There are some cool scenes in this movie. And there are some neat ideas. But it falls flat because of large number of plot holes and it's too fast for it's own good. I feel the movie would have been better if it focused more on the children. Scenes where the kids are in danger are one of the best in the movie. Danielle Harris is perfect in her role as little Jamie and Donald Pleasence gives his best, but it's not enough to save this movie from being a little more than a regular slasher, which is a shame given the greatness of character and setting. It's not the worst thing you will watch, it's just OK. Sadly, though I still haven't watched the rest, I feel that story elements introduced in this movie will take things too far. But I digress. 6/10 from me. If you are horror movie fan, watch it for fun :)
292 Reviews
Something went awfully wrong with this one...bad script...
Doylenf25 October 2007
After the success of HALLOWEEN 4, it was predictable that the studio would go on with another sequel. The only good thing about this one is that it picks up the story exactly where the last film left off, giving an explanation for the fact that little DANIELLE HARRIS is behind bars in a clinic for disturbed children. But within the first half-hour of the story, it's obvious that this is no HALLOWEEN 4.
As someone else pointed out, DONALD PLEASANCE is just about as psychotic as Michael Meyers in his quest to find the serial killer who seems to be eradicating all the citizens of Haddonfield every time it's Halloween. ELLIE CORNELL as Rachel is killed off early in the story and, unfortunately, there are no other likable members among the youthful cast to root for. It's as if they were scripted, all of them, to deserve their fate.
Without a good plot structure and much too much repetition, this one begins to sink before the midway point. All of the fright sequences are done competently enough but just don't have the same tension or creepiness of the better ones in this series.
Summing up: Not helped by Donald Pleasance's decision to ham it up unmercifully to draw attention--but it doesn't work. They should have quit after HALLOWEEN 4.
As someone else pointed out, DONALD PLEASANCE is just about as psychotic as Michael Meyers in his quest to find the serial killer who seems to be eradicating all the citizens of Haddonfield every time it's Halloween. ELLIE CORNELL as Rachel is killed off early in the story and, unfortunately, there are no other likable members among the youthful cast to root for. It's as if they were scripted, all of them, to deserve their fate.
Without a good plot structure and much too much repetition, this one begins to sink before the midway point. All of the fright sequences are done competently enough but just don't have the same tension or creepiness of the better ones in this series.
Summing up: Not helped by Donald Pleasance's decision to ham it up unmercifully to draw attention--but it doesn't work. They should have quit after HALLOWEEN 4.
Apart from Pleasence, everyone in the film is just going through the motions.
G.Spider23 October 1999
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.
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.
As long as you know what to expect...
icarus-1121 April 2000
Though episode 5 is probably my least favourite of the Halloween saga (not counting H3) i still really enjoyed watching it, because i love the series as a whole and took it for what it was, something most people don't seem to do. Sure, there's some mediocre acting and the usual holes in the plot, but it's an 80's slasher film, what else would you expect? I think its obvious imperfection is its charm. Besides that, it has a few original killings and the scenes where Michael chases Jamie in the Myers house are chilling. The last half hour makes it worth watching. I'd say give it a try if you've seen other Halloween movies and liked them, if not then don't start with this one because it's certainly not one of the best. 6 out of 10 =)
Not my favorite Halloween flick
Smells_Like_Cheese26 July 2005
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
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
Not that bad of a sequel
jaredkeoppel-343119 June 2019
Honestly Halloween 5 used to be one of my favorite sequels of the franchise, now that I can see the many flaws I see why it's not the best. But it should definitely not get all the bad credit that the film obtaines, because it's not so bad. It's entertaining, and I like how it adds some different content, and provides a great atmosphere.
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers
Toronto853 July 2013
'Halloween 5' begins immediately where part 4 ended. We see that Michael Myers has indeed survived being shot by state troopers, and has fallen down a mine shaft. He travels along a small river and makes his way to some tent that a homeless person is living in. He falls unconscious for an entire year, until Halloween 1989. Jamie meanwhile has spent the entire year in a state facility for children. She has not spoken one word the whole time. She can now however sense when Michael is near or when he is ready to strike. Anyways,Halloween night approaches and Michael is back in Haddonfield ready to hack and slash anything that gets in his way of murdering Jamie. We meet a younger set of characters (only there to add to the body count) which connect to Rachel from 'Halloween 4'. The film follows them along with Jamie/Loomis leading to an interesting conclusion.
