Some great moments of violence. The problem was that the great concept was poorly executed. The story progression is often slow and confusing. Some good ideas emerged though. I just couldn't help but think that this film could have been so much better. Turn it on, sit back and let it happen, it's fine.
352 Reviews
Not as bad as people make out.
Sleepin_Dragon31 October 2018
By this stage the franchise had really gotten tired, the previous few had been very poor, almost an insult to the fabulous original.
Of the first six films I would place this third overall, after one and two. It doesn't deserve its reputation as a bad film, because it isn't bad, nor is it great.
On the plus side, it has some scary moments, Michael's character is well used. The acting in general is rather good, it's quite slick, in a nineties way. On the debit side, the story is a little far fetched, and I didn't particularly like the cult element, it's like they tried to rewrite the show's past. It's a bit silly I guess, but....
At least it has Paul Rudd and the wonderful Donald Pleasance.
Not that bad. 6/10
Of the first six films I would place this third overall, after one and two. It doesn't deserve its reputation as a bad film, because it isn't bad, nor is it great.
On the plus side, it has some scary moments, Michael's character is well used. The acting in general is rather good, it's quite slick, in a nineties way. On the debit side, the story is a little far fetched, and I didn't particularly like the cult element, it's like they tried to rewrite the show's past. It's a bit silly I guess, but....
At least it has Paul Rudd and the wonderful Donald Pleasance.
Not that bad. 6/10
Avoid the real film but LAUD the Producers Cut!!
Jason_Norcross9 August 2002
Many people have written this off as the worst sequel to date and I'd probably be the first person in that line... in fact, I was. I never saw this in theaters but when I got it on video I was highly disappointed because it didn't explain anything that happened in the previous films, or maybe it did and I just didn't understand what they were getting at with all of this "Rune" stuff...
It was then that I began my search for the rumored "Producers Cut" which featured what should've been shown in theaters... a GOOD MOVIE! The Producers Cut features a clean cut, workable plot that intrigues me to no end... they actually took what was a hopeless film and turned it into a believable Halloween film that was actually scary...
If you'll notice that in the Theatrical Release the entire Halloween theme has been cut from the movie... how did they do this, you ask? They cut all of the eerie back round music that was included in the Producers Cut. I have no clue why it was cut from the movie because we all know that a Halloween movie isn't the same without that eerie music that builds the suspense and makes us jump out of our seats when it gets scary.
After Kara jumps out the window and is captured by the cult members, the movie takes a completly, never before seen path that takes you into the deapths of the true mystery that is Michael Myers and takes you on a rollercoaster ride all the way to the exciting and somewhat clever ending instead of locking the main characters in a room and letting them beat the heck out of Michael with a lead pipe...
I won't give away too much but I'd recommend that you get your hands on this video because it's a true gem that any Halloween fan should have in their collection.
If you have any questions, E-Mail me
It was then that I began my search for the rumored "Producers Cut" which featured what should've been shown in theaters... a GOOD MOVIE! The Producers Cut features a clean cut, workable plot that intrigues me to no end... they actually took what was a hopeless film and turned it into a believable Halloween film that was actually scary...
If you'll notice that in the Theatrical Release the entire Halloween theme has been cut from the movie... how did they do this, you ask? They cut all of the eerie back round music that was included in the Producers Cut. I have no clue why it was cut from the movie because we all know that a Halloween movie isn't the same without that eerie music that builds the suspense and makes us jump out of our seats when it gets scary.
After Kara jumps out the window and is captured by the cult members, the movie takes a completly, never before seen path that takes you into the deapths of the true mystery that is Michael Myers and takes you on a rollercoaster ride all the way to the exciting and somewhat clever ending instead of locking the main characters in a room and letting them beat the heck out of Michael with a lead pipe...
I won't give away too much but I'd recommend that you get your hands on this video because it's a true gem that any Halloween fan should have in their collection.
If you have any questions, E-Mail me
Was This Edited With A Chainsaw?
jamiemiller-0761124 June 2019
By the time you get to the sixth entry in a horror franchise, things like subtlety and character development are usually thrown out the window and replaced with ridiculous plot twists and endless gory set pieces. Some of this can be fun, but it still needs to make sense. The Curse of Michael Myers apparently didn't get that memo.
The film begins the way it intends to go - with an array of annoying flash cuts that make no sense. We never feel like we know where we are or what the story is really about, because it seems like every scene at least has a button involving a flash cut and loud sound effect. Maybe they felt like they needed them to keep the audience awake.
Poor Donald Pleasance seems lost, but Paul Rudd shows up and still looks the exact same as he does now. Whose blood is he bathing in?
