rickypop_uk This is my maiden voyage into reviewing for IMDB and after watching it just last night, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' feels like a very odd place to start.My inexperience prompts me to open with something of a classic cliché by asking; "Is this a film that needed to be made?" Some have argued that very same question could be asked of any of the sequels after 1981's 'Halloween II', though it's true to say that many of those said sequels have come to be held dear to many a horror lover's heart. After the original Halloween, watching the rest of this film series (with the exception of Halloween III: Season Of The Witch) is like looking at a developing structure while holding the blueprints in your hand. You already have the general layout of all foundations (masked killer Michael Myers/screaming, frantic victims), pillars (false scares/red herrings) and joists (inventive/graphic deaths) but don't yet know exactly how the finished product will look. I held that same blueprint going into this film. After viewing, I read that this has been the most profitable film of the Halloween series so far, but I can't help but wonder how much of that box office score was made up of sheer curiosity. The return of Jamie Lee Curtis and Friday the 13th (parts 2 and 3) director Steve Miner at the helm, are two things that would understandably rouse a fans interest. It certainly did for me. What struck me before I even pressed play was the incredibly short eighty minute running time. Given that the decent and familiarly Autumnal opening set at the home of Dr Loomis - and its neighbouring house - in Langdon, Illinois took up a good ten minutes (the opening credits taking up another five), I was curious to see how the rest of the film would pan out over the finite sixty-five minutes. The film moves to sunny California where Laurie Strode (now going by the name Keri Tate after faking her death to escape Michael's rampage) is living a life of both mother and respected school headmistress. From here, the rest of the films characters are very quickly introduced while horror fans go about our usual business of predicting which of them will die first. This is all intercut with various scenes of Michael Myers gradually making his way from Illinois to California, which he manages to do in a remarkable (if even possible) two days. Still scarred by the past, Laurie/Keri spends most of the film in a jittery state thinking every shadow, reflection and person approaching her is Michael, until at just over the one hour mark, she actually does see him up close through a door window providing - for me personally - the best shot in the film. That leaves the last twenty minutes for the confrontation between Laurie and Michael, in which all the narrow escapes and 'Is he FINALLY dead?' moments are quickly crammed in, making it all seem a little rushed. This film almost seems like it should have been nothing more than an interesting bonus feature on a special edition of the original, rather than a film in its own right. Jamie Lee Curtis is very welcome back and does well, pretty much holding the film together. But aside from that first ten minutes and the final twenty minutes with its "Woh! I need to see that again" ending, the rest of the film seems to have spread itself incredibly thin. So after thinking back on it, it seems as if this was something of a missed opportunity. We had Jamie Lee Curtis. We had Steve Miner. We had a very decent supporting cast including Josh Hartnett, Adam Arkin, Michelle Williams, LL Cool J and even a cheeky cameo from Janet Leigh. We had in Michael Myers, one of the greatest characters in the realm of horror and not to mention John Carpenter's classic musical motif permeating throughout. The aforementioned foundations were most certainly there, but what covered them didn't seem to be made of the sturdiest material. As a big fan of the original, I tried hard to appreciate this film simply for what it is, but still ultimately came out of it feeling a little short changed. As my first review has been a little downhearted, I almost feel like I should finish writing, collect myself, watch the film again (while trying to forget that it exists because of a piece of classic horror made in 1978) and re-review it. Either that, or move straight on to Halloween: Resurrection? Hmm... maybe not...

TheLittleSongbird 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. The exception however is 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later'. It's not perfect and nowhere near as great as the original, but it's the only sequel that's above average, let alone good and by far the best since the original. It does a great job breathing fresh life into a series that had gotten stale as quick as one can down a can of coke gone flat and such a welcome addition after the badness of the fifth and sixth films. 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' has its flaws. It is too short and at times erratically paced, sometimes rushed and then taking a bit of time to get going after the opening. There is not enough breathing room for development of characterisation, which generally is shallow apart from the central relationship and the script tends to be weak (not unexpected, though actually it's far worse in the previous sequels, at least it sounds complete).On the other hand, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is the best-looking of the sequels, the first half in particular being close in style to the autumnal look of the original, something that none of the previous sequels did. The editing is coherent, it's not shot too darkly and there is an eeriness to the setting which can be properly appreciated as a result. The music is a welcome return to being an asset than a drawback like in the previous two sequels. While not quite a character of its own like in the original, it adds to the atmosphere and enhances it.Luckily there's nowhere near as much unintentional camp, out of place humour or bizarre subplots or idea that muddle the story. Instead much of the film is fun and there is a tension, creepiness and suspense, even poignancy at times, that the previous sequels were sorely lacking in. The deaths are the most creative and shocking since those in the original, while the opening scene is unsettlingly tense and the ending is creepy and touching. The central relationship is handled quite well. Although the characters are underdeveloped, none of them are annoying and they do have enough personality to stop them from being too dull. The direction is in control of the material and is at least competent and often well above that, especially in the second half when the film really does come alive. Of the sequels, 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' is by quite some way the best acted, Jamie Lee Curtis' wonderful performance being the film's best asset.In summary, the best of the sequels/follow ups and worth the wait. 7/10 Bethany Cox