'Halloween 5' is definitely the weakest of the original series. So many things that separate it from the rest, and make it less of a worthwhile watch. First of all, this one was scary or even that creepy in the slightest. The previous instalment actually did a great job at creating and establishing an eerie atmosphere. This was a rushed attempt at scary in my opinion. The acting was questionable (to say the least) from the supporting cast. Other than Pleasance and Harris, it wasn't anything to write home about. They also kill off an important character (to me anyways) EARLY on which I hated.
Michael Myers himself is also not intimidating at all. Don Shanks did a lackluster job in the role of the shadow. And the Myers house looked like some mausoleum/crypt mansion, nothing like the original. It's an insult to viewers to not even attempt to make it similar. And the kills were not well done, they felt cheap when compared to the first four films (even 'Halloween III' did a greater job...). It's still one that should be seen by all horror and 'Halloween' fans. It has it's moments plus establishes a storyline (the man in black) that carries on into the sixth film.
5/10
'Halloween 5' is definitely the weakest of the original series. So many things that separate it from the rest, and make it less of a worthwhile watch. First of all, this one was scary or even that creepy in the slightest. The previous instalment actually did a great job at creating and establishing an eerie atmosphere. This was a rushed attempt at scary in my opinion. The acting was questionable (to say the least) from the supporting cast. Other than Pleasance and Harris, it wasn't anything to write home about. They also kill off an important character (to me anyways) EARLY on which I hated.
Michael Myers himself is also not intimidating at all. Don Shanks did a lackluster job in the role of the shadow. And the Myers house looked like some mausoleum/crypt mansion, nothing like the original. It's an insult to viewers to not even attempt to make it similar. And the kills were not well done, they felt cheap when compared to the first four films (even 'Halloween III' did a greater job...). It's still one that should be seen by all horror and 'Halloween' fans. It has it's moments plus establishes a storyline (the man in black) that carries on into the sixth film.
5/10
Has it's moments...
MrTaft4 December 2002
While on the whole a poorly-made film that does little to help the "Halloween" series, this installment definitely delivers in regards to action and suspense. Most notably is the finale scene that takes place in the Myers house, with Michael and Jamie working well together to create a tense game of cat-and-mouse. Of course, the film could not have been made without the brilliance of main star Donald Pleasence - his fourth outing as Dr. Loomis is still on par with the original.
The continual focus on the most annoying Tina and her teeny-bopper friends drags the film through the mud more often than not. Most of the characters are annoying, one-dimensional idiots who deserve to get the chop (particularly the boyfriends and those two "clown" cops). The ending was a surprise and worked quite well, and a special mention goes to Beau Starr for another excellent performance as Sheriff Ben Meeker.
All in all, an average effort but nothing to get excited about.
The continual focus on the most annoying Tina and her teeny-bopper friends drags the film through the mud more often than not. Most of the characters are annoying, one-dimensional idiots who deserve to get the chop (particularly the boyfriends and those two "clown" cops). The ending was a surprise and worked quite well, and a special mention goes to Beau Starr for another excellent performance as Sheriff Ben Meeker.
All in all, an average effort but nothing to get excited about.
It's better than the Curse of Michael Myers (part 6).
legendaryunderdog5 July 2007
It's good that Halloween 5 picks up where Halloween 4 left off but that doesn't save the film from almost bombing in my opinion. I really love the Halloween franchise, it was a great idea by John Carpenter and Debra Hill that was then dissected by other directors (with the exception of Rick Rosenthal). The direction the director went with this movie is strange, there are still the same old themes (murders, Halloween time, Dr. Loomis, the Strode/Myers Family dispute) but this time the movie and Michael both take on a whole new image. I will not spoil this movie for anyone so I will let you just watch it and make your own assessment as to what you think. Overall it wasn't bad at all.
The series goes downhill from here
Mlinville81722 January 2011
Halloween 5 is a disappointing movie for Halloween fans and horror movie fans. It lacks in plot, scares and suspense.