The film begins the way it intends to go - with an array of annoying flash cuts that make no sense. We never feel like we know where we are or what the story is really about, because it seems like every scene at least has a button involving a flash cut and loud sound effect. Maybe they felt like they needed them to keep the audience awake.
Poor Donald Pleasance seems lost, but Paul Rudd shows up and still looks the exact same as he does now. Whose blood is he bathing in?
Welcome to the Bottom of the Barrel of the Halloween Franchise!
Gresh8541 July 2018
This is it! We've officially hit rock bottom with this franchise! Not only does Halloween: The Curse Of Michael Myers feature cheap jump scares, but it also features even more cheap jump scares, followed by even more cheap jump scares! Okay, but in all seriousness, this film truly was atrocious. It's quite disappointing considering the beginning of this film was actually somewhat interesting. I'll admit it, I was hooked! I had hope! Unfortunately though, what followed was an abundance of muddled plot holes, an uninspiring storyline, and predictability at an all-time high. Funny enough, some of Michael Myers's kills were hilariously absurd. There was also a handful of hysterically bad moments in terms of character decisions that certainly had me laughing. The film additionally feels highly unfocused in the predicaments it presents which can majorly create confusion among viewers like myself. Overall, the film's attempts at being horrifying usually comes off as comical, and it's strive to revitalize an already dying franchise feels substantially inconsiderate. (Verdict: D)
One of the best in the series
JBoze31310 December 2000
H6 is one of the best sequels in the series if you ask me. I think the film had an awesome look to it. It's hard to describe, but there's something about it that makes it look like a really well made horror film that is entertaining and scary. The scenes in the barn are pretty good, as are most of the rest of the film...but the barn scene is basically your first big look at the movie, and it leads into a really great movie that keeps you on edge the whole time. H20 sucked badly...it was made for teenagers, like Scream and IKWYDLS, etc...H6 was made as a horror movie, NOT a teen horror movie, and there is a big difference. The film has decent acting...no wonderful performances or anything, but most of them are no name actors. The mask in this movie is pretty awesome looking, I think...even tho Myers looked fat in the film. He looked a lot stronger and menacing. Paul Rudd, who went on to become a bigger star than he was at the time, totally put down this movie and said he was ashamed he was in it...I think he's crazy, because I liked his character, and I think he did a good job of making you like the character. 8/10
last survivor Donald Pleasence
SnoopyStyle16 April 2016
Jamie Lloyd gives birth in a cult. Michael Myers is coming after her and the baby leaving a trail of bodies. She manages to call a radio station and broadcast out a warning. Retired Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is visited by Dr. Terence Wynn (Mitch Ryan) from the first film when they hear the warning. Loomis returns to Haddonfield, Illinois. In Haddonfield, Halloween has been banned for years. Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd), whom Laurie Strode babysat in the first film, is obsessed with Michael Myers. Michael kills Jamie Lloyd and Tommy finds her baby. Back in the original Myers home, Kara Strode (Marianne Hagan) has returned home with her son Danny. Her father John is abusive with her mother and brother suffering. Tommy, Kara, and Danny are on the run with Jamie Lloyd's baby.
The first problem is that Danielle Harris doesn't return for Jamie Lloyd. It's hard to understand that it's Jamie Lloyd without her. Donald Pleasence does return for a few scenes in his last outing for the franchise. It's really too bad that the movie isn't better. None of it scary. The jump scares don't work. Maybe the other versions work better and is scarier. To some extend, it's because I don't care about these characters. Other than Pleasence, these characters have connections with the franchise but are played by newcomers. It's a bit of a history test to remember where all of these characters fit. It is interesting to see Paul Rudd when this came out around the time of Clueless. This episode tries to continue the franchise but the only connective tissue is Pleasence and he isn't in it enough to hold this movie together.
The first problem is that Danielle Harris doesn't return for Jamie Lloyd. It's hard to understand that it's Jamie Lloyd without her. Donald Pleasence does return for a few scenes in his last outing for the franchise. It's really too bad that the movie isn't better. None of it scary. The jump scares don't work. Maybe the other versions work better and is scarier. To some extend, it's because I don't care about these characters. Other than Pleasence, these characters have connections with the franchise but are played by newcomers. It's a bit of a history test to remember where all of these characters fit. It is interesting to see Paul Rudd when this came out around the time of Clueless. This episode tries to continue the franchise but the only connective tissue is Pleasence and he isn't in it enough to hold this movie together.
Bring On Producer's Cut.....
eric20other200219 July 2002
This sequel to John Carpenter's Halloween isn't terrible, but it's not good either. The makers of this film were obviously in a rush to get this cut of the film finished. It's evident enough. I have both this version and the Producer's Cut and I think the PC version is better because it explains more about Michael and the Thorn cult, which by the way is a real cult that happens every so often on Halloween night. So in closing I hope the makers of this film decide to make a DVD that has this version and the theatrical trailer, because we owe it to Donald Pleasance to show as much of him in the film as possible. R.I.P DR. LOOMIS. THEATRICAL VERSION 3 OUT OF 5 STARS; THE PC VERSION 4 OUT OF 5. OH AND SOME PC SCENES CAN BE FOUND ON THE TV VERSION OF THIS FILM.
