By the latter part of the 1980s, the best days of the slasher movie genre were well behind it. These movies still drew decent numbers at the box office, but by this point, fans of the genre were just waiting to see how the next installments topped the previous ones. The films had become rather cliché. It was at this point in time that the producers decided to bring back the Halloween franchise and along with it, the villain of the first two installments, Michael Myers.
I was a big fan of the slasher and splatter horror genres in my teenage years. I always would see each new installment in each franchise as soon as I could, seeing Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger as anti-heroes as I cheered on their body counts. I always viewed the Halloween films as being in a different class than the others, though. The original Halloween served as a blueprint for the slasher films to come, and while Halloween II was made due to the popularity of the genre its predecessor inspired and wasn't quite up to par with the original, it still served as an example of what its imitators could be. The fact that the third installment took place in a completely different reality from the first two films set the franchise apart from the others even more, in that you didn't have to focus on the killer from a previous film in order to carry on with the series.
When Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers was released, I was excited for the return of a series I loved and for the return of the original villain, even if it fell into that cliché of the killer who always returns from an apparent death. I can't say I was disappointed with the film, but I definitely was left with some mixed feelings. I didn't know it at the time, but this film was the first in a sort of trilogy of increasingly confusing films that ultimately had to have their continuity abandoned for a number of reasons. As flawed as this film and its two sequels are, I have developed a weird sort of fondness for them. They all came close to getting it right, either by design or by accident, but never quite hit the mark. I'll address the rest of this trilogy over the coming week; today I'll look at how Halloween 4 got the trilogy pointed in a fun yet confusing and ultimately unsalvageable direction.
When we last left Michael Myers, he was on fire. Literally, he was on fire. Dr. Loomis ignited a room full of oxygen, presumably killing himself and Michael, who had also just been blinded by a gunshot to each eye. Michael managed to walk out of the inferno, but soon collapsed as the fire continued to burn his body. Ten years pass and we find Michael is merely in a coma with bandages covering his burned body, and we also discover Dr. Loomis is alive and just has some scars from the burns but is otherwise in decent shape. What's more, we soon discover Michael's eyesight seems to have been completely restored. This is a lot to take in if you're a continuity-minded individual, but it's really nothing new in genre horror. The old Universal monster movies of the 1930s and 1940s always found a way to bring back the monster for another sequel, though for the most part the monsters were the product of some supernatural or super-scientific force. At this point, no such explanation had been given for Michael's resilience, but we can only assume he has some sort of regenerative ability. Since Dr. Loomis survived (perhaps that coat was asbestos-lined) you can maybe buy that Michael's burns weren't as bad as they looked, but how do you explain the eyes? I suppose it's possible that both bullets hit that perfect spot where he was only temporarily blinded but didn't actually damage his eyes or go into his brain. Either way, there's a lot here that you just have to accept and move past. So let's do that.
One thing this film got right was the opening. The opening credits set a mood for the film that makes you feel like it's Halloween in the Midwest. Of course it's actually a little further west than Illinois, but if you can ignore the eye thing, you can ignore the mountains in the background. I'm glad they didn't try to do another imitation of the original opening, as the attempt at it in Halloween II just didn't have the same feel as the original. Uniformity is good to an extent, but freshness is better.
Soon after Michael learns he has a niece, he is on the loose again and Dr. Loomis arrives on the scene. The relationship between Michael and Dr. Loomis is is a huge part of my fondness for this trilogy. There is an element of Van Helsing to the Dr. Loomis character. Loomis knows the evil that threatens the town, the people of Haddonfield would be at a distinct disadvantage without Dr. Loomis. To have a worthwhile Michael Myers film, you need to have either Laurie Strode or Dr. Loomis present to counter Michael. That direct link to the first film is necessary, otherwise it's just Michael finding new people to kill. Friday The 13th does that just fine, there's no need to imitate the imitator. So bringing back Dr. Loomis was the right decision, especially with the absence of the Laurie Strode character.