It's one year later after the events of Halloween 4. Michael survives the shootings and on October 31st he returns to Haddonfield. Jamie (the heroine of H4) is in Haddonfield's Children's Hospital after attacking her step-mother the previous year. She is being treated by Dr. Loomis with the aid of her step-sister Rachel and Rachel's friend Tina. Lurking and stalking, Michael forms a plan to lure Jamie out of the children's hospital where events lead up to a confrontation at Michael's childhood house.
OK, I like Donald Pleasence even though his performance went down a little and is a little cheesy. Danielle Harris does the best spending half the movie being mute. It's a great performance. Ellie Cornell is back as Rachael. She is a great character but gets killed off in the first ten minutes. The rest of the movie is filled with terribly acted, stupid teenagers. Even some of the characters from the Friday the 13th movies are better. The characters are all hateful and the script doesn't make much sense.
It's a typical slasher movie, which I don't like that much. Halloween 5 spends too much time on teenagers with silly teen lust combined with slasher stuff. There's even a part with 2 bumbling cops with three stooges like music playing in the background. It's just stupid. The story feels like it doesn't know what to do next. But it does excel when it cuts to the real story of Meyers chasing the girl and the doctor's relentless pursuit.
But the climax wasn't that bad, even though Michael's "demise" was absolutely ridicules with Loomis beating Michael with a piece of wood. Michael's childhood home looks completely different than how it looked in the first. The chase scenes with Jamie and Michael were pretty good. And a scene with Jamie hiding in a vent and Michael stabbing at it was pretty suspenseful. And it was different while being believable. That was the best part in the whole movie. Also the atmosphere is pretty good and very creepy. I would have given this 1 star if it wasn't for that.
So besides the climax Halloween 5 is pretty bad. You can tell it was rushed because of the success of Halloween 4.
2 stars (out of 4)
It's one year later after the events of Halloween 4. Michael survives the shootings and on October 31st he returns to Haddonfield. Jamie (the heroine of H4) is in Haddonfield's Children's Hospital after attacking her step-mother the previous year. She is being treated by Dr. Loomis with the aid of her step-sister Rachel and Rachel's friend Tina. Lurking and stalking, Michael forms a plan to lure Jamie out of the children's hospital where events lead up to a confrontation at Michael's childhood house.
OK, I like Donald Pleasence even though his performance went down a little and is a little cheesy. Danielle Harris does the best spending half the movie being mute. It's a great performance. Ellie Cornell is back as Rachael. She is a great character but gets killed off in the first ten minutes. The rest of the movie is filled with terribly acted, stupid teenagers. Even some of the characters from the Friday the 13th movies are better. The characters are all hateful and the script doesn't make much sense.
It's a typical slasher movie, which I don't like that much. Halloween 5 spends too much time on teenagers with silly teen lust combined with slasher stuff. There's even a part with 2 bumbling cops with three stooges like music playing in the background. It's just stupid. The story feels like it doesn't know what to do next. But it does excel when it cuts to the real story of Meyers chasing the girl and the doctor's relentless pursuit.
But the climax wasn't that bad, even though Michael's "demise" was absolutely ridicules with Loomis beating Michael with a piece of wood. Michael's childhood home looks completely different than how it looked in the first. The chase scenes with Jamie and Michael were pretty good. And a scene with Jamie hiding in a vent and Michael stabbing at it was pretty suspenseful. And it was different while being believable. That was the best part in the whole movie. Also the atmosphere is pretty good and very creepy. I would have given this 1 star if it wasn't for that.
So besides the climax Halloween 5 is pretty bad. You can tell it was rushed because of the success of Halloween 4.
2 stars (out of 4)
These Mystery Boots Are Made For Walkin'
utgard144 November 2013
Awful sequel. When it's not borrowing from other films (Bride of Frankenstein, The Eyes of Laura Mars), it's outright ripping them off (Friday the 13th Part 2). There's not a suspenseful or scary moment in the whole movie. Every new character is unlikeable. One of the somewhat likable characters from part 4 is killed off early and needlessly. Danielle Harris improves from the last film but spends a significant portion of the movie unable to speak. So take that for what it's worth. Donald Pleasence, the saving grace of most of these films, is here reduced to full-blown caricature. Still he tries to elevate the material by treating it seriously. Points for trying but it's a lost cause. Oh and the two bumbling comic relief cops: what were they thinking with that? There's even goofy sound effects the first time they show up. Moronic.