Yikes
snappy939331 October 2007
I am a big fan of the Halloween movies, but this one was a little off. First of all, how could any of the Strodes NOT know that was Michael's house? Had they been living under a rock until then? Everyone knows where Michael's house is. Secondly, it was a great idea to have little Tommmy all grown up and in this movie, but his part was too strange. And the actor was terrible. He was way too "drama queen" with every line he said. It would have been better if Jamie had been allowed to stay around a little longer. The Strode father was very good, or rather bad!
Overall the movie was pretty good. Especially the uncovering of the boot man in the cloak. A lot of good gore. And Michael was exceptional, of course.
Overall the movie was pretty good. Especially the uncovering of the boot man in the cloak. A lot of good gore. And Michael was exceptional, of course.
Worst.
sam_aj_013 October 2008
I planned on watching all of the Halloween movies after enjoying the first so much but what the hell did this one lead to? It would seem like a good idea having Tommy all grown-up after the event in the first film but instead it was a desperate attempt to write-up another sequel. Michael returns to finish off the remaining Strodes living in his very house where he killed his sister. Little do they know, Michaels hot on their trail with Loomis in the lead! Overall there was a good lot of gore, a fair few jumps and a better looking Myers mask but it still doesn't make up for the cheesy storyline.
A good Halloween fan should watch this, otherwise avoid at all costs!
A good Halloween fan should watch this, otherwise avoid at all costs!
No terror, fear or thrills to this curse
TheLittleSongbird16 January 2018
John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a prime example of this, a film with very little to recommend and just very poorly done in many areas.
Starting with the very few good things, Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasance, in his last film before his death from heart failure not long after (although his screen time is far too short and was clearly severely truncated), come off in a good way in the acting department.
The exploding head death is a pretty fun one and the setting is eerie. As far as praises go, that is it.
'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' was directed by someone who had an apparent dislike for Pleasance, the main reason for his limited screen time most likely, and had no interest in directing the film or the 'Halloween' series in general, and it shows loud and clear on screen. Even the direction in 'Season of the Witch' and 'Halloween 5' wasn't this indifferent or inept.
Sadly the effectiveness of the setting, which actually is eerie, is hindered by the filming and editing being pretty amateurish, the photography often is far too dark and drab and the editing makes bacon-slicer-like editing seem coherent in comparison. The music, like the previous film, is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the first four films. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
Everything looks, sounds and feels like it was made in a rush and with absolutely no heart, accounting for the constant sense of incompleteness. There is nothing scary or suspenseful, it's unintentionally campy, uncomfortably strange and by the numbers with a convoluted story that makes no sense whatsoever, an abrupt ending, dull pacing and the man in black/cult plot that is just bizarre and just muddles everything. Michael Myers is just not creepy enough and looks goofy.
Very like the previous sequel, there is nothing interesting or endearing about the characters (though none are quite as annoying as Tina in 'Halloween 5'). The script especially sounds incomplete and the acting, apart from Rudd and Pleasance (whose screen time, as said, is far too short), is subpar to put it lightly. J.C. Brandy is a pretty poor replacement for Danielle Harris.
Overall, don't expect any terror, scares, fear or thrills here, you'll be disappointed. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. 'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' is a prime example of this, a film with very little to recommend and just very poorly done in many areas.
Starting with the very few good things, Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasance, in his last film before his death from heart failure not long after (although his screen time is far too short and was clearly severely truncated), come off in a good way in the acting department.
The exploding head death is a pretty fun one and the setting is eerie. As far as praises go, that is it.
'Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers' was directed by someone who had an apparent dislike for Pleasance, the main reason for his limited screen time most likely, and had no interest in directing the film or the 'Halloween' series in general, and it shows loud and clear on screen. Even the direction in 'Season of the Witch' and 'Halloween 5' wasn't this indifferent or inept.
Sadly the effectiveness of the setting, which actually is eerie, is hindered by the filming and editing being pretty amateurish, the photography often is far too dark and drab and the editing makes bacon-slicer-like editing seem coherent in comparison. The music, like the previous film, is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the first four films. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
Everything looks, sounds and feels like it was made in a rush and with absolutely no heart, accounting for the constant sense of incompleteness. There is nothing scary or suspenseful, it's unintentionally campy, uncomfortably strange and by the numbers with a convoluted story that makes no sense whatsoever, an abrupt ending, dull pacing and the man in black/cult plot that is just bizarre and just muddles everything. Michael Myers is just not creepy enough and looks goofy.
