolm McDowell). 

Ten years later, the audience catches up with teenage Laurie Stode (played by Scout Taylor-Compton).  She's a "typical" teenager and seems pretty happy with her loving adoptive parents.
Meanwhile Michael Myers has escaped from the hospital and is on his way to Haddonfield with Dr. Loomis in close pursuit. 




I wasn't sure about this movie because while I like Rob Zombie's music I'm (so far) not as much a fan of his movies.  His films aren't bad.  I just can't relate to the characters at all so that I don't care about them.  This film is probably great to others.  Also I have the idea (for some reason) that Rob Zombie does/did in fact like the original Halloween movie.  I don't think that he meant any disrespect to the original. 

Part of my issue with this film was the "white trash" way that the characters conducted themselves whether its the Myers' and/or the Strodes.  For example, I can't imagine joking with my parents the way that Laurie jokes with hers when we first meet her.  Why does Michael Myers' family have to be dysfunctional at all?  Part of the "horror" of the original was that the events happened to typical, "normal" people.  There was no reason for Michael Myers to have ever started killing much less kill the people that he did kill. 

Fun fact:  Danielle Harris, who played Jamie Lloyd, in Halloween 4 and 5 returned to the franchise as Laurie's friend Annie


Worth watching if you are curious.

Halloween: Resurrection rated R for strong violence, language, some sexuality, and brief drug use *contains spoilers*

Three years after the events in H20, Michael Myers (played by Brad Loree)  confronts a broken Laurie Strode (played by Brad Jamie Lee Curtis).   After that confrontation Michael Myers is sent back to Smith's Grove only to escape once again to make his way to Haddonfield.  A reality film crew headed by Freddie Harris (played by Busta Rhymes) is filming in the old Myers house.  The film crew get more than they bargained for when Michael Myers shows up.


Like H20, this film ignores films 4 through 6.  They also seem to have forgotten the fact that Michael Myers was killed in the previous movie.  The shoddy explanation given for why Michael Myers is still inexplicably alive is just stupid and insulting to the audience.  This film is shown even less than Halloween 6.  Gee, I wonder why?

Two good parts in this film are intentionally comedic but they aren't good enough to win fans over of the franchise.  There's one funny part where Michael Myers activates a car alarm.  The second funny part was when Freddie admonishes Michael for "showing up too soon" and tells him to go back to set up what is intended to be a scare while failing to realize that the Michael Myers that he is talking to is the real Michael not his paid actor.

Skip this one.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later rated R for terror/violence, gore, and language *contains spoilers*

Halloween 1998.  The audience finds itself not in Haddonfield for the first time.  Instead we're in California at a private school.  Laurie Strode (played by Jamie Lee Curtis) has been alive and well all of these years. It turns out that she faked her death and took on a new identity as Keri Tate.  She now has a teenage son named John (played by Josh Hartnett).  Laurie is the dean of the school and has been living fairly happily but she always fears the possible return of Michael Myers.  Michael finds out where she is and goes to the school.  Once more Laurie will have to face off with Michael Myers only now her son and a few others are in danger. 


I was so very pleased with this film after the garbage of the last three films.  I decided to pretend that the other three hadn't been made.  Fortunately for me and the rest of the audience, the filmmakers also decided to ignore the last three films.  Essentially this one picks up after Halloween II.

 My biggest complaint about this film has to do with a scene involving LL Cool J's character Ronny.  In the scene Ronny gets shot point blank in the head on accident.  He should have died.  Later, when we see Ronny again he has a tiny little band aid on the side of his head.  There was no way that he could have survived considering where he was shot and he certainly wouldn't have had a little itty bitty band aid on the side of his head. The explanation given is that he ducked and the bullet side-swiped him.  If you watch the scene you'll see that that was impossible.  Mind you I don't have issue with the character Ronny.  I simply have issue with someone getting shot point blank range and surviving and having a teeny tiny band aid on the side of their head.

Apart from the above scene and if you like the Halloween franchise, this one is so worth watching.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers aka Halloween 6 rated R for strong horror violence and some sexuality *contains spoilers*

Six years have passed since the events of the fifth film.  Just outside of Haddonfield, a now adult Jamie Lloyd (played by J.C. Brandy) attempts to flee Michael with her newborn baby.  Michael succeeds at murdering her but is unable to kill the baby.  The college kids of Haddonfield are determined to bring back Halloween to Haddonfield and so stage a large outdoor Halloween party/event.  Meanwhile the Strode family has moved into the old Myers house.  This branch of the
Strode family consists of Laurie Strode's aunt and uncle and their two children.  The oldest daughter Kara (played by Marianne Hagan) has moved herself and her young son Danny (played by Devin Gardner) back into her parents house while she's getting her life in order.  Kara observes a weird guy watching her from the house across the street.  The weird guy turns out to be an adult Tommy Doyle (played by Paul Rudd).  For anyone who doesn't remember, Tommy Doyle was the young boy that Laurie Strode was babysitting in the first Halloween film.  Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence) is also on hand as Jamie had reached out to him just prior to her murder.  Tommy and Dr. Loomis are both trying to stop Michael Myers.












This was the worst Halloween movie prior to Halloween:  Resurrection .  After watching Resurrection I would say that they are tied for the worst of the franchise.  What makes this particular one so bad is the ridiculous half-assed plot that is supposed to be intended to explain why Michael Myers is the way he is.  There some references to Druids and the rune for Thorn and blah blah blah.  It also has a weird moment in which it is at least implied that Michael Myers is the father of Jamie Lloyd's baby although the pregnancy occurred as a result of ritual, sort of a "spiritual conception"  with no actual physical contact of any sort.