Another annoying thing are the constant red herring jumps. You know, where they lead you to believe Michael is about to attack someone, only to have it turn out to be a janitor or somebody's boyfriend acting like an ass. This movie is full of those cheap tricks. It gets old fast.
Then there's the mystery character. Throughout the movie we get glimpses of him and his steel-tipped cowboy boots. He even helps Michael in the film's climax. We NEVER find out who he is. It's laughable. What a mess of a movie. Incompetently scripted and crudely directed. This is easily the worst of the series.
Another annoying thing are the constant red herring jumps. You know, where they lead you to believe Michael is about to attack someone, only to have it turn out to be a janitor or somebody's boyfriend acting like an ass. This movie is full of those cheap tricks. It gets old fast.
Then there's the mystery character. Throughout the movie we get glimpses of him and his steel-tipped cowboy boots. He even helps Michael in the film's climax. We NEVER find out who he is. It's laughable. What a mess of a movie. Incompetently scripted and crudely directed. This is easily the worst of the series.
Downgrade from the previous Halloween
UniqueParticle1 January 2020
Best thing about this one is the soundtrack otherwise it's alright. I absolutely love how someone said Samuel Loomis is the best and everyone else is going through the motions that's excellent! Lacking kills, nudity, and suspense which is disappointing to me. Honestly I think the original and remakes are the best ones otherwise the sequels get worse although Halloween II is pretty good!
We actually got too much from the fourth sequel....
tyhemp-213 November 1999
If you think about it we actually got too much from the fourth sequel. Compare this to Friday the 13th part five and a Nightmare On Elm Street part five---see the differences? The film is overall scary, just like its predecessors. Jamie is practically mute for the first half. These ideas kind of sop the movie a bit. But there is some scary scenes.
For instance, when Jamie is trapped in the laundry chute. I bet there is no one out there who has seen this movie that wasn't deeply terrified by that scene. It had an appropriate body count and the film is all the more interesting with the mysterious guy in black prowling around. I would rate this a 6/10.
For instance, when Jamie is trapped in the laundry chute. I bet there is no one out there who has seen this movie that wasn't deeply terrified by that scene. It had an appropriate body count and the film is all the more interesting with the mysterious guy in black prowling around. I would rate this a 6/10.
Ok...let me try and review this movie again...
Gravedigger-224 October 2000
I feel that I didn't really say what I wanted to say the first time I reviewed it so I'm going to write another one.
One thing I liked about this film was it's directing and style. Some would say that it's style over substance and maybe their right, but I liked the gothic look of the film. For example, I dug Michael's look in the film when he was unmasked. You can see him without the mask very well at the beginning of the film...long black hair, very Trent Reznorish looking...the way he sits up on the bed surrounded by candles is GREAT. The entire scene is done very well. [BTW, did anyone notice the thorn symbol appearing on Michael's hand? I'm sure you did...which leads me to my next point. People say that the man in black was stupid because he never appeared in prior films and had no real connection with the series...people say this assuming that Michael had the thorn symbol since the beginning...he didn't...(the hermit had Michael laid in a bed surrounded by candles and he kept him there for a year without telling anyone...The hermit was one of them? And maybe he was protecting Michael?) anyways it was just a subplot in this film that turned into a major plot point in Halloween VI.
Anyways, Don Shanks Michael Myers is one of my favs. In the first one, he was a normal man behind a mask. In part two, he was somewhat the same only he seemed more evil. In part four, he was Jason Version 2.0 but in this one, while still retaining toughness and strength, he is a human walking time bomb...very aggressive...very angry. Not as scary as the Halloween I+II version but it makes for an entertaining movie.
And that's what this movie is: entertaining. Despite it's obvious flaws, Halloween 5 is the best of the parts 3-7 era and with a few improvements could have been the best of the series. Sadly, fans didn't dig the gothic style or the interperatation of Michael Myers and his series, so a direct follow up to this film wasn't able to be filmed until five years later and it was under the worst of conditions in the worst possible hands [Joe Chapelle, Dimension Films]
So Halloween Fans: Don't judge Halloween 5 on any of the other films in the series...it attempts to be different from all of them. It wasn't anything like the original because it never tries to be.
Not to mention the good acting and decent storyline, there is also a lot of suspense which was missing from later entries..
