Movies: The Halloween Franchise

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I think that Ace had a point in that he probably added it to the sequel first, since he added it to the original while the sequel was being filmed. Also, he shot a lot of new scenes for the original that had nothing to do with the twist. He didn't need to include the shot of "sister" written on the wall in order to comply with NBC's request. Including it, anyways, feels more like "well, I've already decided to put the twist in the sequel, so I might as well add a reference to the original so that it looks like it was the plan all along."

I still think you're both wrong.

It was during the filming of these additional scenes that “Halloween II” was also in production. One of the scenes added was the examination of Myers’ escaped cell at the mental institution, in which the word “sister” was carved into the cell door. It was then revealed late in “Halloween II” that Strode was indeed the long lost brother of Myers.

Also elsewhere:

By 1981, a sequel, Halloween II was in the works, and the original was already a legend in the horror world. Unfortunately, because VHS and Betamax machines and rentals were still relatively rare (the first movie rental store in America had only opened in 1977), it could be difficult to see the film if you hadn't caught it in theaters.
Consequently, NBC decided to give the film its TV debut on Friday, Oct. 30, the same night the sequel was set to debut in theaters. It was a great idea for a cross-promotion; hopefully home viewers would be inspired to watch the sequel in theaters. But there was a problem: The original Halloween clocked in at a tight 91 minutes, which was too short for the NBC time slot, even allowing for commercial breaks.
So Carpenter was forced to shoot several extra scenes to pad the material (in addition to slightly re-editing the film to take out some swearing and drug use).

Most of these additions are fairly innocuous. One, which takes place when Michael Myers is still a kid, shows his doctor Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) arguing to a two-person medical board that Michael should be moved to a higher-security facility. After this, Loomis visits Michael in his cell, where his deadly young patient sits motionless in a chair, staring out the window. "You've fooled them, haven't you?" Loomis tells him, certain that Michael's comatose behavior is an act. "But not me."
But the most important addition comes after Michael, now grown, has broken out of the mental hospital and is on his way back to his home town of Haddonfield, Ill., to terrorize Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). Loomis visits the cell Michael escaped from, finding the word "sister" scrawled on the door.

As these additional sequences were being planned and shot, Carpenter and co-writer/co-producer Debra Hill were also involved in the writing and production of the sequel. It seems like neither the extended material of the first movie nor the sequel itself had a ton of appeal for Carpenter, but he took them on because, as he said in a 1984 interview, "There are two sides to when you work in the movie business. One is as an artist…the other side is the business person."

I think we must consider Carpenter's version at face value unless someone can contradict it.

 

[Osprey]

I think we must consider Carpenter's version at face value unless someone can contradict it.

If you mean the version in which he said that that the twist was because of needing to add scenes to the original, I did contradict it with his other version in which he said that it was because of the sequel. You can take one at face value and I'll take the other.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

If you mean the version in which he said that that the twist was because of needing to add scenes to the original, I did contradict it with his other version in which he said that it was because of the sequel. You can take one at face value and I'll take the other.

Already explained how to me that didn't contradict the probable fact that he added it to the TV movie first! I think we won't solve this fundamental crisis.

 

[Osprey]

Already explained how to me that didn't contradict the probable fact that he added it to the TV movie first! I think we won't solve this fundamental crisis.

He suggested in one quote that he came up with the sibling twist because NBC needed extra scenes and said in another that it was "purely" because he was involved in the sequel and had nowhere else to go with the story. Those two versions can't both be true. The former seems more probable to you while the latter seems more probable to me. As you said, we probably won't solve it.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

He suggested in one quote that he came up with the sibling twist because NBC needed extra scenes and said in another that it was "purely" because he was involved in the sequel and had nowhere else to go with the story. Those two versions can't both be true. The former seems more probable to you while the latter seems more probable to me. As you said, we probably won't solve it.

Both versions can be true. The articles I posted clearly state that he was involved in writing/producing part II while shooting extra scenes for the TV Movie. As Ace noted, he could have shot any kind of stuff to pad the movie's runtime, but having nowhere to go with the story for the sequel, he added the sister tag at the asylum. In the end, the twist still appears in the TV movie because of the needed extra scenes, even if maybe motivated by the need for a story for the sequel.

