Sarentrol Masterful Cinema

Ploydsge just watch it!

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Gresh854 Okay, wow. That was a lot better than the previous three Halloween movies. I wouldn't necessarily say Halloween H20: 20 Years Later was good, but it was certainly far from bad. What really prevailed this one from previous sequals were it's attempts to be more compelling which, for the most part, work fittingly. The dynamic relationship between Laurie Strode's character (it was so refreshing to see her back!) and her son John, really amplified the film's quality. It's worth noticing that we've been given a significantly improved and more mature screenplay compared to the four previous entries. However, the scares haven't truly improved, and suffers from leaving most of its trepidations up to cheap jump scares. It also suffers from trying to be more modernized and blockbuster-like, which is derivative because the element that made the first two Halloween movies special was their more claustrophobic and low-budgeted atmospheres. However, the final confrontation between Laurie and Michael was intoxicating and unbelievably satisfying. Despite its flaws and inability to break positive, new boundaries in the horror genre, I was still able to thoroughly relish this entry in the Halloween franchise. (Verdict: C+)

jordansepticeye I'm not saying I hate Season Of The Witch,I loved it,it's just that if you think about it,this is the real Halloween III.First,the good,Jamie Lee Curtis,her character is well written and well acted,this movie is the perfect closure for her,and it's even cooler that this movie was all her idea.The kills are cool,and there is still some good suspenseful scenes.The acting is good,and I like all the horror movie references.My last and biggest pro,the ending,it was perfect and unexpected.Now,the cons,I think that the movie feels a bit too dated,it could have been a bit longer,and there isn't enough Michael.My last con,is the fact that the previous three movies are completely ignored!That means that so many fans were just left out.Otherwise,Halloween H2O is a fun movie that should have been slower.

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.)

Leofwine_draca Yet another HALLOWEEN sequel, this one directed by Steve Miner, the guy responsible for Friday the 13th Part 2 and HOUSE. As to be expected, it's not much cop, following the modern horror conventions too closely and therefore failing to generate any surprise or thrills by the fact that we already know what's coming. The plot is terrible, with events which occur not being explained or explainable, and details being passed by or glossed over in favour of dumping the cast and the killer in a deserted school.Watching this film, you will spot many take-offs of other movies (Michelle Williams looking out of the window and seeing Michael just like Curtis did in HALLOWEEN). The director would call these "homages", I myself call them "lack of ideas". Also, surprisingly, there are many continuity errors and mistakes. I wish they could have taken a little more time to polish things instead of rushing this out and leaving all the errors in, it really makes the editors look incompetent.While no actor is particularly bad, nobody really shines in this film. Adam Arkin (in some medical television series I believe) is pretty bland as Curtis' grey-haired lover who wears jumpers just like my old grandad. LL Cool J lends some comic relief as he recites erotic stories to his wife on the phone, but this humour is out of place in a HALLOWEEN film and just doesn't fit. Can someone explain to me how he was shot seven or eight times (twitching as the bullets entered his body) and yet manages to survive? The last we see of him is his corpse, laying in a pool of blood and riddled with bullets, then he returns at the end to tell us that the bullets only 'grazed' him. Yeah, right.The young cast are all pretty bad and sort of merge into one, nobody is memorable. Michelle Williams is in fact awful as a female token love interest, but to be fair she is given literally nothing to do in the story apart from run around. The only one who's at least partially adequate is Josh Hartnett who plays Laurie's tough son, he manages to be both believable and likable. Unfortunately he is in it too little, as Jamie Lee Curtis dominates the film. Much has been made of how Curtis puts in a brilliant portrayal of an alcoholic woman plagued by nightmares, but to be honest she wasn't that brilliant. Good, perhaps, but not brilliant, and her performance was definitely not enough to make this film into a classic.Which leaves us with Michael himself. Once again he's played by a different actor and he's even more absurd this time around, with his spiky hair bushing around the sides of his mask. Excuse me? Not the Michael I know, get yourself a haircut man. Unfortunately the camera dwells on his eyes far too often, making him not in the least bit scary, for as they say, the eyes are the windows to the soul. The murders are all clichéd and generic, the only good bit being where a girl has her leg broken and nearly ripped off. Otherwise it's the typical slashings and stabbings which we've seen millions of in these past few years.Leave it to Kevin Williamson to pepper the film with unwanted in-jokes. Janet Leigh has the PSYCHO music playing, while characters watch SCREAM and SCREAM 2 on televisions. These I could have done without; this is meant to be a horror film, not a comedy horror like SCREAM was. What an arrogant fellow that Williamson seems to be. There are other elements which are pretty nauseating too, like a poor actor doing an impression of Donald Pleasence (they dedicated the film to him, but managed to spell his name wrong in the process!). HALLOWEEN H20: TWENTY YEARS LATER is better than the previous sequel (thanks to a refreshingly short running time), but even so it's only average at best, marred by one too many false jumps and a lack of real scares.