tuckerconstable-07055 20 years later, Laurie Strode is living under a new alias and is now working as a teacher at a college. However, Michael Myers has come back to Haddonfield in search of Strode after learning of her new alias. If that weren't bad enough, Laurie's son is being watched by Myers. But, this time Strode is tired of constantly running from the boogeyman and she's not gonna take it anymore. She's ready to face her greatest fear head on."Halloween H20" is the seventh film in the Halloween franchise and it's surprisingly fresh for that number. The overblown plot of Michael being involved in some crazed Kool-Aid cult has now been dropped, which is a wise move. Instead, he's brought back to his roots as just a crazed maniac hiding under a mask. Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode and gives arguably her best performance in the whole series. Her character has grown leaps and bounds since we last saw her in "Halloween II". She's much stronger and more willing to fight for what she loves. She's no longer the meek, teenager she once was. If there's any complaint with "H20" it's that it's not as scary as the films before it. The influence of Wes Craven's "Scream" can be felt all over this picture. Instead of going for all out scares, "H20" instead has more of a fun feeling than anything. That's not to say fun is a bad thing, but in certain scenes the intensity of the original feels a little watered down.Despite it's flaws, "Halloween H20" is a very strong entry in the Halloween franchise. It's smart, fun and has some good scares, and isn't that what Halloween is all about?

MaximumMadness Ah, the mid-to-late 1990's... sort-of a rebirth of horror in a way. After all, the period from 1990 to about 1995 was wholly and decidedly a relatively murky period for the genre, with quality releases being very few and far between. Audiences were tiring of the holdover 80's slasher flicks and ho-hum ghost stories, with really only a handful of stand-out creep-shows to keep horror fans satiated. With so few quality-choices (notably the mini-series "It" from the book by Stephen King and the wonderful thriller "Candyman" from the stories of Clive Barker), it was no wonder that the early 90's were considered a "dead" period.Then, "Scream" happened and changed everything. It proved that not only could horror be widely appealing at the hands of gifted writers and quality filmmakers, but also showed that the old tropes and clichés could be "hip" and "cool" again when handled with care and a degree of nostalgic love.So, it should come as no shock that after the colossal misfire that was the previous film ("The Curse of Michael Myers"), the "Halloween" series got a new lease on life with a post-"Scream" sensibility in this 1998 release- "Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later." A minor degree of self-awareness, a focus on modern teenage and young adult culture and a fun blast from the past by way of original star Jamie Lee Curtis made the series relevant and modern in a way that both worked to re-invigorate interest and also pay homage to the series origins.The film was lovingly crafted to serve as a book-end to the original, cleverly taking advantage of being released on the twentieth anniversary of the John Carpenter classic as part of it's schtick. It was built up as the "Halloween" to end all "Halloween's"... A "Halloween" for the modern era. A "Halloween" for the sharp and post-modern 90's crowd. And a "Halloween" that honored the long- beloved roots of the series.Directed by Steve Miner, the film revolves around Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie Strode, now living as a teacher under a false name. Still haunted by nightmares of her murderous sibling Michael Myers, Laurie is trying her hardest to move on. But when her brother comes calling, the stakes are set for a final and apocalyptic battle from which only one can emerge alive.The success of the film really falls onto its clear adoration of the original and the desire to "evolve" and "complete" the story that it started in a new and fresh way. You can feel the love for that film oozing in virtually every scene here, with many subtle homages and call-backs. Yet it also builds and evolves the franchise in a way that previous films hadn't. Whereas prior sequels truly did feel like they were simply trying to re-create the magic of the original to increasingly diminishing results, "H20" actually has the guts to say "No, the best way to pay tribute to the origin of the series is to make homage and continue the story, but allow it to change with the times." A huge part of that is the result of that late-90's self-aware mindset popularized by other films, and I think it works wonders. There are numerous levels of subversion that make you second-guess where it's all leading, there's plenty of banter and humor that satisfies the audience, and it also makes the wise move to make all the characters likable... nobody here really has their own agenda as so many other slasher-sequels have done with their characters.Miner's direction is strong, with a keen sense of scope, atmosphere and composition. He finds just the right balance between old- fashioned cinematography and 90's era aesthetics, giving the film a unique tone and visual palate that both compliments and contrasts with the Carpenter original.Performances are uniformly strong for the material. Curtis is a joy in her returning role, giving Laurie a grand sense of pathos but also a drive to finally face her fears. Supporting roles by the likes of Josh Hartnett, Adam Arkin and even rapper LL Cool J round out a likable and believable cast. And there's no sore thumbs to be found. Also of note is voice-over artist Tom Kane, who perfectly re- creates the brilliant dialog of the late Donald Pleasance in a wonderful opening sequence. (Also, keep your eyes peeled for future superstar Joseph Gordon- Levitt in a small role in the opening sequence!)Should I have to address any negatives, I would definitely have to dock some slight points for a frankly shaky first act, which does fall back on the old tropes and clichés a bit too much. It just feels contrary to the much stronger second and third acts of the film, and it doesn't do much to subvert expectations or built on the legacy of the series. I also take some slight issue with the film's at times break-neck pace... it's already a fairly short film, and it rushes a bit too much for everything to really set in.Still, those flaws being stated, I can't help but feel that for my money, this is the best of the "Halloween" sequels. It built off of what came before, served as a loving tribute and also book-ended the series with what was at the time built up to be the final entry in the series. To me, the "Halloween" franchise is a trilogy- Carpenter's "Halloween", it's first sequel "Halloween II" and this film, "H20." Everything else to me is pure fan-fiction.I give "Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later" a strong 8 out of 10 as a horror fan and in particular as a fan of the franchise. Definitely worth seeing. (It's follow-up "Resurrection"... not so much.)