Skip to main content

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 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 13th 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 13th 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 post modern 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 the 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 ends justify 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 that 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; get 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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Garfield Christmas ( 1987)

  As a kid one of the biggest joys of the Christmas season, other than the presents, was the holiday specials that aired on television through out December.   The vast majority of these specials have fallen through the cracks, but there are a few that have become classics.   A Garfield Christmas first aired on December 21, 1987 and it is one of those specials that my family still watches. The reason Garfield works to well is that humor appeals to both kids and adults; it also doesn’t have the patronizing tone that can be found in many children’s shows.    Garfield, much like Charles M Schulz’s Peanuts, was a fairly popular comic strip that successfully transitioned to television.   Garfield is a cynical cat who lives with his, slightly neurotic, owner Jon and Odie, Jon’s idiotic dog. The premise to A Garfield is fairly simple: Jon, with Garfield and Odie in tow, visits his family on the farm.   While Jon and Odie are enthusiastic about spending Christmas on the farm, Garfield is

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)

I initially planned on having this review up before Christmas but it was delayed a bit by computer problems, family get togethers, and my full time job. In case you were wondering why I'm reviewing a Christmas movie in early January, well...those are the reasons. I hope you enjoy. It has been a long standing Christmas tradition in my family to sit down and watch the great Christmas movies: It’s a Wonderful Life, A Christmas Carol (1938 version), White Christmas, A Christmas Story, Miracle on 34 th Street (the original, obviously), and last, but certainly not least, National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation.   Of course, out of the movies I just listed Christmas Vacation is obviously the odd man out.   First, it is the third entry in the popular Vacation series, while the other movies listed are stand alone films. White Christmas is a semi-remake of Holiday Inn, but the story is significantly different than the earlier movie.   Second, it easily the crudest out of three (i

Teen Wolf Too (1987): Attack of the Bad Sequel

Teen Wolf Too! Ugh! When I first bought a DVD player, one of the first DVDs I purchased was Teen Wolf. The only downfall was that it was a double feature DVD, which means I had to purchase Teen Wolf Too as well. Teen Wolf is by no means a great movie, but compared to Teen Wolf Too it is a masterpiece. No word is adequate enough to describe just how terrible Teen Wolf Too is; it's an atrocity against the human race. It's 95 minutes of sheer torture with a ridiculously overqualified cast doing their best not to look embarrassed.  I've always theorized that Teen Wolf Too was originally supposed to be  Teen Wolf 2, and further the adventures of Scott Howard (Michael J. Fox) as he took on college. However, when Michael J. Fox turned down the script (because it was friggin' awful), the filmmakers created a new character, Todd, and cast a Michael J. Fox-like actor in the role. It was during this time frame (1987) that Jason Bateman was starring in the dreadful sitcom