Valley Girl (1983)

I’ve been meaning to write a review about Valley Girl for sometime now, but it’s always eluded me as to how to approach this movie.  On the surface it is a silly teen comedy, but there are a lot of interesting things going on.  It’s a movie that is not only about cultural differences but generational ones as well.  Valley Girl was originally conceived as being a cheap exploitation movie designed to make quick buck at the box office; the fact that it turned out to be a genuinely good movie was just icing on the cake.  In many ways, Valley Girl is a pre-cursor to the John Hughes comedies of the 80s; the romance between the two leads (Julie and Randy) is threatened by Julie’s social status – her best friends don’t approve of Randy and want her to get back together with Tommy, the high school hunk.  Julie is from the Valley (the suburbs), Randy is from the city (Hollywood) and her friends view him as a threat; he is a total outsider and doesn’t belong in their clique. (At my high school, dating a person from another high school was practically an act of treason).  Julie and her friends spend their free time at the mall and going to cliquey parties, while Randy’s idea of idea of a good time is cruising the streets and hanging out at a night club.  Julie is a total preppy, Randy is a punk rocker.  The movie is a modern day Romeo and Juliet (there’s even an embarrassing, none too subtle, shot of the two them exiting a theatre showing Romeo and Juliet. Just in case you missed the analogy). 

 I usually get annoyed when teen comedies contrive away to keep the lovers apart, but in Valley Girl, it feels natural to the story and is done in a believable way.  Julie loves spending time with Randy and wants to stay with him, but she also doesn’t want to alienate her best friends, so she throws away a shot a true love just so she can fit in with the crowd. 

Valley Girl is not without its share of flaws. Though, they are more awkward than they are fatal.  The most obvious is the rather superfluous subplot involving Suzi’s stepmother, Beth, and Suzi’s potential boyfriend, Skip.  Beth sees Skips at the party and views him as a sexual conquest, despite him being significantly younger.  Beth has essentially turned into a Mrs. Robinson-type character; something she probably would not have foreseen in her youth (especially considering Mrs. Robinson was a symbol of the older, sexually repressed generation).  Basically, Skip is torn between pursing a relationship with Suzi or, having a one night stand with her, extremely attractive, stepmother.  This subplot does fit into the generational gap theme that is prevalent throughout the movie; Beth would have been a teenager during the sexual revolution and is, not surprisingly, far more sexually aggressive than the horny Skip.  It also serves as a homage to The Graduate; a movie that was popular among the baby boomers.  It was the movie that “defined the generation.”  I have two problems with this subplot. The first problem is a personal one – I’m not a big fan of The Graduate.  Hence, the scenes between Beth and Skip come off as fairly contrived and awkward to me.  I GET IT! You want to pay homage to an iconic movie, but these scenes could easily have been trimmed from the movie. The second problem I have is that the stakes are pretty low – I really don’t care which of the two women Skip chooses, largely because he is such a dim character.  It also doesn’t help that out of Julie’s three friends, Suzi is probably the least interesting.  

 

I think the movie would have benefitted by having more scenes of Julie’s friends pressuring her into breaking up with Randy.  We get a short scene of the girls having a sleepover and each of Julie’s friends make a few pointed jabs at Randy, but that’s about it.  The next thing you know Julie is contemplating whether or not she should break up with Randy. There could have been an additional scene of her classmates at school giving her a few dirty looks or, maybe have a scene where her friends give her the silent treatment.  I also would have liked a scene at the end where Julie finally tells off her friends, instead of having Randy doing all the heavy lifting.  It is also odd that the subplot between Tommy and Loryn (Julie’s best friend) kind of fizzles out.  Tommy seduces Loryn at the party and, after she asks if they are a couple, he puts the guilt trip on her by saying how terrible she is for fooling around with her best friend’s ex-boyfriend. He essentially blackmails her into silence.  When Julie contemplates getting back together with Tommy, Loryn briefly expresses her doubts but then goes along with it. Then she is back to her perky self for the rest of the movie.  It is an odd p set up!  The seduction scene basically exists to show the audience what a terrible guy Tommy is (and show some topless female nudity), but it never comes back to bite Tommy in the ass.  These flaws would have destroyed a lesser movie but  Valley Girl is such a likable movie that easily overcomes them. 

