Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers a.k.a Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers. Directed by Joe Chappelle. Screenplay by Daniel Farrands.
Starring Donald Pleasence, Paul Rudd, Marianne Hagan, Mitchell Ryan, Kim Darby, Bradford English, Keith Bogart, Mariah O’Brien, Leo Geter, J.C. Brandy, Devin Gardner, Susan Swift, and George P. Wilbur. Halloween VI Productions/Miramax/Nightfall/Trancas International Films. Rated R. 87 minutes.
Horror/Thriller

★★
Michael Myers (George P. Wilbur) and his niece Jamie were apparently swept away by a stranger from the Haddonfield Police Department. After six years, a teenage Jamie (J.C. Brandy) is pregnant. Her baby is born on Devil’s Night, the one previous to Halloween. There’s a sort of Druid style cult who takes the child. But a little later, a midwife helps Jamie and her baby get away. Though, Michael is still killing, never stopping.
Jamie gets away and tries to call into a Haddonfield radio station. The DJ ignores her as a ‘crazy’ instead of listening. At the same time, Dr. Samuel Loomis (Donald Pleasence), Dr. Terence Wynn (Mitch Ryan), as well as a grown up Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) hear her over the airwaves. She warns of Michael’s return.
Will the sleepy town of Haddonfield survive another 12 rounds with Muhammad Al-Michael?
Part of everyone’s problem with Halloween VI (that’s what I’ll call it if I reference the title from here on in) is the mythology behind Michael Myers. In the first film, while John Carpenter did instill The Shape with a certain amount of inherent, universal evil, there’s still a completely human aspect to Michael. Regardless how many times he survives death, no matter how impossible it has seemed up until now, Myers is a human. He is a damaged psychopath, driven by his own evil mind. Yet in this movie, as well as beginning in the last one, there’s a supernatural type aspect to his character starting to emerge. I don’t dig it. Honestly, if it were simply a cult worshiping Michael – like a sick serial killer fan club – I would’ve been way more into that. As I said, starting in Halloween V this supernatural stuff comes into play. Not a big fan, at all really. Because part of what I enjoy, or find scary I suppose, about Michael as a slasher villain is that he’s still compelling as a man; just a guy. Nothing against Freddy, or Jason, both of whom I enjoy a good deal. There’s simply a more terrifying aspect to a down to earth killer. Yes, again, there are some unreal aspects to Michael at times. Still, though, I always found him more effective as a true to life serial killing maniac.
On top of all that, there are a few points of the plot I don’t understand whatsoever – why would members of the Strode family ever live in the Myers house? I mean, isn’t that a sensible question to ask? Sure, the brother couldn’t sell, so the husband of this family took it. It still doesn’t make any sense to me why any member of the Strode family would move into that house. Unrealistic to imagine nobody before Loomis ever bothered to go mention it to someone in the family. It’s not a huge plot hole or anything. Just a nonsense bit of the screenplay, one of many, I find fairly ridiculous.
Something I do enjoy at least are the kill scenes. Even fairly simple ones, like when Debra Strode (Kim Darby) gets chopped. That’s actually one of the less gruesome kills of the series. Probably because of how it’s cut, the blood hitting those pristine white sheets on the line right after Michael takes a big golf swing with some sort of bladed weapon – the whole thing is effective, and dare I say fun. Good splash of blood to get things going back on the Myers home turf.
When John Strode (Bradford English) gets it, I’m always amazed at how nasty it gets – one second, Michael’s lifting the big dude up after stabbing him. Then onto the electrical panel he goes, before John’s head explodes into bits. I mean, are you kidding me? Takes anything wild that ever happened before in the Halloween series and surpasses it by a few notches. Not that it’s good, not at all. But wild, certainly. And it’s not cheesy, to my mind. It’s a well-done head explosion. Just in the context of Michael and his kills, crazy as they’ve been in the previous films, this one is a god damn doozy; out of control.
Overall, there’s just a lot of primeval brutality from Michael. Even in the way he stabs people. Then there’s the douchebag guy hosting that big event, his corpse gets put up in a tree with lights around it. Fairly grim, macabre stuff. I dig those things in a slasher horror movie. But aside from the slasher elements in the screenplay, the kills, there’s not a whole lot to admire about the writing in this one. The screenwriter, Daniel Farrands, did a great job with the adaptation of Jack Ketchum’s devastating novel (based on a true case) The Girl Next Door. I can’t say his writing abilities were on point in 1995 with this one, not in the slightest. There’s a ton of typical slasher trope-style material, to the point of nausea. If it weren’t for Joe Chappelle’s decent enough direction so many of the decent horror bits would never have come off as well as they manage to, so really Farrands’ script doesn’t do anyone justice. Now I know there were some major problems throughout development and filming, but still there’s nothing here suggesting his work was destined for greatness either way. Just the whole thing really stinks. Except, as I said, for a few truly good slasher scenes and deaths. Otherwise the whole movie would be completely useless.
So in this movie Paul Rudd is completely ridiculous. Honestly, he’s someone I’ve enjoyed as of late (haven’t seen his Marvel turn; not into superhero movies the past year or two). But back in this ’95 flick, he did some over-the-top nonsense. Not even in his mannerisms, I just feel like there’s a creepy factor to him; an unintended one. Yes, he’s meant to seem like a loner, all that. There’s something about the character of Tommy Doyle that ought to come across as loner-ish, definitely, but in the sense he’s lonely, not a creepy weirdo. And Rudd really does make him feel like a creeper, to me. It’s a weird performance.
Luckily, there’s Donald Pleasence. Even among all the shit, he still manages to do a fine job with the character of Dr. Loomis. In fact, this is probably his best performance as Loomis since Halloween II. Truly, I believe that. In the last couple of entries, I found Pleasence good. Though, there was a bit of hammy stuff starting to come out of him, which is great when called for. What I love about Loomis is his determined nature, his stubborn headed-ness in the face of Michael’s eternal evil. Back comes this aspect of him, a more subtle and restrained performance from Pleasence. It’s a treat to see in a fairly dreary movie, we actually don’t get as much as we should. Part of the entire overlapping problem of this film – it moves further and further away from most of the things which make the series, and Michael in particular, so damn great.
In all, I can give this movie a 2 star rating and not feel bad about it. Those stars are entirely earned through blood and Donald Pleasence. If you’ve frequented this site before, or look up at the top of my page’s screen, you’ll figure out I’m a fan of the Halloween series. There are a few real awesome slasher movies out of the lot, plus Halloween III: Season of the Witch with its own incredibly weird/neat vibe. Then we get a couple mediocre efforts, capped off with a few abysmal entries; this being one in the latter category. Even the music in this one isn’t up to par with any of the mediocre Halloween movies. If you’re a completist, watch this one. If not don’t bother – the next sequel undoes all the nonsense conjured up in this one concerning the Thorn cult, or whatever. You won’t regret seeing it, though, you won’t regret not seeing it either. Your choice. A rainy day might be best for this one.