Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) Reviews

• "I prayed that he would burn in hell. But in my heart, I knew that hell would not have him."

  lost-in-limbo2010-01-18

  No surprises that Michael Myers didn't actually die at the end of "Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers" in a blaze of gun fire, causing him to tumble down a cave and throwing in some dynamite to hopefully finish him off. Well that didn't work, as he barely escapes and finding himself floating down a river to be rescued by some old hermit who looks after him for a year to bring him back to health. Now it's close to Halloween again, Michael awakes to pay him back for his troubles. Myers gets back to his brutal business and heads back to Haddonfield with the intention of killing his niece Jamie. After the horrific ordeal of stabbing her step-mother, she's now at a children's hospital and left with the inability to speak but somehow shares a telepathic link with her uncle to know when he would kill. Dr. Loomis sees this in Jamie and tries everything to get her to use it so he can finally destroy Michael Myers. "Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers" was one of the sequels that I wasn't to fond of when first watched it, but after continuous repeat viewings its slightly growing on me, nonetheless still it's not without its problems in what is an unsatisfying exercise. While a little more grittier being very misogynistic and graphic (which the previous sequel wasn't) with its deaths, it's run-of-the-mill formula fell on the dull, lumpy side with it being less punctuated with grinding suspense and moody atmosphere (as some of it takes place in full daylight) concentrating on visceral unpleasantness and plastered jump scares. This low-budget production feels like a rushed job, and the misguided, wishy washy script just doesn't cut it even with a decent concept for its basis and a few unsettling surprises that caught me off guard. However there are some odd out of character moments involving Michael (toying with his victims, driving after them in what I guess beats slowly walking after them and showing a glimpse of emotion is just to name a few), useless comic routine police officers with ridiculous sound effects backing them up and a cloudy inclusion of a man dressed in black that seems to be following Michael around. The performances are simply mediocre, however the like of Danielle Harris radiates again and Ellie Cornell proves how much of a bold talent she is with a terrifically wholesome turn. Donald Pleasance looks ragged, but he passionately camps it up (with some morbid streaks) to show the obsessive strangle hold Myers has over Loomis' personally and mentally. As now he would do anything to get his man, even risking the life of Jamie to do so. Outside these three, there's not much else. I didn't find the teens here as agreeably likable. Dominique Othenin-Girard's direction is competent, but generically flat with little visual styling (which was an imprint of "Return") and few intensity filled pockets of shocks, which you only wished it could hold it throughout. Still Michael is used unnervingly as a foreshadow within the background of many shots and it always seems to work as he could be lurking anywhere. Also the creative novelty of the film's opening credits is a nice touch. It's more of the same, but an watchable pedestrian slasher blanketed with shocks.

• A disgrace to the "Halloween Series".......

  cny_cd2010-01-27

  This film was incredibly bad on many levels. By the middle of it, honestly I was bored and at times forgot that this was a horror film. This is a movie that should have never been made, and is one of the worst of the series. This film is really for "Halloween" completest only, and is for the most part unwatchable. The storyline that ended "Halloween 4" isn't revisited (with no explanation), and goes in a really strange and awful direction that is continued in the EVEN WORSE film that follows. The whole "man in black" concept is ridiculous and silly, and actually isn't even explained until the next film. The acting is very bad, and Donald Pleasance seems like he is really slowing down and ill throughout the film. I actually felt sorry for him watching this. Do yourself a favor, and don't even waste your time renting this.

• Apart from Pleasence, everyone in the film is just going through the motions.

  G.Spider1999-10-23

  When the original Halloween was made it was scary because of its gritty realism and believable characters. Part 2 was also an edge-of-seater. But by the time you reach this, Part 5, the tension has gone from the series and Michael Myers has descended from a believable shadow-stalking figure into an unkillable Jason 'Friday the 13th' Voorhees clone. For what its worth, the plot of this film involves Myers coming after Jamie, who is now in a childrens' psychiatric hospital after attacking her stepmother. The concept of Jamie having a psychic bond with her deranged uncle is interesting, but it's all completely ruined by the constant unfunny attempts at humour, the tedious padding and the lack of likeable would-be victims. Instead of genuine characters all we have here are Porky-style sex-mad teenagers with nothing approaching an IQ between them. There's even a scene set in a barn similar to the one in some of the Friday the 13th films. And Rachel from Part 4 seems to have been reduced to a stereotype blonde airhead whose only purpose in the film is to run around half-naked before being slaughtered. And why does Myers' mask look nothing like the one he wore in the previous films? One good point in this film is Donald Pleasence, who is at his best as an overwhelming Dr Loomis who dominates his every scene and makes the film worth viewing. There is also an enigmatic Man in the Black Fedora-type figure who leads the film into the far superior Part 6.