What really sells Valley Girl is the amazing onscreen chemistry between its two leads, Nicolas Cage and Deborah Foreman.  Martha Coolidge states in her commentary that Cage and Foreman became romantically involved during production, so that explains why their onscreen romance is so believable.  It also helps that Coolidge knows how to stage a love scene. For instance, in their early scenes together Julie and Randy almost always maintain eye contact.  They are absolutely entranced by each other’s presence; the world around them disappears.  Also, Coolidge is able to convey a sense of intimacy by shooting their dialogue scenes in close up (with the actors’ eye lines looking in the right direction). These are very simple tricks but they are incredibly effective.  

Nicolas Cage is has become famous for his often over the top performances (which, depending on the movie can either be entertaining or embarrassing) but I really do like him in this movie.  His eccentricities suit the character of Randy well; I especially like the little dance he does after saying good night to Julie.  The interesting thing about Cage is that he isn’t your typical Hollywood leading man (especially in this movie) he has a rather long face, is a bit lanky, and (in this movie) has slightly crooked teeth, but his screen presence is undeniable.   The appeal of Nicolas Cage is his unpredictability. You never know what you are going to get with him.  Whether you like him or not he is truly one of a kind. 

Randy is also truly one of a kind, because like Cage, he just goes for broke.  He is absolutely determined to win Julie over, even if it means another potential ass kicking at the hands of Tommy. The movie does a nice job of setting up his character when, after he has been kicked out of a party, Randy sneaks into the house through the second story bathroom window and patiently waits in the shower for Julie to make an appearance.  What if Julie didn’t walk into the bathroom, then what would have Randy done?  After Julie finally makes her long overdue appearance, Randy reveals himself to her and invites her for a night out on the town.  She is charmed by his determination and accepts (on the provision that she can bring her friend, Stacey, with her).  This brief moment tells us a lot about these two characters: Randy will do anything to be Julie and won’t allow anyone to stand in his way. Julie is a bit more conservative in her worldview; the prospect of “shaking things up” does excite her but she doesn’t want to stray too far from her comfort zone.  The fact that going into “the city” is the most rebellious act she has ever committed indicates she has lived a sheltered life (despite having radicals as parents).  

Deborah Foreman never crossed over into mainstream success (her filmography consists of largely low budget movies), and retired from acting at a fairly young age, but she is absolutely radiant in the role of Julie.  She just seems to glow whenever she is onscreen (I attribute this largely to her wonderful smile). Julie is an interesting character: She has become so good at playing the role of this ditzy, materialistic teenager that it has become a comfort zone. It is something she can always fall back on and, most refreshing of all, it requires little effort on her part.   In the first scene, she breaks up with Tommy with relative ease like he is the equivalent to an old pair of shoes.  In her worldview, a boyfriend is merely an accessory.  Tommy is something she can brag to her friends about and makes her feel good when she goes out; but like accessories he eventually becomes tiresome.  Julie complains that their relationship is no longer fun, but rather than work through the problem she would rather get a new boyfriend.  The movie lets Julie off the hook by making Tommy a first rate douche bag, but her attitude in the opening scene is a bit appalling; she bumps into Tommy at mall and publicly breaks up with him without a tiny bit of remorse. She is already making plans to move onto the next high school hunk, Brad.  Her friends are a bit puzzled by her decision (as Tommy is such a hunk) but they accept it and even enable Julie’s behavior…..UNTIL SHE STARTS DATING RANDY!  It is a credit to Foreman that, despite all I mentioned, Julie is a rather endearing character.  