I solved the mystery. I'll take the cookie.

 

[shadow1]

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) - 4/10

One year after his second attack on Haddonfield, Michael Myers re-emerges on Halloween night.

Halloween 5 once again stars Danielle Harris as Jamie, who's now mute and is confined to a psychiatric hospital. While there, she begins to form a psychic bond with uncle Michael (Don Shanks), who's been recovering from injuries sustained in the previous film. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) believes Michael is still alive, and wants to use Jamie's ability to help find him. However, the two won't have to wait long, as Michael has recovered just in time for Halloween...

After the moderate success of Halloween 4, Halloween 5 was rushed into production by Executive Producer Moustapha Akkad. Realizing that the slasher trend was dying, Akkad wanted to ride Halloween 4's momentum to cash in as much as he could.

The result is the first bad movie in the Halloween series, and boy is it a doozie.

Halloween 5's plot is just terrible. The filmmakers reconned the ending of Halloween 4, instead giving the movie a supernatural element...and that element stinks. The psychic connection plot does not work at all, and does not create compelling footage. Who wants to see a mute kid making grunting noises trying to explain the location of a gas station to another kid with a stuttering issue?

With the exception of Jamie, the other returning characters from Halloween 4 are reduced to smaller roles. In their place, we get spunky-but-annoying Tina (Wendy Foxworth), as well as two comic relief police offers (Frankie Como and David Ursin), who have silly clown themed music every time they appear on screen. Donald Pleasance's Loomis is bat shit crazy in this movie, routinely putting other characters in harm's way to get to Michael. In other words, the characters stink.

Halloween 5 also introduces the much maligned "Man in Black", whose backstory and motivations are mysterious. In fact, so mysterious that even the crew didn't know who this character was, but put him in to help pad the run time. Hey, that's the next film's problem to figure out, am I right?

A least Michael is better in Halloween 5. He's still not great, but the mask is slightly better than in Halloween 4, and he has a few memorable kills (I like the garden claw kill, personally). Michael generally feels more violent and imposing in this one, and is not the problem with this movie. (Side note: According to Don Shanks, they filmed a scene towards the climax in which Michael violently murders several police outside of the psych ward. But, it was cut out to avoid an "X" rating, and this footage sadly seems to be lost forever.)

I specifically remember the first time I saw Halloween 4 & 5 at the video store, as I had no idea they existed; I was only aware of the first three due to them being on TV constantly, and H20 because it had just been in theaters. H4 & H5 eventually made their way on cable, and seemed to play a lot even outside of the Halloween season, so I have a ton of nostalgia for both movies from seeing them so frequently.

But that nostalgia doesn't cloud my judgement: Halloween 5's a stinker of a movie. It's a shame because it looks and feels like a follow up to Halloween 4, but is such a downgrade in quality the two don't work as well as they should for a back-to-back viewing. Additionally, Halloween 5 was a dud commercially, making only $11.6M against a $5.0M budget. It's even worse when you consider the fact that many people bought tickets and didn't stay for the movie - they wanted to see the teaser trailer for Tim Burton's Batman that was playing before the film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Who wants to see a mute kid making grunting noises trying to explain the location of a gas station to another kid with a stuttering issue?

Ahah, I'd take 2h of that and it would still be better than H5.

As for nostalgia, I had both posters in my room side to side, not yet understanding how terrible these films were.

 

[PK Cronin]

I’m surprised some don’t like the new ‘reboot’ of the films. I like rewatching them!

They're just not very good. Some of the story is just overcomplicated for absolutely no reason other than to try and provide a "twist", while other times they're embarrassingly simplistic to the point of idiocy.

I’ll be so glad when the Laurie Strode saga is over, quite possibly the most overrated final girl in existence

If we've learned nothing else over the years we should know that the saga is never actually over.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

They're just not very good. Some of the story is just overcomplicated for absolutely no reason other than to try and provide a "twist", while other times they're embarrassingly simplistic to the point of idiocy.



If we've learned nothing else over the years we should know that the saga is never actually over.

I’ll take heat for it, but I never found the original (or the sequel) all that interesting. When my wife showed me the newer 2018 version, it definitely peaked my interest.