• Not my favorite Halloween flick

  Smells_Like_Cheese2005-07-26

  Halloween 5, yeah, this was a disappointment, most fans don't really dig this sequel which is understandable. It is kind of stupid or just plain stupid; this is the story that most horror movie sequels try to rip off, the telepathic powers that get really annoying. It seems like every horror movie sequel has to have it, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street had it, why not include the Halloween franchise as well? Unfortunately I didn't get into it, I think because it was extremely unoriginal and not to mention that the story didn't really continue from the 4th sequel. The ending of Halloween 4 had Jamie turning evil, I guess they just totally dropped that idea which could have been great to see, instead we got a silly and typical horror story that was badly acted, edited, and directed. Michael Myers makes his way into a small shack by the river owned by a local hermit. Once there, Michael collapses and remains in a comatose state for a full year. On October 30th Michael awakens, kills the hermit, and returns to terrorize Haddonfield, where his young niece, Jamie Lloyd continues to live after nearly being killed by Michael the year before. Jamie has been mute since attacking her foster mother at the end of film 4, but exhibits signs of a telepathic link with her evil uncle. Dr. Sam Loomis realizes that this link exists, and plans to use it to put an end to Michael's reign of terror. Michael begins stalking Rachel and her friend Tina. After both are killed Jamie agrees to put herself in danger to help Loomis stop Michael for good. With Jamie's help, Loomis lures Michael back to the old Myers house. Michael makes many attempts at killing Jamie, finally getting the chance to in the attic. Jamie tries appealing to Michael's humanity by calling him "Uncle". Myers pauses, prompting Jamie to ask to see his face. He takes off his mask, and a lone tear runs down his face. Jamie reaches up to wipe it away, and Michael is thrown into a rage. The killer pursues Jamie, who runs into Loomis. The doctor seems to turn on the girl as he shouts for Michael to come and take her. It turns out that he has used the girl as bait, thus leading Michael to walk beneath a heavy chain net. But you have to see what happens next by watching the movie. While granted that this movie isn't the worst movie in the world, I do enjoy the Halloween sequels, I think this was a fall in the story line for the Halloween series. It really could have had a lot of potential, but since they dropped a few ideas that were presented in the previous Halloween sequel. Not to mention this is one of the rare times that I wasn't scared by Michael, he's loosing his touch… no, I can't say that, please I can't say that… it's the writing! It's the blasted writing! So if you wanna see the sequels, yeah, do watch it just to see the story continue, but if you are just looking for a scary movie in general, you can skip Halloween 5. 5/10

• Dumb, Duh-Duh Dumb

  piratecannon2012-12-27

  Halloween 5 takes place one year after its immediate predecessor. We're told in the opening moments that Michael Myers (somehow) survived the onslaught of gunfire that was unleashed upon him by Illinois state troopers at the conclusion of Halloween 4 by crawling out of a sewer drain, floating down a river, and taking shelter in a homeless man's secluded makeshift shanty. Inexplicably, Michael co-exists with this individual for—again—an entire year without incident. Without warning, Michael decides to "off" his caretaker without warning so as to pursue his original plan of finally putting an end to the Myers family name with the murder of his niece, Jamie. I have a few questions about this. First, why was it necessary that the movie take place on year later? Wouldn't it have been more feasible (a relative term given the circumstances to be sure) to have Michael lay unconscious for several days before coming to and continuing his reign of terror? Logistically, having him exist in some sort of comatose state for a full calendar year without food, water, or any kind of nutrition seems like an unnecessary stretch; on the flip side, if he were conscious during that time, why would he wait so long to dispatch of this poor sap who would naturally serve as little more than "creative kill fodder" for the imposing slasher? Any way you slice it (pun intended) it just doesn't make any sense. Given the ridiculousness of how movies of this type play out, I'll concede that such a complaint could be viewed as a moot point. I only dwell on it here because it serves as the perfect example of just the sort of moronic plot developments that plague the fifth outing of the now dwindling franchise. Jamie, having been placed in a juvenile sanitarium for the attempted murder of her foster mother, now has some kind of magical ESP connection with her mask-wearing uncle. It's explained that Michael is actually the one who forced Jamie to brutally stab her mother with a pair of scissors at the conclusion of the fourth film. In fact, any time Michael is about to do what he does best, she wigs out, and the omniscient (and omnipotent) Dr. Loomis swoops in to decipher her writhing and what it means about Michael's next move. Thrown into the mix is some sort of mystic cowboy, clad in all black, who dons the same Druid-ish tattoo as Michael. The guy roams around Haddonfield, keeping tabs on the now grown up boy wonder, never doing anything of particular note (well, that's not entirely true—he does implement a breakout of Michael from the county jail after the perennial sociopath is finally subdued, but this is confusing, odd, and does nothing to advance the story within the framework of the movie). All of this, I suppose, is designed to serve as a lead-in to the sixth film. If you're scratching your head, rolling your eyes, or doing both at the same time, you're not alone. As things progressed, I found myself increasingly frustrated at the missed opportunities of Halloween 5, as the aftermath of the fourth film's conclusion suggested an interesting new direction for the series that is never made tangible. Instead we're forced to endure a stale entry that's full of logical inconsistencies. All of that said, this entry is still superior to Halloween 3, and methinks that's worth at least an extra half star.