 

At first, Julie’s main reason for dating Randy is simply that he is the complete opposite of Tommy.  Randy is completely different from any guy she has ever met.  Yet, as the night goes on it becomes obvious that they have formed a pretty tight bond.  The only obstacle that really stands in Julie’s way is her disapproving friends, who peer pressure her into breaking up with Randy.  When they are having a sleepover, her friends use this opportunity to take all sorts of pot shots at Randy.  They also guilt trip Julie over the fact that she has been spending less time with them.   Julie eventually gives into the pressure and calls it off with Randy, and gets back together with Tommy.  It is a terrible decision on her part, but an understandable one (she is a teenager, after all).  What I really love about Deborah Foreman’s performance is her ability to listen. This may seem like an odd compliment but too often actors are so focused on memorizing their cues that they fail to react to the person that is speaking.  This is a staple of many bad movies; the lead actor will be saying his lines and the people around him look like they’re about to fall asleep.  Or, it looks like they are trying to remember whether or not they closed the garage door.  With Deborah Foreman, it is her reactions, more so than the dialogue, which says everything you need to know.  On their first date at the club, they speak a lot of gibberish (Randy makes fun of the music Julie likes and other trivial stuff) but they just can’t take their eyes off each other.  There’s also a great attention to detail in this scene: the two of them have to shout over the loud music just to be heard.  If you have ever been to a night club, you can easily relate to this moment.  

If Julie is attracted to Randy because he is different, then the reason Randy is attracted to Julie is that she represents normalcy to him.  Randy may openly scoff at Julie for being part of the status quo, but there is also a sense that he secretly envies her.  Julie comes from a fairly tight knit family; her parents maybe unusual but they also genuinely care about her.  On the other hand, Randy’s parents are nonexistent.  The movie never shows Randy’s parents but given that he spends most of nights at a club (he’s on a first name basis with the bouncer) it can be deduced that he comes from a broken home. His parents are either divorced, or (even worse) fairly indifferent towards him.  The fact that he always picks Julie up at her home, and never invites her over to his house, speaks volumes on his feelings towards his parents.  It is a neat touch that, the day after their memorable first date, Randy shows up the health food store owned by Julie’s parents and is extremely cordial to her father.  This is a far cry from most movie rebels who avoid their girlfriend’s parents like the plague.  Julie is a bit embarrassed by her parents’ business but Randy is pretty okay with it. It also helps that Julie’s father, who was a rebel in his youth, is fairly accepting of Randy.  If he has any reservations about his daughter dating a punk rocker, it certainly doesn’t show.  

The irony is that while Julie’s friends find Randy to be “too edgy” for their taste, he is more than willing to compromise his beliefs just so he can be with Julie.  There is a rather nice moment (in the middle of montage) where we see Julie and Randy hanging out in the food court of a mall. It is pretty apparent, just by Randy’s body language, that he is absolutely embarrassed to be there –he  even puts sunglasses on to hide his face.  Julie teases him for a little bit and, finally, he begins to lighten up. Maybe the mall isn’t so bad, after all? Randy is a punk rocker and against the status quo, there’s no way he would ever be caught dead in a mall……..but Julie coaxes him into it.  

The other theme of Valley Girl is the generational gap between Julie and her parents.  Julie’s parents were part of the 1960s counterculture and have still maintained their radical edge; despite living in the suburbs.  They have opened up a health food store and live a fairly easy going existence.   Julie is representative of the very values they rejected: she is materialistic, a bit superficial, and ruled by the majority.  Julie’s way of rebelling against her parents is by not rebelling.  They are also baffled by having to raise a teenage daughter; they give her free reign to do what she wants but her father, Steven, has a near heart attack after she has spent all night out with Randy. When she comes home early in the morning, her father’s first inclination is to yell at her (like any normal father would).  However, he doesn’t want to come off as too authoritarian (Julie is supposed to grow into her own person, after all) and midway through his speech goes from being an angry father to an understanding father.  Julie is confused by all this and asks, “Why can’t you just punish me like Stacy’s parents?”  Her mother replies, “Bad karma, dear!” 