Very like the previous sequel, there is nothing interesting or endearing about the characters (though none are quite as annoying as Tina in 'Halloween 5'). The script especially sounds incomplete and the acting, apart from Rudd and Pleasance (whose screen time, as said, is far too short), is subpar to put it lightly. J.C. Brandy is a pretty poor replacement for Danielle Harris.
Overall, don't expect any terror, scares, fear or thrills here, you'll be disappointed. 3/10 Bethany Cox
A flawed but fun and stylish sequel
rivertam2626 February 2020
This review is for the theatrical cut which I prefer. As long as we ignore Michael getting his eyes shot out at the end of 2. This entertaining but flawed sequel has some definite lapses into weirdness with the druid stuff the Myers worshipping cult. But I love the feel of the movie. It's one of the more seasonal entries of the bunch. It also has a creepy, dread inducing atmosphere and it's quite stylish in its execution. The cinematography and rock version of the theme are cool and Paul Rudd is fun and sexy as a grown up Tommy Doyle. Sure it's filled with cliches and it's all a bit goofy but it's another solid entry in the Myers franchise.
Best sequel apart from Halloween 2
Michael Myers19 July 2001
This sequel is brilliant and is the last film Donald Pleasance (Dr.Loomis) worked on before his death. I loved the new direction the film took with the story instead of just Michael Myers wanting to kill his family. I love this whole series and apart from the first and second movies this is by far the best.
Not as bad as you might think.
squir1y21 January 2001
Believe it or not, I found Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers to be very entertaining. But it had the same feeling as part 5, not really scary but entertaining. This movie had it's good and bad qualities just like the other sequels.
Good stuff:
1. The tenseful beginning. It had quite a sad, but gruesome, end to it.
2. I thought the music was awesome. That was the films highest point. Those guitar riffs were sweet.
3. The characters were very intriguing, particularly Tommy Doyle. Kara, Tim and Beth were likable characters.
4. The mask was pretty cool, compared to the last one.
Bad stuff:
1. TOO much gore! That's not really the Halloween trademark.
2. Lack of screen time for Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis.
3. Too many unanswered questions. One I'd like to know is when is the producer's cut going to come out?
All in all, I enjoyed this movie, but it's not the original. 7/10
Good stuff:
1. The tenseful beginning. It had quite a sad, but gruesome, end to it.
2. I thought the music was awesome. That was the films highest point. Those guitar riffs were sweet.
3. The characters were very intriguing, particularly Tommy Doyle. Kara, Tim and Beth were likable characters.
4. The mask was pretty cool, compared to the last one.
Bad stuff:
1. TOO much gore! That's not really the Halloween trademark.
2. Lack of screen time for Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis.
3. Too many unanswered questions. One I'd like to know is when is the producer's cut going to come out?
All in all, I enjoyed this movie, but it's not the original. 7/10
Give up now
mercury422 August 2003
This is such a terrible movie. I don't know why I rented it. Maybe it was because I still thought that some day someone smart would come along and make a good Halloween sequel. It will never happen. I have a message for all of you Halloween fans. Do what I'm doing. Give up the ghost. Don't expect a good Halloween sequel to come. After this terrible movie I gave up hope for a good sequel. Comparing this movie to the very first Halloween would be a joke. First there was a great horror film made called Halloween. It had John Carpenter and he did a great job. Then after seeing how well Halloween was received they decided to make more money and make Halloween 2. No Carpenter, just Rick Rosenthal. By the way, years later they were so desperate that they brought him back for Halloween Resurrection. AKA Halloween Homecoming. Halloween 2 was definitely the last you were supposed to see of Michael Meyers. It's obvious at the end of 2 that he's dead and it's not even left open for a sequel. A third Halloween was made. There was supposed to be a whole bunch of Halloween movies with different stories. The idea fell through and they brought back our chalk faced murderer again. I guess after 2 he survived after being burned alive. I guess he also got a new pair of eyes because last time you saw him he was shot in the eyes and swinging his knife around. After that they just couldn't leave him dead. With Halloween 4 you got a not so bad, but disappointing sequel to the Halloween series. Still yet another movie was made that couldn't hold a candle to the very first. I was disgusted after 5, but after seeing this movie with bad writing, directing and acting that's when I knew they finally lost it. This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. After this I didn't bother anymore. I heard from people that the best part about a recent sequel; H2O, is that it ignores 4, 5, and this garbage. That's sounds okay to me. I'll check it out, but I'm not expecting anything fantastic. The people who are making the Halloween sequels are making suckers out of us. I think we should let the next one fail at the box-office. They're not movies they're magnets that attract Halloween fans with high hopes for a good sequel. Don't waste your time or money. Give up on the Halloween series. Just see Michael Myers as I do. Burnt to a crisp and dead after Halloween 2.