I don’t care enough about the timelines and different variances between the movies, I just am saying that I enjoyed this version the most

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I’ll take heat for it

It's a safe space here my friend, you're welcome despise being obviously a little challenged. ;-)

 

[PK Cronin]

I’ll take heat for it, but I never found the original (or the sequel) all that interesting. When my wife showed me the newer 2018 version, it definitely peaked my interest.

I don’t care enough about the timelines and different variances between the movies, I just am saying that I enjoyed this version the most

I'm not even making a direct comparison, as a standalone movie I didn't think the 2018 version was good. The sequel to that was even worse and I'm expecting more of the same from this new one. I'll still go watch it though because I've seen all of the others and I still enjoy crappy horror movies.

There's a difference between a good movie and an entertaining one for me. I think I mentioned somewhere in here earlier that Halloween Resurrection is one that I enjoy because it's so bad, so to each their own.

 

[shadow1]

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) - 5/10

Michael Myers, now allied with a cult, searches for the newest member of his bloodline.

Halloween 6 stars Paul Rudd as Tommy Doyle, one of the children Laurie was babysitting in 1978. Now obsessed with finding Michael, Tommy comes into possession of a baby with familial ties to the boogeyman. Seeking help, he reaches out to now-retired Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), as well as neighbor Kara Strode (Marianne Hagan), a relative of the family who adopted Laurie.

Unfortunately for the trio, Michael isn't alone this time - The Cult of Thorn and the mysterious Man in Black have a vested interest in Michael's success...

Before I continue, I must address the fact that this movie has (2) versions. In the late 1990's, back when we were browsing Halloween Geocities fan pages, rumors about a Halloween 6 "Producer's Cut" emerged online. VHS bootlegs eventually became available, but fortunately in the year 2022 this "Producer's Cut" is now readily available in crystal clear HD. Here is a spoiler-free rundown of the differences:

• The Producer's Cut is a much more coherent film. The plot makes more sense, the pacing and editing (and at times, cinematography) are dramatically better, and we get traditional Halloween music. Story wise, we get more of "stalker" Michael, more screen time for Donald Pleasance, and more of an emphasis on the Cult of Thorn. The ending is completely different, as are several kills in the film.
• The Theatrical Cut is a film is a mess. Scenes are heavily trimmed down, which creates needless plot confusion. The movie relies heavily on terrible jump cuts, accompanied by the sound of a knife slashing. The score has a heavy metal vibe to it, which doesn't work that well. It's almost like they put the Producer's Cut into a computer, wrote some type of code to "make the movie scary", and this is what came out. Story wise, we get a more brutal Michael, much less screen time for Pleasance, and less emphasis on the Cult of Thorn.

So, which is the better film? In my opinion, it's undoubtably the Producer's Cut, but it's not the holy grail Halloween fans may have led you to believe. It leans more heavily into the plot, but when said plot is a flaming roll of toilet paper, that's not necessarily a great thing. Additionally, the ending is a letdown. After a decent first 90% of the film, the film comes to an anti-climatic finish that is laughably bad at times.

On the flip side, I really enjoy the ending of the Theatrical Cut. This ending was completely re-filmed and has a haunted house vibe. Michael (George P. Wilbur earlier in the film, Brad Harin during this reshot footage) is at possibly his most violent of all time, going on a complete massacre while hunting the protagonists. This ending has a rough final 5 minutes though, and there's definitely too much flashing on the screen during this sequence (epilepsy warning).

Add it all up, and what do you get? A mess, that's what. There is a decent film in there somewhere I think. Replace the Producer's Cut ending with the Theatrical ending maybe? But hey, at least they got the Michael Myers mask right - it's easily one of the best in the series.

Overall, not a great entry. I think I enjoy it more than most, but no matter which version you watch, you're going to witness some serious problems. RIP Donald Pleasance, who passed away unexpectedly when they were doing re-shoots for the eventual Theatrical Version.


Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) - 5/10

20 years after his attack on Haddonfield, Michael Myers hunts down his sister.

Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, who's relocated to Summer Glen, California. Living under a new identity, Laurie (now Keri) is the Headmistress of a private boarding school that her son John (Josh Hartnett) attends. Laurie is tormented by visions of the 1978 attack, and has developed a nasty drinking habit to go along with her not-so-great personality. She's not completely crazy though, as Michael has caught wind of her identity change and is making a special cross country trip to see her...