When Julies goes to her junior prom, it is Steven who is a complete nervous wreck and holding up the show. His nerves are so shot that he sneaks into the bathroom and puffs on a joint just to calm himself.  When he is taking Julie and Tommy’s photo, he leaves the cap on the lens.  In odd way, the Richman’s are living vicariously through their daughter; neither of them went to their prom. They were too busy taking part in demonstrations and didn’t really have time of the stuff. The nice thing about Julie’s parents is that, even though they are different wavelength than their daughter, they are completely supportive of her.  A lesser script would have them berating their daughter for going to the mall (supporting the system) or hoping to politicize their daughter. Instead they just want her to be a normal teenager – even if they are baffled by her life choices. 

This leads me to my favorite performance in the movie – Frederic Forrest as Steve Richman, Julie’s hippie father.  Forrest is one of the most underrated actors of all time. He has appeared in some truly great movies (The Conversation, Apocalypse Now) and has a memorable as white supremacist in Falling Down, but Steve Richman is easily one of his best performances.  Forrest manages to breathe a lot of humanity into what could have easily been a one dimensional character.  In fact, when we first meet Mr. Richman, we mistakenly believe that he is just your stereotypical spaced out hippie; he wears sandals to work, reminisces about the 1960s, and Julie is slightly embarrassed to be seen in public with him. However, he is also a pretty good father.  The scene between Julie and her father is one of the highlights of Valley Girl, for multiple reasons.  The dynamic between Frederic Forrest and Deborah Foreman is terrific; they make for a believable onscreen father and daughter.  While Julie is slightly embarrassed by her parents, it is also clear that she has genuine affection for them. I find it interesting that Julie has more tight knit relationship with her father than she does with her mother.  This is probably because her mother is too laid back (Colleen Camp is funny, but her character is a bit cartoonish at times); when Julie is late getting home, her mother is doing exercises while Steven smokes a cigarette and anxiously paces back and forth.  We get a sense of that father/daughter bond when Steven shows Julie a picture of himself from his younger, long haired days and she, naturally, finds the photo hilarious. Having looked through my parents’ photo albums, I can relate to Julie’s reaction.  

 
Most important of all, Steve actually listens to his daughter’s problems and does the best he can to help.  In most teen comedies the father is usually oblivious to the plight of their children.  In movies like Some Kind of Wonderful and She’s All That, the father is a total hard ass that keeps riding his son to apply to a college; it never occurs to them that their son wants something else.  In other comedies, the father is a bit absent minded that it never occurs to the main character to ask them for any advice.  Steve Richman is kind of absent minded but he isn’t a moron. He soaks in everything Julie is telling him and then offers up some fairly good advice.  He doesn’t tell her what to do but tries to guide her in the right direction. Unfortunately, she discards his advice and goes with the mob rule.  

I find it interesting that it is Randy’s best friend, Fred, who sets the whole plot in motion. Fred is standing behind Loryn and is eavesdropping on a conversation she is having with a friend.  He not only hears about the party at Suzi’s house but gets the address as well. He just happens to be at the right place at the right time.  Randy is reluctant to go to the Valley at first but Fred is able to talk him into it.  Thus our story of star crossed lovers begins.  I don’t know whether or not if this was intentional, but Fred acts as a counterpart to Steven.  They are both genuine individuals who really don’t give a damn what people think about them; Fred constantly strikes out with women at the party but he keeps on trying. He’s not going to allow a few rejections to dampen his spirits.  Fred is probably the closest thing Randy has to a family and is there in his friend’s hour of need. It is Fred who saves Randy from his self destructive path.  After Julie breaks up with him, Randy doesn’t take it well and gives into pure excess – he goes on a drunken bender, hooks up with his ex-girlfriend in the woman’s bathroom of a bar, and then tries to pick a fight with a low rider. Fred’s timely intervention saves Randy from a sure ass kicking.  When Randy goes on a self pity rant, Fred doesn’t coddle him; instead he encourages Randy to win Julie back.  If Randy genuinely loves this girl, then he should fight for her love.  Fred is a stark contrast to Julie’s friends; the idea of Julie dating outsider terrifies them, because they are worried about how it will effect her (and by extension their) popularity. They genuinely believe they are doing Julie a favor by pressuring her into breaking up with Randy.  Fred, on the other hand, could care less about the popular opinion and wants his friend to be happy.  He will go to the ends of the Earth for Randy.  He maybe an oddball, but he is an ideal best friend.  

