HALLOWEEN 5
A film review by Kenneth W. Smith, Jr.
Copyright 1989 Kenneth W. Smith, Jr.
So far, there hasn't been much response on the net to HALLOWEEN 5, not that horror get *that* much attention anyway. The "Phantom"'s review and a couple of subsequent articles are all that has been posted, that I have seen, and all of the above relate what a letdown the movie is/was. Hold on, here comes a different opinion.
I must admit that I went to see Michael's latest jaunt with a good deal of skepticism. I think that *any* sequel can lend this feeling to even the most ardent fan of a particular series. However, I was not disappointed at all with this film.
Addressing the most befuddling part of the film, the ending, seems to be appropriate for going first. The appearance of the stranger in black, and the brief glimpses of his travels through Haddonfield, is given no explanation, but there are a few hints given in the film about his/her/its link to Mr. Myers. We are shown that they both possess an identical mark on the right wrist. This mark can also be seen briefly in the basement of the old Myers' house. It can be seen on a wall behind Dr. Loomis at one point. Then, just as we thought that Michael would be put away for good, (he looked so dejected to have had his mask taken away from him!), the stranger clobbers everyone in the police station, and apparently takes Michael with him! Talk about membership having its privileges! My guess is, and I have heard nor read any rumor of this, that the stranger is someone whom Michael met while in the asylum and inducted Myers into some sort of occult circle. Just a thought.
*Anyway*, about the rest of the film. I thought that the direction was great. The fast, flashy images at the beginning when Jamie (Danielle Harris) was having her "Michael attack" and Loomis (Donald Pleasance) saved her from a tracheotomy by seconds was well-acted, well-shot, and well-timed. Some of the stalking scenes were perhaps a tad long, but the eerieness that came across from the claustrophobic shots (e.g., the laundry chute) and the shadow manipulation (e.g., inside the barn) was very effectively done.
I liked the script itself. The producer, Moustapha Akkad, is doing a good job of obtaining scripts that maintain and adhere to the storyline that Carpenter set up in the first film. Sure, they have taken a few liberties with the Michael mythos, but the attempting to present a sequel that reaches even *half* of the quality of an original is extremely difficult. Certain story aspects have to be altered. Audience bias *against* sequels is probably the most difficult hurdle to overcome. (If you don't believe this to be a prevalent factor, have someone mail you all of the articles posted during this summer's sequelitis spree! There were sequels condemned before they were seen by posters to this group!)
[In reference to some comments made by others,] I didn't see [the ending] as a letdown as much as I saw it as an intriguing, if not bewildering at first, bridge to the next film. The producer(s) intend(s) to create an honest-to-goodness serial out of these films, which basically they have been anyway. This type of transition, the introduction of characters without explanation, helps to move the films out of the episodic nature and into that of a true serial. I think it is a neat idea! (When I say episodic, I mean each part is not contingent on any of the previous parts, e.g., the Indiana Jones series).
I hesitate to classify the "Halloween" series (at least the Myers story) as "slasher." The "Friday the 13th" movies have evolved into a slasher series. Slasher to me implies mindless, unmotivated, wholesale, slaughter. Michael has motivation and is far from mindless. His whole motivation is sexual, as established by the first film and used throughout the rest. He is psychotic, true, and I think that possession, at least according to the Halloween novelization, is the result of the mental snap he had during the first scene of the first film. (One dead sister, not babysitter. How many babysitters sit nude in someone else's bedroom using their hair brush? Don't answer that....) Also, there is a lot more going on here than a simple stalk-'em-slash-'em story here. The director and writers present more than just a psycho offing everyone he finds (which he isn't doing anyway.). Take for example the barn sex scene. Did they have the eventually pitchforked guy wear a Michael suit and mask simply for the prank pulled on the policemen? I think that the suit, coupled with the guy coupling in the following scene, gave the audience a great metaphor for Michael's condition in the first place! Michael, seeing "himself" doing what he himself can't do, and subsequently enrages him, puts an end to seeing this by giving the faux-Myers a tine he would never forget. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one...) |) Otherwise, that kill would have had no motivation behind it.
If your main motivation for film-going is nudity then, yes, you will be disappointed. However, if you have enjoyed the Myers story to date, then this continuation, soon to be a *true* continuation, should satisfy you for another year or two. I enjoyed it very much, especially getting to see Donald again. If you enjoy a mental challenge and can appreciate good direction, writing, and acting, then I highly recommend this film. I intend to catch it again if and when it comes to the cheaper/second-run theater here.
Thanx in advance,
K W Smith, Jr.
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews