So it's no secret that the Halloween franchise has one of the most divided fan bases, since at
12 movies and counting, nobody is gonna have the exact same opinion on how all of the films should
be ranked. But I think if there's one thing that we can (and should) all agree on as a horror community,
it's that there's no greater evil out there to us than that of Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, the infamous
movie-review aggregation website populated by the skewed opinions of film critics who are
notoriously anti-horror. So in this video we're gonna take a look at Rotten Tomatoes consensus
on the entire Halloween franchise, to not only see how they've scored each film individually,
but also in which order they've ranked them from worst to best. What is up scream team, Zack
Cherry here, and if you're as obsessed with horror movies as I am, you might want to consider hitting
that subscribe button and turning on those bell notifications, setting them to all. That way, you can
stay up to date with all my latest content. Just for ____ and gigs, toss this video a thumbs up
and be sure to meet me in the comments down below to let me know how wrong you think Rotten Tomatoes
is in their ranking of the Halloween franchise, by letting me know how you would correctly rank them
instead. Let's get into it. Not really a surprise to me, but i guess kind of a disappointment,
in last place is Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, with a tomato score of 9%. However, if you
take a look at the audience rating that is 37%, so that's a huge difference there. Just looking
at the critics consensus here - Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers trades the simple brutal
effectiveness of the original, for convoluted mysticism, with disastrously dull results. Okay,
they're not wrong in the "convoluted mysticism part", like that is absolutely a hundred percent true. I
don't know if I necessarily agree that the results were "disastrously dull", I think that it's still a
pretty entertaining movie for as stupid and crazy as it is. Do I necessarily think that this is the
worst movie of the franchise? No, absolutely not. I know this is not everyone's favorite, but I don't
know if this is everyone's least favorite. There's definitely other movies that I would have expected
to be below The Curse of Michael Myers, but even looking at that 9% versus 37% audience
score, it seems like the fans don't agree with the critics on this. In 11th place is Halloween 5:
The Revenge of Michael Myers. Now obviously I'm a huge fan of this movie. I know that it is bad, but I
really love it in spite of that. You know, this is my guiltiest pleasure of all time. 12%? I don't
really think that that is necessarily fair, especially in terms of what is coming
after this, but again, this has the exact same audience score as The Curse of Michael Myers at 37%.
Critics consensus - Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers finds the series embracing crude
slasher conventions with pedestrian scares, disposable characters, and aimless plotting.
Again, I can't disagree with any of that. They're totally right on the money there, but still 12%?
I would say that this maybe at the weakest deserves to be like 40%. I'm looking at this
on a 100% scale, so if we're ranking this 1 to 10 that means that Curse of Michael Myers
has less than 1 out of 10, and The Revenge of Michael Myers also has 1 out of 10, just over
1 out of 10. Even like the worst horror movies I've seen... I mean, I don't think I've rated
anything below a 3 because i know that movies that are worse than that I'm just never gonna
touch. This all goes to show that film critics in general just don't really understand the
horror genre. They don't really have any point or basis of comparison. There's so many complexities
and nuances to the horror genre, and they don't understand that because they're lumping all of
these movies together. Like for example, I'm gonna look up... Umm let's see... Okay here's a great example.
Black Christmas 2019. This is probably like the worst horror movie I've seen in the recent years
that i can recall seeing a really bad horror movie, but Rotten Tomatoes has scored this at a
39. So that's 39! You could fit three Halloween 5s into that score, and you can fit four Curse of
Michael Myers. It just goes to show that these people have no idea what they're talking about.
All right, here we go. This is what we came here for! In 10th place is Halloween: Resurrection, and it's
got 12%, so this is exactly the same as Halloween 5. This does have a much lower audience score at
25%, so at least I'm thankful that horror fans know what's up. "The only thing this tired slasher flick
may resurrect is nostalgia for when the genre was still fresh and scary". That's a really short blurb.
I feel like there's so much else that could be said about this movie. Like that's that's the
thing about Halloween: Resurrection that as bad as it is, it does invite a lot of conversation. Because
there is so much that's bad about it that, you know, I feel like you could go on for hours. But when
they say "resurrect nostalgia" like when i watch Halloween: Resurrection, I don't even feel nostalgic
for anything. I just feel nauseous, really, from all that freakin' shaky camera, 360p resolution. That's
terrible! They literally put no effort or thought into it. Like it's it's not even an actual script,
they just went off of the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis had this contract where she said that she
wanted to get killed off. She was only obligated to give them I think 10 seconds or something like
that, and she ended up giving them 13 minutes. But even in those 13 minutes, how much screen
time does she actually appear in that entire block of time? And how many lines does she actually have?
So there's nothing really nostalgic about anything that's going on with her there. The rest of the
movie was pretty much just a spec script that was turned into Halloween. Everything with the
internet reality show, like that was just writers coming up with ideas. There's nothing nostalgic
or original about this. This was basically just made for "today's" audience, and when i say "today"
obviously I mean 2002. But I don't know, most people that I talk to, or at least comment to me,
do say that this is the worst of the franchise. So if you do think that it's better than 5 and 6,
let me know. All right, huge jump in numbers here... well not huge, but significant
compared to what we had before, because at 22%, and I guess in 9th place is Rob
Zombie's Halloween II. And this has the highest audience score yet, with 44%, so a lot of people
did like this a lot better. Again, this is another movie that I only ever hear really negative things
about, so it's interesting that this does have a little bit higher of an audience score and a lot
higher of a critic score. "Zombie shows flashes of vision in the follow-up to his Halloween reboot,
but they're smothered by mountains of gore and hackneyed brutal violence". Again, I agree with
everything that they're saying here. I don't necessarily think that the mountains of gore
and the brutal violence are what is holding this movie back from being better, I think
it was just a little too different for what the Halloween franchise needed to be. In that
regard, I could see why they might rate this one a little bit better because they appreciate his
artistic flair, I guess. In 8th place, not too far up from that, with a 28% score is Halloween 2007,
obviously Rob Zombie's. Again, with a much higher audience rating here at 59%. So this is the
most popular movie out of everything so far. That's a six percent jump on the tomato meter, and a 15%
jump for audience score. "Rob Zombie doesn't bring many new ideas to the table in Halloween, making
it another bloody disappointment for fans of the franchise". I actually disagree with this
consensus. I mean, I don't love this movie, I have it ranked pretty low myself because i'm not a
fan of Rob Zombie, but to say that he doesn't bring many new ideas to the table is kind of
an understatement. Because the entire first half of the movie is a new idea. I don't think that
it works, but you can't fault him for making the exact same movie that John Carpenter did.
Like every other remake that came out at the same time as Halloween's was pretty much just the same
thing, and he has the distinction of doing his own thing. And actually, I respect him for that,
you know, if I had to respect him for anything. And even as far as saying it's a
"bloody disappointment for fans of the franchise", I wouldn't say that is a disappointment in terms of
the bloodiness, but maybe more so in terms of the suspense, and atmosphere, and mood and all that
stuff. Okay, this one, people are going to be really salty on, but what's interesting is that this
is the first match I have with Rotten Tomatoes, because in 7th place we both had Halloween 4:
The Return of Michael Myers. And interestingly, this has 29%, so it has one percentage point higher than
Rob Zombie's Halloween. But for an audience score it has 52%, so the audience prefers Rob Zombie's
Halloween by seven percentage points. That's pretty crazy! "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers
may bring the series' masked killer back into the fold, but fails to offer the visceral scares
and inventiveness of the original." Yeah, I mean I don't agree or disagree, I think that this movie
is very middle of the road. This one does feel to me like the closest thing to the original
so I can understand why they would compare the two. I'm just shocked that not only are the critics
rating this 29%, because i thought that this would be much higher, but also that audience
only score this at 52%. So that means that at this point, Rob Zombie's Halloween is still
the best movie according to the audience. I'm also not surprised that out of the three thorn trilogy
movies, that this is the most well received. Like that's pretty much expected, but I guess
my shock is that we're still halfway through the franchise and we haven't gone above
a 50% or even a 40% or a 30% for a Rotten Tomatoes score. Okay, this one cuts deep. We've got 31%
for Halloween II. However, we've got an audience score of 63%, so this is actually good, like you can
see the popcorn bag is full, so at this point Halloween II is winning for audience and critics
out of the seven movies that we've gone through so far. "Halloween II picks up where its predecessor
left off, and quickly wanders into a dead end that the franchise would spend decades struggling to
find its way out of." Okay, umm... I guess that's in regard to the brother/sister storyline, which I
mean to be fair, it was done here first, but it really was Halloween 4 that kind of took it in
that direction and really made it a family thing for Michael Myers. Because, ya know, Halloween III
did its own thing, and you know they don't really mention that here because obviously
the franchise did try to do something different and people didn't respond positively to it. But
realistically, does it really bother people that much that there's this plot twist where we find
out that they're related? I mean, even if it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, does it ruin the
entire movie for you? Honestly, I want to know. I don't think it was necessary, it just kind of
came about from John Carpenter drinking too much while he was writing the script, and not knowing
what to do with the last act. The thing that this consensus neglects to mention is that at the time
this was made, there was no plan to go on with an entire franchise of Michael Myers. John Carpenter
did specifically write this to be the last movie, that's why he put this silly plot twist in, because
he didn't think that it was going to go on for a 3 or a 4 or a 5. So i don't think it's a fair
criticism to say that this wanders into a dead end. I think this wanders into a territory of generic
slasher movies for sure. I think that it's still better than most of those generic slasher movies,
but this entire consensus is just predicated on that one fact. Like it's just talking about
where the franchise goes from this point. They're not even talking about the movie. I think this
deserves more credit, like the audience score, that's fine. I can respect 63%. But 31%,
like that's disappointing. All right, this is gonna piss some people off, but in fifth5thplace we've got
Halloween III: Season of the Witch. And this is 41% for a *tomatometer* score, so that's a full ten percent
over Halloween II. It's still a rotten score, and if we look at the audience score, that's 27%,
So again, that's about half of the audience score of Halloween 4, which was a 29% according to
critics. So it just goes to show that none of this makes any sense. "It's laudable deviation from
series formula notwithstanding, Halloween III: Season of the Witch offers paltry thrills and
dubious plotting." Like what do these people want?! They've given this 10% more than Halloween II
but say that it "offers poultry thrills and dubious plotting" and again, like Halloween II,
this one also has a huge separation between the audience score and the critics score. I
am surprised that this one is ranked so much higher up than the other movies though, but
I do appreciate that though. I just don't think that it's 41%. All right, 4th place we've
got Halloween Kills, and we still have 41%, so it's exactly the same as Season of the Witch, it's still
a rotten score. We've got an audience score of 66%, so that's the highest so far, it's just a few
percentage points above Halloween II. "Halloween Kills should satisfy fans in search of brute
slasher thrills, but in terms of advancing the franchise, it's a bit less than the sum of its
bloody parts." And then it's funny, the audience consensus is "Halloween Kills doesn't do much to
move the michael myers saga forward, but viewers looking for hardcore horror violence won't be
disappointed." So basically they're saying the same thing, but they're separated by 25%.
I don't think that Halloween Kills is a 41%. I actually would be more inclined to go more
towards what the audience is saying. So I don't agree with the critics score, but I do again agree
with what they're saying. Like I think that this is going to be satisfying for people who are, ya know,
looking for more of the blood and slasher kills. But it's true, this movie doesn't really advance
the franchise or even the trilogy, so I do agree with them there. All right, 3rd place,
Halloween H2O. Again, we're still rotten here . We've got 52%, but we have gotten over that 50%
threshold. Audience score is 49%. That actually might be the closest that the audience and the critics
have come to agreeing. It's odd that the critics do like this one a little bit more than the audience
does because when this one came out it was really popular. Everyone loved H2O and I
think that that is because it was very Scream-esque, and Scream was super popular at the time. And
it didn't age as well as say Scream did, and that's why people probably look at it like it's
not that great today. "Halloween H2O is the best of the many sequels, yet still pales
in comparison to the original Halloween." Okay, so obviously everything is gonna pale in comparison
to the original Halloween. No critic, or fan, or anyone should go into any one of these sequels
and use that as a point of reference to how you're gonna grade this movie. John Carpenter's Halloween
was over 40 years ago, like there's never going to be anything like that again. There's never
going to be anything in the franchise as good as that. Ya know, there will be movies that people
might enjoy more than it, but you can't go into every new Halloween expecting it to be
as good as, if not better, than that movie. Because that's just an unrealistic
expectation. Okay, huge leap here, and we've got a fresh tomato score here. With 79%
is Halloween (2018), and the audience score is 70%, so again that's pretty close, but let's see what the critics
consensus is saying. "Halloween largely wipes the slate clean after decades of disappointing sequels,
ignoring increasingly elaborate mythology in favor of basic, yet still effective ingredients." I
can't say that I disagree with this consensus. I think that they're right about the ignoring of the
elaborate mythology, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the decisions made in 2018
were basic or effective, because they kind of went into their own little thing there that
did cause a lot more problems than they were wiping clean. I'm honestly not surprised that this
is ranked second for Rotten Tomatoes. I could see the critics gravitating more towards this
because it is more polished and looks better, and the fact that it did ignore the other sequels. But
I'm questioning like are the critics saying this is good because it's good (and not to say that
it's not good), but I mean, are they actually like praising this movie, or are they just giving it
praise because it's negating the other movies that they think are not good? Oh and surprise, surprise,
1st place is Halloween, obviously. 96%, that is a little bit higher than what the audience is
giving it at 89%. "Scary, suspenseful, and viscerally thrilling. Halloween set the standard for modern
horror films." Pretty basic, that's what I expected they would say, and yeah, I agree with that. I'm very
curious as to who this four percent is of critics who did not like this movie. I think that Halloween
is a perfect movie, like that's a 10 out of 10 for me ,so I guess I would rate this 100%. I have no
reason to deduct a single percentage point here or there, like just giving it an arbitrary
number like 98% for example. This is a hundred percent, but I still think that there's value
in the other movies, that I would never rate them as low as the critics have here.
If you're interested to see my video ranking this franchise, I just did that, I'll link it
over here. I'm sure in the future I'll do more of these Rotten Tomato ranking analysis videos for
other franchises, so stay tuned for that. Until next time, I've been Zack Cherry, and I'll be right back.