The character of Stacey is the direct counterpoint to Fred.  Stacey is, understandably, a bit miffed when Julie drags her along for a night out with two punk rockers.  To make matters worse, she is paired the eccentric Fred on this double date. Stacey spends most of the car ride complaining – when Randy notes that he likes the song playing on the radio, Stacey shouts back, “I hate this song.”  Yet, as the night progresses, Stacey takes a liking to Fred.  When he chases her around the car, she puts on an “annoyed act” but she eventually can’t hold back her laughter. She is having a good time with a punk rocker. Unfortunately, once Stacey returns to the “safety” of the suburbs, she immediately wants to forget about him. Sure, she enjoyed Fred’s company but she could never actually date a guy like him.  What would they stay at school? Even more disheartening is that, despite having hung out with Randy, it is Stacey who is most adamant that Julie break up with Randy and get back together with Tommy.  She desperately wants things to back to normal.   The movie, to its credit, never fully vilifies Julie’s friends. There is no malice in their actions, they are simply misguided.  

Valley Girl is probably known for two things: 1) It was the movie that put Nicolas Cage on the map. After this movie he would explode into super stardom. 2) Its soundtrack. The Valley Girl soundtrack is a sample of the type of music that was popular at this specific moment in time. Probably the best known song on the soundtrack is Modern English's "I'll Melt With You." It's a song that has remained popular some thirty five years later. There is also a track that would never make it any modern day soundtrack - Josie Cotton's "Johnny, Are You Queer?" It's a silly song, but if the age of social media has taught us anything - EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE!  Martha Coolidge will often use the soundtrack to compliment the action that is occurring onscreen; when Randy and Julie are talking in the bathroom the Psychedelic Fur's song, "Love My Way" can be heard in the background. The Plimsoul's song "A Million Miles Away" is essentially Randy and Julie's love song. The band plays it when Randy and Julie are bonding at the club. The song is reprised later after Randy, coming off rebound sex with his ex, hears it again and immediately thinks of Julie. This sends further into a downward spiral before Fred intervenes. The soundtrack itself is worth seeking out.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Martha Coolidge’s first rate direction. It is actually pretty incredible that she was able to make such a top notch picture on so little of a budget ($350,000). She is especially good when it comes blocking a scene and camera placement.  In the scene where Julie agrees to take Tommy back, she is able to convey what a suffocating presence Tommy is without a single word of dialogue. Tommy sits down next to Julie in the booth and, after she has agreed to take him back, he immediately puts his left on around her shoulder, and then he leans forwards (eclipsing Julie in the process) and starts eating the food off of her basket. 

Coolidge then cuts to a high angle shot with the camera looking down at Julie; it is nice way of showing how Julie has demeaned herself in our, and her, eyes.  She was in a meaningful relationship with Randy and now has reduced herself to being Tommy’s possession. There's also some nice acting from Deborah Foreman in this scene - while she gives Tommy a smile, there is a sense that Julie is about to break down in tears. Forget Citizen Kane!  Valley Girl should be endlessly studied by film students. 

Cast: Nicolas Cage (Randy), Deborah Foreman (Julie Richman), Elizabeth Daily (Loryn), Michael Bowen (Tommy), Cameron Dye (Fred Bailey), Heidi Holicker (Stacey), Frederic Forrest (Steve Richman), Colleen Camp (Sarah Richman), Michelle Meyrink (Suzi Brent), Lee Purcell (Beth Brent), David Ensor (Skip), Tina Theberge (Samantha), Josie Cotton (Singer at Prom), Richard Sanders (Driver’s Ed Teacher), Joyce Hyser (Joyce), The Plimsouls.

Director: Martha Coolidge
Screenplay: Wayne Crawford, Andrew Lane.
Running Time:  99 min.