Halloween H20 was directed by Steve Miner, who earlier directed Friday the 13th Part II & III. John Carpenter was in talks to direct, but priced himself out. The story was written by Robert Zappia and Scream's Kevin Williamson, and removes Halloween's 4-6 from the timeline. This wasn't the original intention, but they wrote out references to Jamie and the Thorn Cult during filming. Speaking of which, Williamson spent lots of time on set to help with various story and dialogue changes.

It's important to mention Williamson's involvement because Halloween H20 - or as many fans call it, HalloScream - is a blatant rip off of the Scream films. How so? The film starts with a shocking and bloody opener like Scream, uses the score from Scream throughout, the movie poster looks like Scream, Scream 2 plays on the TV at one point, there are Scream Easter eggs peppered throughout, and it has an ending similar to Scream.

One thing the two films don't have in common is quality, as Halloween H20 is mediocre. After the opening scene, we basically get an hour of Laurie acting like a functioning basket case and straining her relationship with her son, until the final 20 minutes where the movie decides it wants to be a horror film again. H20's lack of body count during the bulk of the run time is made up by several fake out jump scares, with characters constantly startling each other on accident. The side characters are also pretty bad, the most prominent of which being LL Cool J as a Security Guard with aspirations of being an Erotic Novelist (what...?). There is a small role from Janet Leigh that is kinda cool, though.

Michael Myers has possibly the worst look of all in this one. He wears a whopping (4) different masks, including one made from 1990's CGI. He starts off with the Halloween 6 mask, but quickly shifts to the other masks. These other masks are bad and seem to change constantly, even within the same scene. What a travesty.

Halloween H20 does end on a strong note fortunately. Though I don't think the film's finale is scary or even that great, it's at least a crowd pleaser, with Laurie and Michael in an extended mono a mono battle.

Overall, this one isn't for me. I've seen it many times, but don't rewatch it often. Every time I do watch it, I always hope I'm going to see something new in it, but never do. We get way too much Laurie and not enough Michael in this movie, and that's the bottom line. Halloween H20 cleaned up at the box office ($55M against a $17M budget), and as far as I'm concerned that's this film's legacy - a cash grab, trying to ride the coattails of Scream.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998) - 5/10

Except for 1 vs 2, I agree with most of your takes, especially on this one. Your ratings are mostly consistant with mine too - you're just a little more generous.

 

[shadow1]

Except for 1 vs 2, I agree with most of your takes, especially on this one. Your ratings are mostly consistant with mine too - you're just a little more generous.

I'm not looking forward to the next movie. Then again, I did just sit through part 6 twice...

I have no idea when I'm going to see Halloween Ends. Part of me wants to see it for the first time on Halloween night, but I'm pretty sure I can't avoid spoilers until then. Are you going to watch it right away or wait?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm not looking forward to the next movie. Then again, I did just sit through part 6 twice...

I have no idea when I'm going to see Halloween Ends. Part of me wants to see it for the first time on Halloween night, but I'm pretty sure I can't avoid spoilers until then. Are you going to watch it right away or wait?

Can't blame you. On my last rewatch, I skipped Resurrection, just couldn't.

As for HE, I'm not going to a packed theater, so I guess I'll wait. I haven't liked the first 2, so that won't be too hard. I think I caught the second one on streaming with a free movie or something, might go for that when it's available.

 

[shadow1]

Can't blame you. On my last rewatch, I skipped Resurrection, just couldn't.

As for HE, I'm not going to a packed theater, so I guess I'll wait. I haven't liked the first 2, so that won't be too hard. I think I caught the second one on streaming with a free movie or something, might go for that when it's available.

Do you get the streaming app Peacock in Canada? That's how I watched Halloween Kills last time (subscribed and then unsubbed).

I also don't want to see H:Ends in a packed out either, I don't mind going the Peacock route again. Ideally though I'll find a sparsely populated theater.

Even though I watched H:Kills a day after it launched on streaming, the major death at the ending was still spoiled for me. I was browsing Youtube literally 15 minutes before I was going to start Kills, and Youtube recommended me a crappy cell phone camera video with the aforementioned characters death in the title.