 I appreciate Paul Rudd but his acting is god awful in this movie.  I would never have guessed that he would go on to bigger and better things.

There are very good reasons why this film of the franchise is one of the least shown.  Skip it unless you're a glutton for punishment.

Fun fact for some reason the filmmakers decided to revert to calling Michael Myers "The Shape" again. More stupid for the film I guess.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers rated R for violence/gore, some profanity, and some sexuality *contains spoilers*

The events in this movie occur a year after the events of the previous Halloween movie.  Jamie (played again by Danielle Harris) is now mute and in a children's mental hospital after attacking her adopted mother.  Rachel (played again by Ellie Cornell) briefly appears in this movie and is still maintaining contact with Jamie.  Rachel's friend Tina (played by Wendy Foxworth) is also involved in Jamie's life.  Dr. Loomis (played again by Donald Pleasence) is now Jamie's psychiatrist.  Michael Myers is back in Haddonfield on Halloween to finish his mission to kill Jamie.  A mysterious man in black also shows up in Haddonfield on Halloween.   Once again Jamie is running for her life with help from her friends and once again confronts Michael Myers.  Like the last film, this movie takes an unexpected turn.


If you liked the fourth in the franchise, you'll probably like this one too.  It hurts my heart a little to see how bad Moustapha Akkad continues to ruin the franchise for me at least.  Unfortunately it only gets worse with the next film. 

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers rated R for violence/gore, some profanity, disturbing imagery, and sex/nudity *contains spoilers*

Ten years after he first returned to Haddonfield, Michael Myers is back to kill his niece Jamie (played by Danielle Harris)  It is revealed at the beginning of this film that Michael Myers survived being blown up and severely burned by Dr. Loomis (played by Donald Pleasence) in the hospital at the end of Halloween II. Michael slept in a coma while being cared for by a hermit.  Michael wakes up the day before Halloween, murders the hermit, and goes to Haddonfield. Fortunately, Dr. Loomis also survived the explosion and he's back to help keep Jamie safe from her murderous uncle.  We also find out that Jamie is the child of Laurie and the paramedic Jimmy that was introduced in Halloween II.  Jamie is an orphan and has been adopted by the Carruthers family.  Jamie's step-sister Rachel (played by Ellie Cornell) has been tasked with taking Jamie trick or treating.  Rachel and Jamie eventually end up at the sheriff's house only to find that Rachel's boyfriend Brady (played by Sasha Jenson) had been "hanging out" with the sheriff's flirtatious daughter Kelly (played by Kathleen Kinmont).  The film takes an interesting turn at the end that is further meant to play into the story line that this and the subsequent two films subject the audience to. 


As I said in a previous post, this is the first of the worst films of the franchise in my opinion.  Technically the basis for this storyline was started in Halloween II with a reference to Samhain.  I suppose it is worth watching if you are curious but I don't recommend it.  The story line is convoluted to begin with and becomes worse over the course of the next two films.  I suppose that the turn that the film takes was new for its time but it's not really surprising now.  Fun fact, this is the first movie that Michael Myers is credited as Michael Myers and not Michael Myers/The Shape.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch rated R for some profanity, sexuality, nudity, violence/gore, disturbing imagery *contains spoilers*

The movie opens nighttime within a week from Halloween.  A man named Harry Grimbridge (played by Al Berry) is seen fleeing from men in suits.  He ends up at the hospital.  Dr. Daniel Challis (played by Tom Atkins) is the doctor on duty when Harry is admitted to the hospital.  Harry is obviously distressed but not injured.  He is clutching a Silver Shamrock Halloween mask in his hand.  After giving instructions the doctor leaves the hospital to visit with his children.  His kids are excited about their Silver Shamrock Halloween masks and the "surprise" that will be revealed on Halloween night after the film Halloween finished airing.  While the doctor is away from the hospital, Harry is brutally murdered by one of the guys in suits who then commits suicide by setting himself on fire. 

Dr. Challis returns to the hospital and meets a young woman named Ellie Grimbridge (played by Stacie Nelkin).  Ellie is Harry's daughter.  As it turns out Harry was a distributor of toys and Halloween masks and he had learned something disturbing about Silver Shamrock and their Halloween masks.  Ellie tells Dr. Challis that her father had gone to the Silver Shamrock facility prior to his murder. Dr. Challis and Ellie then decide to go investigate what happened at the facility and find out why Harry had been murdered.  The horrifying truth puts Ellie and Dr. Challis in a race against time to try to stop the diabolical plans of Silver Shamrock's owner Conal Cochran (played by Dan O'Herlihy).


I wasn't initially sure about this movie because, like many others, I was expecting Michael Myers.  Later, I learned that John Carpenter was under contractual obligation to make a third Halloween picture.  Apparently, John Carpenter didn't like the direction the Halloween franchise was going and hadn't really intended to do a sequel much less continue the franchise.  This film was essentially a big middle finger to the studio in that he technically fulfilled his contractual obligation of doing a "Halloween movie".  From then on Moustapha Akkad took over the franchise and ran with it leading to the worst films of the series with the exception of H20,

Once I got over the lack of Michael Myers and decided to appreciate the film just as it is I found that I loved it.  This is a great horror movie as well as a great Halloween movie.  It is graphic and gory like Halloween II.  Some of the deaths in this movie are pretty horrific to me.  One of the worst cinematic deaths in my opinion involves a lady investigating a pin on one of the Silver Shamrock masks.  Wonderful classic John Carpenter movie.