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

In my review for Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers I described my overall attitude towards it as a love/hate relationship.  I really liked the relationship between Rachel and Jamie, and I enjoyed Donald Pleasence’s over the top performance as the half crazed Dr. Loomis. Unfortunately, it is the horror aspect of the movie that fell completely flat for me.  When it comes to Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers, I am not nearly as conflicted – I don’t care for it.  I wouldn’t go so far to say I hate Halloween 5, and it is by no means the worst movie in the franchise, but it is quite possibly the most difficult to watch.  

The most curious part of Halloween 5 is how it shrugs off the ending to the previous movie – Michael Myers has been defeated but the evil has been passed on from him to his niece, Jamie.  When Jamie gets home, she (donned in a similar clown costume and mask that Michael wore in the first movie) apparently kills her foster mother with a pair of scissors.  She appears at the top of the stairs with the bloodied scissors and Dr. Loomis, realizing she has been consumed by evil, is about to fire upon her with his gun, but it is stopped the sheriff.  I personally didn’t care for this ending, but it is an almost perfect set up for Halloween 5.  Sure, Michael Myers may have been stopped but the evil lives on.  This would have been an ideal opportunity to take the Halloween franchise in a completely new direction, while also further developing the character of Rachel. How would she react to her foster sister being turned to the dark side? Would she try to reach out to Jamie? Could she bring herself to kill her foster sister? 

Instead, director Dominique Othenin - Girard went for the safe approach and brought Michael Myers back, yet again. AAAHHHH!!!After the events of Halloween 4, Michael has been in a coma for a year (while given shelter by a homeless guy) and Jamie has been institutionalized in a children’s hospital (while being watched over by Dr. Loomis).  It has been retconned so that Jamie merely injured her foster mother rather than murdered her.  It also turns out that Jamie is psychically linked to Michael and can sense when he is about to kill her loved ones.  Unfortunately, her previous experience with Michael was so traumatic that it rendered her mute. She can only communicate through gestures and hand written notes.  Honestly, I’m really not bothered by this plot device because it does create some genuine tension.  There are a few scenes where Jamie senses her friends are in danger and Dr. Loomis, and company, have to prod the information out of her to prevent a senseless killing.  Again, these scenes are fairly tense and give the movie a sense of urgency; it is really everything else that I have a problem with. 

The biggest bone headed decision was killing off the character of Rachel. I get that killing off Rachel is supposed to signal to the audience that “no one is safe in this movie,” but the problem is that “killing off the survivors of the previous movie” had become fairly clichéd by 1989. In fact, the previous year’s Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master did the exact thing.  It would have been more shocking had the kept the character alive.  It is also a bit disheartening to see the likable Rachel killed off in a similar manner that was reserved for all the interchangeable sex kittens in the Friday the 13^th series.  

The appeal of Rachel is that she looked and behaved like your average Midwest teenager.  She was the type of girl who, while pretty, was often overlooked by her male peers.  There is a scene in the town drug store where a group of guys are gawking at Kelly, the town hottie, and don’t even bat an eye when Rachel enters.  When Rachel discovers her boyfriend, Brady, has been cheating on her with Kelly, it stings for two reasons: the fact he is cheating on her and the fact that it is with Kelly, the girl who is constantly getting the better of Rachel. When Brady tries to explain his position, Rachel sarcastically snaps back, “I thought you were different from other guys.”  There is a sense that Brady wasn’t first guy that Rachel lost to Kelly.  Yet, in Halloween 5 there is an odd decision by the filmmakers to sex up the character of Rachel; she spends most of her brief screen time either wet in a towel or half dressed.  After she has come home from visiting Jamie, Rachel opts to take a shower.  There is a long shot where her figure is slightly obscured by the translucent shower curtain.  Jamie senses Rachel is in danger and Dr. Loomis calls her on the telephone. Rachel, wet and in a towel, answers the phone and, on the advice of Dr. Loomis, runs out the house and calls out to her neighbor to call the police. 