I should probably just grow up and realize spoilers are a part of life...

 

[Bone Density]

Do you get the streaming app Peacock in Canada? That's how I watched Halloween Kills last time (subscribed and then unsubbed).

I also don't want to see H:Ends in a packed out either, I don't mind going the Peacock route again. Ideally though I'll find a sparsely populated theater.

Even though I watched H:Kills a day after it launched on streaming, the major death at the ending was still spoiled for me. I was browsing Youtube literally 15 minutes before I was going to start Kills, and Youtube recommended me a crappy cell phone camera video with the aforementioned characters death in the title.

I should probably just grow up and realize spoilers are a part of life...

It happens, man. I just saw the end of Ends by accident.

 

[shadow1]

It happens, man. I just saw the end of Ends by accident.

It already leaked!?

Yikes…

 

[Bone Density]

It already leaked!?

Yikes…

Yeah, some parts. 144p and Spanish, but I could still tell what was going on. The trailers basically gave away the plot anyways,

 

[shadow1]

Yeah, some parts. 144p and Spanish, but I could still tell what was going on. The trailers basically gave away the plot anyways,

Sweet Sassy Molassy!

Yes you’re right about the plot. I pretty much have the entire story worked out in my head at this point.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My only questions are: Does evil die? And if so, when?

 

[Osprey]

My only questions are: Does evil die? And if so, when?

Evil dies tomorrow night! Evil dies tomorrow night!

 

[shadow1]

Halloween: Resurrection (2002) - 2/10

An internet reality show broadcasts from Michael Myers' house on Halloween night.

Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks star as Freddie and Nora, two producers of an online show called "Dangertainment". The two challenge six college students to spend the night in the Myers house, with the goal of figuring out what made him go bad. Among this group is Sara (Bianca Kajlich), who's having second thoughts about joining. As this show will be broadcast live on Halloween night, the participants all wear head cameras detailing their findings, which Sara's friend Deckard (Ryan Merriman) streams from a party. Unfortunately for participants, Michael has returned home.

Halloween: Resurrection was directed by Rick Rosenthal, who returns to the franchise over 20 years after directing Halloween II (1981). Jamie Lee Curtis also returns as Laurie, but despite being plastered all over promotional media, she has a small role.

Similar to Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), Halloween: Resurrection has elements of Scream. Both movies open with a shocking kill, before jumping to a completely different location. Unlike its predecessor though, Halloween: Resurrection's opening is cheesy and hokey, and is slathered with characters taking stupid actions that lead to their deaths.

We then jump one year into the future and dive into the meat of the movie, which is the internet show angle. It stinks. It hypothetically could have been good, but it's not scary at all and there's too much shaky cam. The film is loaded with cardboard cut out characters that are just there to increase the body count, so you have absolutely no investment in these people. Character traits, you ask? One character is a chef, so there's that.

This isn't even a spoiler - there's supposed to be a "twist" in the middle of the movie, where the characters get upset after realizing that Dangertainment "set them up" by staging props in the Myers house. Seriously, I've got bridges all over the world I want to sell these people.

Why would the characters start having sex when they know they're being recorded? Speaking of which, characters die multiple times and it's caught on camera, but the Dangertainment team just happens to be looking away from the screen, or making coffee, or listening to music, or doing who-knows-what. If this film's characters had any sense, the run time would be 10 minutes long.

Busta Rhymes is frequently referenced when discussing how bad this movie is, but the fact is he's not in the film that much. When he is on screen, the scenes generally feature more humor - and some infamously bad one liners - which don't work that well, but they're honestly more entertaining than the rest of the film, which is a drag to sit through.

Regarding Michael Myers himself, his mask looks off. At the time the film came out, it was touted as the most accurate mask since the original, but the face looks a bit scrunchy, and the hair looks too puffy. That's the least of this movie's problems, though.

Overall, Halloween: Resurrection is a terrible movie. It's an extremely boring, soulless film that killed the original continuity of the Halloween series. It boggles my mind how something this bad could get made, when all the studio needed to do to succeed was make a generic slasher film. I'll leave you with a quote from the Master of Horror himself, John Carpenter: "I watched the one in that house, with all the cameras. Oh my god. Oh lord, god. And then the guy gives the speech at the end about violence. What the hell? Oh my lord."