As a side note, Dr. Loomis gets one great scene in this film that deserves mentioning in any review or critique. After his first encounter with Michael, Loomis walks toward Haddonfield and hitches a ride with Reverend Jackson P. Sayer, who recognizes Loomis as a fellow pilgrim hunting evil. The scene is not vital to the story, but it's effective. Two lone crusaders' paths cross briefly and share a drink as they prepare for what lies ahead. One can argue that there was a missed opportunity here, not having Sayer reappear later on in the film, but perhaps it's better as-is. No greater purpose, just a chance encounter with another man chasing his own evil, whether it's real or imagined, parting ways shortly thereafter to face their individual fates. But I digress...
This film carries on the family plot line established in Halloween II, so for those following along, this is the 1-2-4-5-6 continuity. I'm fine with that, as at this point in time, this is the only line of continuity that had been established. Laurie Strode has apparently died off screen, so her daughter Jamie takes her mom's place as Michael's target. This film differs from its predecessors in that it's not clear if Michael's intention is to kill his niece. There appears to be a connection between Jamie and her uncle, seeing him in her dreams without knowing it's her uncle who is appearing to her, and choosing a clown costume to wear for Halloween just as he wore when he killed his sister. In the end, some part of Michael seems to get passed onto Jamie before he is defeated, causing Jamie to attack her foster mother with a pair of scissors and stand there emotionless just as Michael did all those years ago.
The surprise ending is the most memorable part of this film. It took the family aspect established in Halloween II and went a different direction with it. Having the killer in a slasher film series change from an established favorite to a young girl is a bold step, and one for which audiences in 1988 might not have been ready. I can't recall if there was much controversy around that ending back then, but I do remember thinking that this could be an intentional misdirection. The next film would have to either be a very different sort of film, or else a fake out like Friday The 13th Part V. We are left with no body at the end, so it could go either way.
While this chapter has its good points, its flaws can't be ignored. It's difficult to describe the underlying flaw here, but one way I look at it is it's not a "pure" Halloween film, its as much a Michael Myers film as it is a Halloween. It makes it easier to understand when you look at the original run of the franchise in sections: the first three were Halloween films, four through six were part Halloween and part Michael Myers films, while the last two were just Michael Myers films. Even if they take place on Halloween, the latter entries have completely lost the feel or the originals in favor of being slasher films featuring Michael. This film and its trilogy mates fall somewhere in between.
With Halloween 4 we were given a film that had many of the elements it needed to take the series in the right direction. A symbolic new beginning with the opening credits, a bridge to the past with Loomis (and Tommy and Lindsey though they are played by different actors and completely inconsequential to the plot), and a passing of the torch to the next generation. Even with the film being lackluster in comparison to the original, it held promise that it could go to exciting new places. So what happened?
Beginning with this film, a trend started where different writers and directors were chosen for each new Halloween film. The director for this movie, Dwight Little, came from an action movie background, and this was writer Alan McElroy's first feature script. John Carpenter had nothing to do with this franchise anymore, and nothing suggests this new creative team had his extensive understanding of the series or its characters. This writer and director did a decent job, especially given a rushed script due to a writers guild strike, and perhaps if they were retained for future installments, something better would have come from the sequels. Instead we have a "what happens next" type of storytelling through the different sequels. There is no grand vision here.
I really wanted to like this film more than I did. Even with all it had working in its favor, I left the theater feeling like I watched just another late 1980s slasher sequel. However, the ending left me thinking I might see something very different when the next movie came out... Might. Of course, I was wrong. While Halloween 4 fell short of my expectations, the future of the franchise still looked hopeful. The next film, unfortunately, would put the first nail in the coffin of this branch of continuity. Several nails, perhaps.
Update: In the time since I first wrote this article, I became aware of another sub-continuity that some prefer. Instead of looking at this as part of a continuing line, some would suggest that a simple 1-2-4 continuity is all that is necessary. It becomes a simple story about how evil never really dies. In this trilogy, Loomis meets a young boy who is irredeemably evil, devotes his life to neutralizing this threat, and when he finally thinks he has succeeded, it comes full circle and starts again with Jamie. We don't need the story to continue after that because the point has been made. If the series had ended there, I believe the opinions of the series as a whole would be more positive. I doubt they would have been brave enough to try a different story with part five, as there would certainly be those who wanted to see Jamie as the killer, but that already happened with the fifth film that we got.