They'll never get rid of ol' Mickey!!
Coventry16 March 2006
In case anyone's still bothering to count: here we have the SIXTH episode in the wacky adventures of mass murderer Michael Myers and the good people of Haddonfield; Illinois apparently STILL don't realize that the white-masked dude can't possibly be killed. The biggest trump of this mid-90's installment, however, is that "Halloween" goes occult! Nearly twenty years and four long feature films ("Season of the Witch" not included) later, this new script suddenly suggests that Myer's nature of pure evil might have been inflicted onto him and that there even exist cults that worship his persona. How about that? I wonder if John Carpenter had any thoughts in that direction when he initially thought up the simple premise of a maniac butchering babysitters! Guess not
Anyway, this weirdo cult offers Michael to kill his last niece alive as well as her newborn baby so that his direct bloodline is finished off completely. The girl escapes and the baby ends up in home sweet home Haddonfield where many people will meet their deaths again. Maybe I just was in an extraordinary good mood when I saw this film, but I really didn't think it was that bad. It even qualifies as the series' second best entry, as the atmosphere is quite sinister and the murder-sequences are delightfully gory & sadistic. Unlike part five, which was a really awful film, "The Curse of Michael Myers" isn't overly talkative or irritatingly dull and Joe Chapelle's directing is surprisingly solid. Even Carpenter's legendary music received a techno update and believe it or not it actually works stimulating. The acting performances are more than adequate with Paul Rudd as the adult version of Tommy; the boy Jamie Lee Curtis was babysitting in the original. Donald Pleasance's share in the script has been reduced to a supportive role, but maybe it's better like that, since the poor man looks very fatigue and ill. Pleasance passed away before the film ever hit the theaters and therefore it's dedicated to his memory. An admirable effort.
Most confusing entry in the series.
Zod-230 January 2002
Right off the bat I'd like to state that I like all of the Halloween movies that have to do with Michael Myers. He is by far my favourite slasher serial killer due to the fact that he is the most vulnerable. He can be hurt and possibly even killed. When hurt bad enough he goes into a coma so his body can heal itself. While he does possess super human qualities the viewer gets the impression that he can be killed.
Sadly Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (H6) takes the story of Michael Myers, that was developing nicely through parts 2,4 & 5 and tries to do too much with it. The revelation of the Man in Black is disappointing and the movie tends to ask more questions then it answers. This entry tries to put to bed some of the story lines started in parts 4 and 5 but in doing so the conclusions it gives cause even more questions to be asked. This is due in part to the conclusions not being very clearly presented.
Overall the movie is okay. The director keeps Michaels presence felt by having Michael continuously shown to be present in many scenes by appearing for a moment in the background. It's nice touches like that that make the movie more interesting to watch.
Story wise the movie seems rushed. The director and writer capture a bit of the magic that made the original Halloween so much fun to watch but the story is far too convoluted to make much sense. Overall I give Halloween 6 a 5 out of 10. Halloween H20 is much better and makes for a nicely trilogy with parts 1 & 2. Apparently Halloween: The Homecoming is due for release this year (2002) and follows H20. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? H20 ended the story very nicely. I would however like to see someone clean up the plot holes that H6 made.
Sadly Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (H6) takes the story of Michael Myers, that was developing nicely through parts 2,4 & 5 and tries to do too much with it. The revelation of the Man in Black is disappointing and the movie tends to ask more questions then it answers. This entry tries to put to bed some of the story lines started in parts 4 and 5 but in doing so the conclusions it gives cause even more questions to be asked. This is due in part to the conclusions not being very clearly presented.
Overall the movie is okay. The director keeps Michaels presence felt by having Michael continuously shown to be present in many scenes by appearing for a moment in the background. It's nice touches like that that make the movie more interesting to watch.
Story wise the movie seems rushed. The director and writer capture a bit of the magic that made the original Halloween so much fun to watch but the story is far too convoluted to make much sense. Overall I give Halloween 6 a 5 out of 10. Halloween H20 is much better and makes for a nicely trilogy with parts 1 & 2. Apparently Halloween: The Homecoming is due for release this year (2002) and follows H20. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? H20 ended the story very nicely. I would however like to see someone clean up the plot holes that H6 made.
I knew what he was, but I never knew why.
lastliberal1 November 2007
I haven't seen all of the Halloween films, but this one was definitely worth watching.
Some people may complain that their favorite actor was missing, and that the director really must have hated the franchise, but I feel that Joe Chappelle did a good job of keeping the story moving. And, there was a story. It wasn't just slash, slash, slash. There was actually something going on and it made it more interesting.