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Do you get the streaming app Peacock in Canada? That's how I watched Halloween Kills last time (subscribed and then unsubbed).

I also don't want to see H:Ends in a packed out either, I don't mind going the Peacock route again. Ideally though I'll find a sparsely populated theater.

Even though I watched H:Kills a day after it launched on streaming, the major death at the ending was still spoiled for me. I was browsing Youtube literally 15 minutes before I was going to start Kills, and Youtube recommended me a crappy cell phone camera video with the aforementioned characters death in the title.

I should probably just grow up and realize spoilers are a part of life...

No idea what Peacock is, but I'll look into it, thx!

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Halloween: Resurrection (2002) - 2/10

An internet reality show broadcasts from Michael Myers' house on Halloween night.

Busta Rhymes and Tyra Banks star as Freddie and Nora, two producers of an online show called "Dangertainment". The two challenge six college students to spend the night in the Myers house, with the goal of figuring out what made him go bad. Among this group is Sara (Bianca Kajlich), who's having second thoughts about joining. As this show will be broadcast live on Halloween night, the participants all wear head cameras detailing their findings, which Sara's friend Deckard (Ryan Merriman) streams from a party. Unfortunately for participants, Michael has returned home.

Halloween: Resurrection was directed by Rick Rosenthal, who returns to the franchise over 20 years after directing Halloween II (1981). Jamie Lee Curtis also returns as Laurie, but despite being plastered all over promotional media, she has a small role.

Similar to Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), Halloween: Resurrection has elements of Scream. Both movies open with a shocking kill, before jumping to a completely different location. Unlike its predecessor though, Halloween: Resurrection's opening is cheesy and hokey, and is slathered with characters taking stupid actions that lead to their deaths.

We then jump one year into the future and dive into the meat of the movie, which is the internet show angle. It stinks. It hypothetically could have been good, but it's not scary at all and there's too much shaky cam. The film is loaded with cardboard cut out characters that are just there to increase the body count, so you have absolutely no investment in these people. Character traits, you ask? One character is a chef, so there's that.

This isn't even a spoiler - there's supposed to be a "twist" in the middle of the movie, where the characters get upset after realizing that Dangertainment "set them up" by staging props in the Myers house. Seriously, I've got bridges all over the world I want to sell these people.

Why would the characters start having sex when they know they're being recorded? Speaking of which, characters die multiple times and it's caught on camera, but the Dangertainment team just happens to be looking away from the screen, or making coffee, or listening to music, or doing who-knows-what. If this film's characters had any sense, the run time would be 10 minutes long.

Busta Rhymes is frequently referenced when discussing how bad this movie is, but the fact is he's not in the film that much. When he is on screen, the scenes generally feature more humor - and some infamously bad one liners - which don't work that well, but they're honestly more entertaining than the rest of the film, which is a drag to sit through.

Regarding Michael Myers himself, his mask looks off. At the time the film came out, it was touted as the most accurate mask since the original, but the face looks a bit scrunchy, and the hair looks too puffy. That's the least of this movie's problems, though.

Overall, Halloween: Resurrection is a terrible movie. It's an extremely boring, soulless film that killed the original continuity of the Halloween series. It boggles my mind how something this bad could get made, when all the studio needed to do to succeed was make a generic slasher film. I'll leave you with a quote from the Master of Horror himself, John Carpenter: "I watched the one in that house, with all the cameras. Oh my god. Oh lord, god. And then the guy gives the speech at the end about violence. What the hell? Oh my lord."

Gotta say that is absurdly generous on your part

My view on film from horror thread a few years ago still stands

What a steaming pile of crap. Everything about it is awful and that includes the kills , acting , setting , etc

The Michael vs Busta Rhymes karate fight was absolutely absurd and just cringingly awful

I got this on DVD and gave it away. That is how much I hate it and I don't bother to watch it during Halloween marathons

Easily one of the worst wastes of my time and disappointments for a horror film

Honestly it has to be one of the worst mainstream/large release horror films if not the worst in history. This was film that could have effectively killed franchise as a theater release series