After the danger is over, Rachel goes back into the house and lounges around in a half dressed manner (director Othenin- Girard shoots this scene at an extremely low angle thus allowing the audience a good look at Rachel’s underwear).  Granted, this stuff is fairly tame compared to the gratuitous nudity in other slasher movies. It’s just depressing to see this character be given this kind of treatment.  In Halloween 4, a half dressed Kelly is murdered by Michael Myers (impaled with a shotgun), and in Halloween 5, a half dressed Rachel is stabbed to death by Michael Myers. Way to go, Dominique! 

With Rachel out of the way, it is the character of Tina who assumes the role of big sister to Jamie.  There a few flaws with this idea, the first being that Tina isn’t nearly as interesting as Rachel.  She is your fairly stereotypical party girl who pops up in just about every slasher movie imaginable.  While I’m sure Tina genuinely likes Jamie, they idea that the two of them formed a sisterly bond seems far fetched. Tina just wants to go out and have a good time (get drunk, get laid), she doesn’t want to bind herself to an 11 year-old with serious issues.  It actually infuriates me that the first word to come out of Jamie’s mouth, after a year of silence, is “Tina.”  This is meant to be an emotional scene: Tina cries tears of joy and asks Jamie to say it again.  Unfortunately, this entire scene rings hollow and would have worked much better with Rachel in Tina’s place. Danielle Harris does her best to sell this moment (and nearly succeeds) but is defeated by the material. A history between Rachel and Jamie has already been established, and it would have been for more believable for Jamie to call out Rachel’s name.  Again, there is no reason to assume, other than because it’s in the script, that Tina would have formed a sisterly bond with Jamie. In fact, prior to this “heart warming” moment, the two of them only shared one brief scene together, in Jamie’s hospital room, at the beginning. The only reason Tina shows up in the first place is because Rachel is there, visiting Jamie. It is also more in line for Rachel to sacrifice herself to save Jamie than it is Tina. 

 I can appreciate  Othenin-Girard’s attempt to flesh out the character of Tina instead of making her a routine sex kitten (if this were a Friday the 13^th movie, Tina would be introduced at the beginning and then killed off a few scene later), but it falls flat. If Rachel wasn’t such a strong presence, the bait and switch might have worked. However, her presence (or lack thereof) completely haunts the movie. Every time there is a scene between Jamie and Tina, I find myself thinking, “This would have worked better with Rachel.”  Sorry, Tina! The brief interaction with Jamie and Rachel reiterates this point; the interplay between Ellie Cornell and Danielle Harris is fantastic (even though there is no little dialogue involved).  You can sense the genuine affection between these two actresses.  Jamie wakes up in her hospital bed and finds Rachel sleeping at her side.  Rachel wakes up and Jamie notices there is eyeliner running down Rachel’s cheeks (indicating she’s been crying). Jamie points it out, Rachel wipes off the eyeliner, and the two of them laugh it off.  It is a GENUINELY touching scene.  

The other piece of awkward direction is the introduction of two bumbling deputies, Ross and Farrah.  It’s really hard to describe just how jarring these two characters are; whenever they appear onscreen they are accompanied by zany sound effects (straight out of a Looney Tunes cartoon).   These wacky deputies would completely be at home in a Police Academy movie but are total distraction in a dour horror movie. My personal theory is that that these two actors meant to audition for Police Academy 6: City Under Siege but took a wrong turn and ended up auditioning for Halloween 5 by mistake. Then Dominique Othenin-Girard mistook their broad slapstick for postmodern art and enthusiastically gave them the roles. “This is a brilliant deconstruction of the stereotypical movie policemen.  You guys are geniuses. You’re hired!” 