Paul Rudd did a very good job as Tommy Doyle and Marianne Hagan was a string Kara Strode. I like the fact that Donald Pleasence is still around.
Looking forward to seeing the rest.
Some people may complain that their favorite actor was missing, and that the director really must have hated the franchise, but I feel that Joe Chappelle did a good job of keeping the story moving. And, there was a story. It wasn't just slash, slash, slash. There was actually something going on and it made it more interesting.
Paul Rudd did a very good job as Tommy Doyle and Marianne Hagan was a string Kara Strode. I like the fact that Donald Pleasence is still around.
Looking forward to seeing the rest.
It Was A Really Good Film, It Could Have Been Better
WTH_MovieFan11 July 2003
This was a really interesting Halloween film. I wasnt to thrilled with the whole Thorn theory but it still makes for a good film. I liked getting to see Tommy Doyle back but sadly Donald Pleasance died right after shooting. The film had a really REALLY bad director who didnt give a flip about the series, from what I heard treated Donald bad, and wouldnt let Danielle Harris come back as Jamie. Its like he was just trying to bring down the film, but I still liked it. There were alot of cuts and music changes and if you're lucky you can get the Producers Cut which features over 40 min. of never before scenes. With those scenes it turns into a whole new movie. Check it out if you have the chance.
An exercise in style over substance (and producers thinking they know something)
Dellamorte_Dellamore0710 April 2008
Halloween 6: The Curse of Micheal Myers (1996)
Director: Joe Chapelle (Phantoms)
**out of****
Review
After the 6 year wait from the ambiguous, hated by most, loved by some ending of 5 I finally got to see it, being I was only 11 at the time I unfortunately did not take the pen to paper for my first impression (which was positive if I remember correctly), but alas, I'm now 22 and I can clearly see the movies flaws, as well as good intentions and the bad (producers?).
The movie opens with 15 year old Jamie (now played by the 25 year old looking J.C. Brandy) screaming in labor while a MTV like montage of blood soaked carnage is shown and the soundtrack is filmed with screamed filled horrors of the past. We then have a pointless narration by Paul Rudd, who more or less solemnly describes the events of the franchise till now. It seems Jamie was kidnapped and kept hidden underground (or something, the movie is to breathless to ever tell us what this place is) and is now in the Man in Black's evil scheme of world domination or something crappy like that. She is rescued by a nurse (who is rewarded with a spike in the head) and runs screaming into the night in the hopes of finding help.
I must state, that the first 20 or so minutes of the this movie are really well done, the suspense was high and a sense of nihilistic dread was rampant, the movie was fast paced and the Bus Depot and Barn sequences were awesome highlights for me. The Farm Machine death was grisly and down well (considering whom it happens to) and I felt that the movie was quite entertaining up until the point when it is day. Title inserted, "Halloween" "Haddonfeild".
The movie then proceeds to slowly (but surely) downhill from here on as, we are introduced to a despicable batch of characters with the least appealing types of conflicts. Angry dad is mad at moody daughter, while weepy mom sits about, awful child actor tries and acts and the son/brother makes an ass of himself, by trying to be "hip': I lost all investment in the characters (I will mention the likable and competent Marianne Hagen though) so suspense was cut short. The movie is another one of those 90ies flicks that constantly has mundane objects or people usually being the cause of the false jump scare, accompanied by a loud "DUUUNT" noise on the soundtrack, followed by the person out of frame usually saying "sorry" or "it's only me". Urban Legend did it, Candy Man: Farewell to the flesh did it as well as all the Screams. So if jump scares are your thing, you wont be displeased, as for me, I turned it into a drinking game, take a shot every time you here "DUUNT" and you will be nice and sauced after wards.
The plot is such a god awful confusing mess that it leaves a lot to be desired after the final frame. I could go into specifics, but it won't matter, NOTHING will ever help to explain weird druid cult nonsense that inhabits this movie. I mean NOTHING. So try and ignore the mumbo jumbo and you can just see the movie for its slasher tendencies. The kills in here were far more violent then 4-5, so I guess it served some redeeming qualities. Snapped neck, a spike in head, farm machinery, axe fun, exploding head(!?!), and a brutal machete killing spree (Jason would be proud) abound, so I was pleased to see Micheal being so po'd in this one. Still, the lackluster plot still got in the way time to time.
Although nothing to write home about, Chapelle injecting a very kinetic and vibrant look to this movie that will have MTV purists taken a back. Compared to any of the other Halloweens, this is the most visually appealing. Horror Candy for the fans. It's bleak and flashy and quite colorful, think "Nightmare 4: Dream Master" and you'll get the idea. It's too bad the director gave up on suspense the 20 mark in.
It also seems pointless to mention Dr.Loomis this time around as he was brutally wasted. A shame, that Loomis was so arbitrary to the plot. Apparently his plight is far more better handled in the producers cut, but since I cant see me seeing that any time soon, it doesn't help me change my mind that the movie was a disservice to Pleasance.
The guitars twang revamping of Carpenters score was actually quite good, and really upped the suspense in scenes that though they were far scarier then they appeared to be. I dug it.
After waiting six years, I also though that the revealing of the man in black was sooooo lame, and quite boring, should have just stuck with him being Micheals brother as opposed to the stupid character this time.
I really wanted to like this movie, I like its look, sound and gore, but content wise it's an embarrassment to the series and in film-making in general. Producers, screw off, you have no linear thought o fans of the genre, and you certainly ruined what could have been a awesome sequel. Micheal and the Druids? What's next, Freddy and Scientologists?
This movie is only slightly acceptable because it eons ahead of H20 and Resurrection, which are insults to any fan of this weirdly made series.
Watch to see style over substance at it's best, but unfortunately it doesn't follow up to 5 even!!!. That must be all the advice you need.
Director: Joe Chapelle (Phantoms)
**out of****
Review
After the 6 year wait from the ambiguous, hated by most, loved by some ending of 5 I finally got to see it, being I was only 11 at the time I unfortunately did not take the pen to paper for my first impression (which was positive if I remember correctly), but alas, I'm now 22 and I can clearly see the movies flaws, as well as good intentions and the bad (producers?).
The movie opens with 15 year old Jamie (now played by the 25 year old looking J.C. Brandy) screaming in labor while a MTV like montage of blood soaked carnage is shown and the soundtrack is filmed with screamed filled horrors of the past. We then have a pointless narration by Paul Rudd, who more or less solemnly describes the events of the franchise till now. It seems Jamie was kidnapped and kept hidden underground (or something, the movie is to breathless to ever tell us what this place is) and is now in the Man in Black's evil scheme of world domination or something crappy like that. She is rescued by a nurse (who is rewarded with a spike in the head) and runs screaming into the night in the hopes of finding help.
I must state, that the first 20 or so minutes of the this movie are really well done, the suspense was high and a sense of nihilistic dread was rampant, the movie was fast paced and the Bus Depot and Barn sequences were awesome highlights for me. The Farm Machine death was grisly and down well (considering whom it happens to) and I felt that the movie was quite entertaining up until the point when it is day. Title inserted, "Halloween" "Haddonfeild".
The movie then proceeds to slowly (but surely) downhill from here on as, we are introduced to a despicable batch of characters with the least appealing types of conflicts. Angry dad is mad at moody daughter, while weepy mom sits about, awful child actor tries and acts and the son/brother makes an ass of himself, by trying to be "hip': I lost all investment in the characters (I will mention the likable and competent Marianne Hagen though) so suspense was cut short. The movie is another one of those 90ies flicks that constantly has mundane objects or people usually being the cause of the false jump scare, accompanied by a loud "DUUUNT" noise on the soundtrack, followed by the person out of frame usually saying "sorry" or "it's only me". Urban Legend did it, Candy Man: Farewell to the flesh did it as well as all the Screams. So if jump scares are your thing, you wont be displeased, as for me, I turned it into a drinking game, take a shot every time you here "DUUNT" and you will be nice and sauced after wards.
The plot is such a god awful confusing mess that it leaves a lot to be desired after the final frame. I could go into specifics, but it won't matter, NOTHING will ever help to explain weird druid cult nonsense that inhabits this movie. I mean NOTHING. So try and ignore the mumbo jumbo and you can just see the movie for its slasher tendencies. The kills in here were far more violent then 4-5, so I guess it served some redeeming qualities. Snapped neck, a spike in head, farm machinery, axe fun, exploding head(!?!), and a brutal machete killing spree (Jason would be proud) abound, so I was pleased to see Micheal being so po'd in this one. Still, the lackluster plot still got in the way time to time.
Although nothing to write home about, Chapelle injecting a very kinetic and vibrant look to this movie that will have MTV purists taken a back. Compared to any of the other Halloweens, this is the most visually appealing. Horror Candy for the fans. It's bleak and flashy and quite colorful, think "Nightmare 4: Dream Master" and you'll get the idea. It's too bad the director gave up on suspense the 20 mark in.
It also seems pointless to mention Dr.Loomis this time around as he was brutally wasted. A shame, that Loomis was so arbitrary to the plot. Apparently his plight is far more better handled in the producers cut, but since I cant see me seeing that any time soon, it doesn't help me change my mind that the movie was a disservice to Pleasance.
The guitars twang revamping of Carpenters score was actually quite good, and really upped the suspense in scenes that though they were far scarier then they appeared to be. I dug it.