It is implied….actually that is too subtle of word….it is blatantly presented that Dr. Loomis is as much of a threat to Jamie as Michael Myers is.  Dr. Loomis is so obsessed with finding and destroying Michael Myers that to him no cost is too great, even Jamie’s life.  In the previous movies Dr. Loomis was a bit nutty, but he also genuinely wanted to save lives.  He contacted the Haddonfield police department after Myers’ escape and co-operated with them to the best of his ability.  At the end of Halloween 5, Loomis sets up a trap for Michael Myers (in Michael’s childhood home) and he uses Jamie as bait to lure the killer in.  The house is swarming with police and then Jamie (on Loomis’ instructions I assume) sends the officers on a wild goose chase by claiming that Michael is stalking her friend Billy at the children’s hospital. This leaves Dr. Loomis and a couple of deputies to protect Jamie.  When the deputy that is guarding Jamie suggests they take her to the police station, Loomis holds him at gun point and tells him that they’re not going anywhere. Sure enough, with the police force on the other side of town, Michael makes his move.  Because of Loomis, the deputy is killed and Jamie barely makes it out alive. This is Donald Pleasence at his hammiest; he completely chews the scenery every time he is onscreen.  Though, I actually think it’s fairly consistent with the character of Dr. Loomis; he has spent nearly a decade trying to destroy Michael Myers and he is finally at the point where anything goes. If he can successfully capture Michael Myers, then the end justifies the means.  

There is a rather neat scene where Dr. Loomis tries to reason with Michael; the two of them stand side by side and, in a calm voice, Loomis tries to reach that child within. He knows that is probably futile, but he’ll give a go, any ways.  Again, at this point Loomis is willing to try anything.  There is also a sense that Dr. Loomis is reaching Michael and when it looks like he is about to give up his blade, the evil takes control and Michael severely injures Loomis.  There are interesting moments in Halloween 5, but they are far and few between.  

My biggest issue with Halloween 5, other than the sense of déjà vu,  is sheer sadism that hangs in the air. I know this is an odd criticism to levy against a horror movie. After all, the whole point of the horror movie is to explore mankind’s darker side.  Halloween 5 is by no means the most violent, or even gruesome, horror movie that I watched but I still find it difficult to watch.  It is just difficult for me to watch a sweet little girl go through so much suffering without even a ray of hope insight.  I know the argument will be, “Well, in the real world….”  Yes, there is a lot of suffering in the real world but movies are supposed to be an escape from the real world (even horror movies).  In the course of 98 minutes, we can only watch as Jamie:  witnesses a friend get knifed to death; gets chased by a car across a corn field; crawls her way out of a laundry chute as a madman stabs at her with a knife; gets manhandled by Dr.  Loomis, who uses her as bait to capture Michael Myers; stumbles upon the corpse of her caring foster sister; and breaks down in tears when she realizes that Michael Myers has been sprung from jail by a mysterious man in black. It is a complete downer of a movie.  It is not just me that feels way; Halloween 4 was lowest grossing movie in the entire franchise.  Though, it is leagues above Halloween: Curse of Michael Myers and the abhorrent Halloween:Resurrection. 

 It is fairly interesting listen to Danielle Harris’ commentary on both Halloween 4 and Halloween 5; her memories of the former movie seem to be fairly cheerful, while she has far less positive things to say about the latter. She praises her co-stars, especially Michael Myers portrayer, Don Shanks, but she isn't too keen on director Dominique Othenin – Girard.   Ellie Cornell, in her interviews and commentary, seems even less thrilled about Halloween 5 than Harris, and I don’t blame her.

Credits 

Cast: Donald Pleasence (Dr. Loomis), Danielle Harris (Jamie), Ellie Cornell (Rachel), Wendy Kaplan/Foxworth(Tina), Don Shanks (Michael Myers/Man in Black), Beau Starr (Sheriff Ben Meeker), Jeffery Landman (Billy), Tamara Glynn (Samantha), Matthew Walker (Spitz), Jonathan Chapin (Mikey), Troy Evans (Deputy Charlie), Betty Carvalho (Nurse Patsey), Frankie Como (Deputy Nick Ross), David Ursin (Deputy Tom Farrah).

Director: Dominique Othenin-Girard
Screenplay:  Michael Jacobs, Dominique Othenin – Girard, Shem Bitterman.
Running Time:  98 min.