After waiting six years, I also though that the revealing of the man in black was sooooo lame, and quite boring, should have just stuck with him being Micheals brother as opposed to the stupid character this time.
I really wanted to like this movie, I like its look, sound and gore, but content wise it's an embarrassment to the series and in film-making in general. Producers, screw off, you have no linear thought o fans of the genre, and you certainly ruined what could have been a awesome sequel. Micheal and the Druids? What's next, Freddy and Scientologists?
This movie is only slightly acceptable because it eons ahead of H20 and Resurrection, which are insults to any fan of this weirdly made series.
Watch to see style over substance at it's best, but unfortunately it doesn't follow up to 5 even!!!. That must be all the advice you need.
The best slasher film ever!!!!
aaronzombie21 February 2000
(This review is based on the producers cut)After what I thought was the 2nd best of the series, came this extremely terrific sequel.Don't listen to the people who give this a bad review, but do listen to the people who give H20 a bad review.The thorn thing is very cool, and the action is non-stop.Unfourtunately H20 may have destroyed any chances of a continuation of H6's storyline, because of it's teen bobber, pop culture ways, but H2K might fix it.Exciting, suspenseful, great story, acting, and music score.***** out *****.
"An Underrated Installment of This Franchise!" - Theatrical Cut
darimoviesthoughtsoffilms13 June 2020
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers is one of the most hated films in this franchise, and understandably so. The performances are awful (sorry, but that goes for Paul Rudd as well) except for - of course - Donald Pleasence. The characters are all either doll and/or uninteresting, and most of them are there just to expand the body count. If you don't believe the fact that this is a very hated movie, just read some of the other reviews. In short, this movie is miles away from being a great - and some would even argue good - movie.
But let's focus on all the good stuff this installment has to offer:
First off, Michael Myers is really awesome in this movie and among the best portrayals of the character in this entire franchise. The kills are among the best in the entire franchise. The movie has a really unsettling and creepy atmosphere which undeniably is a plus. As mentioned above; Donald Pleasence is great playing Dr. Loomis his last time (Rest in peace).
Even though this movie is very much flawed, the positives really make up for it. This is might not be a great movie, but it's a great Michael Myers movie and one of my favorites for sure! I really think it's an underrated installment of this franchise.
Horror: B (Creepy Scenes, Good Atmosphere, Kills are Very Brutal)
Entertainment: A- (Very Entertaining for Fans of the Franchise)
Acting: D+ (Pleacense Stands Out, Sadly Nobody Else)
Suspense: B+ (Some Very Suspenseful Moments, Good Chase Scenes)
Characters: C (Loomis, Myers and Tommy are Interesting, Others are Quite Doll)
Script/Story: C+ (Nothing Special, Some Good Elements)
Overall Rating: 6.66/10 😱
First off, Michael Myers is really awesome in this movie and among the best portrayals of the character in this entire franchise. The kills are among the best in the entire franchise. The movie has a really unsettling and creepy atmosphere which undeniably is a plus. As mentioned above; Donald Pleasence is great playing Dr. Loomis his last time (Rest in peace).
Even though this movie is very much flawed, the positives really make up for it. This is might not be a great movie, but it's a great Michael Myers movie and one of my favorites for sure! I really think it's an underrated installment of this franchise.
Horror: B (Creepy Scenes, Good Atmosphere, Kills are Very Brutal)
Entertainment: A- (Very Entertaining for Fans of the Franchise)
Acting: D+ (Pleacense Stands Out, Sadly Nobody Else)
Suspense: B+ (Some Very Suspenseful Moments, Good Chase Scenes)
Characters: C (Loomis, Myers and Tommy are Interesting, Others are Quite Doll)
Script/Story: C+ (Nothing Special, Some Good Elements)
Overall Rating: 6.66/10 😱
My review
spikejumper13 October 2021
Too bad that Donald Pleasance had to end like this.
lee_eisenberg26 August 2006
I know that at the end of his life, Donald Pleasance was pretty much only known for the "Halloween" movies, but did he really need to get involved in "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" for his final movie role? This entry in the series didn't add anything. It's just more of Michael going around butchering people. The reason that the next entry was so neat was because they brought back Jamie Lee Curtis. So skip this one; entries 1, 2 and 7 are the only ones that you need to see to get the feeling for the series.
And Mr. Pleasance, wherever you are, we'll always remember you, if only as Sam Loomis.
And Mr. Pleasance, wherever you are, we'll always remember you, if only as Sam Loomis.
A mystery best kept under wraps
jaws1fan17 February 2003
What made Myers so scary was the fact that you didn't know what drove him to such insanity or made him indestructable. Trying to explain his origins would have been a tough thing to do right, and this doesn't come close. Does this film bore? no, but had they kept the producer's cut instead of this version it might have been worthy.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