One thing I liked about this film was it's directing and style. Some would say that it's style over substance and maybe their right, but I liked the gothic look of the film. For example, I dug Michael's look in the film when he was unmasked. You can see him without the mask very well at the beginning of the film...long black hair, very Trent Reznorish looking...the way he sits up on the bed surrounded by candles is GREAT. The entire scene is done very well. [BTW, did anyone notice the thorn symbol appearing on Michael's hand? I'm sure you did...which leads me to my next point. People say that the man in black was stupid because he never appeared in prior films and had no real connection with the series...people say this assuming that Michael had the thorn symbol since the beginning...he didn't...(the hermit had Michael laid in a bed surrounded by candles and he kept him there for a year without telling anyone...The hermit was one of them? And maybe he was protecting Michael?) anyways it was just a subplot in this film that turned into a major plot point in Halloween VI.
Anyways, Don Shanks Michael Myers is one of my favs. In the first one, he was a normal man behind a mask. In part two, he was somewhat the same only he seemed more evil. In part four, he was Jason Version 2.0 but in this one, while still retaining toughness and strength, he is a human walking time bomb...very aggressive...very angry. Not as scary as the Halloween I+II version but it makes for an entertaining movie.
And that's what this movie is: entertaining. Despite it's obvious flaws, Halloween 5 is the best of the parts 3-7 era and with a few improvements could have been the best of the series. Sadly, fans didn't dig the gothic style or the interperatation of Michael Myers and his series, so a direct follow up to this film wasn't able to be filmed until five years later and it was under the worst of conditions in the worst possible hands [Joe Chapelle, Dimension Films]
So Halloween Fans: Don't judge Halloween 5 on any of the other films in the series...it attempts to be different from all of them. It wasn't anything like the original because it never tries to be.
Not to mention the good acting and decent storyline, there is also a lot of suspense which was missing from later entries..
Actually, I liked it . . .
jaywolfenstien2 December 2003
Sure, they wasted their one chance to change the direction of the Halloween series (the right way). The year long coma is BS, yes, indeed. Sure, the psychic connection between Jamie and Michael is a little goofy, ill-explained, beyond the scope of a Halloween movie, and exists for no real reason, and yes, other people wearing a mask similar to Michael and pretending to be Michael is getting old (not to mention predictable.) The mask doesn't resemble any of the previous masks really, the Myers house had an inexplicable make-over . . . I could keep these complaints rolling for some time (don't even get me started on the man in black), but despite all my reasons to not like this film . . . I prefer it over #4.
I found Halloween 5 to be strangely fun, which horror tends to be when you stop caring for the cast. While I like Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasance in the leads, most of the supporting characters I didn't really like at all, so when Myers starts the party rolling I'm rooting for team Thorn. And this time around, Miky proves he has a dark sense of humor. I especially like his choice in masks in Halloween 5 . . .
But is it scary? No, but there are a few genuine intense moments towards the end as Michael inevitably runs out of victims and closes in on the stars. I liked all the chases involving Danielle Harris and confrontations between Donald Pleasence and evil personified . . . even if said confrontations are on the silly side.
Speaking of Harris, despite her character not being able to talk in the script, she manages to rise far above the material and actually pull it off. Or in other words, while her character was written by a hack and sloppily thrown together, she works wonders with the very little she's given. It makes me really wish she got writing worthy of her performance, but like a professional, she makes the best of it . . . and to think the studio wouldn't let her reprise her role after this? A slap to the face after an insult . . . oy.
I remember reading on the VHS box of Halloween 5 the exclamation, `Michael finally unmasked!' And couldn't help but chuckle as I recalled him being mask-less at least once in every Myers-inclusive Halloween until this film. Granted, this is the first time he, himself, takes it off. Oh well.
As for the film's ending, I can't forgive because it lead to the atrocity known as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers which felt Halloween 5 was extremely flawed but still fun . . . so it set out to make a sequel that was all flaw and no fun . . . or something.
I found Halloween 5 to be strangely fun, which horror tends to be when you stop caring for the cast. While I like Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasance in the leads, most of the supporting characters I didn't really like at all, so when Myers starts the party rolling I'm rooting for team Thorn. And this time around, Miky proves he has a dark sense of humor. I especially like his choice in masks in Halloween 5 . . .
But is it scary? No, but there are a few genuine intense moments towards the end as Michael inevitably runs out of victims and closes in on the stars. I liked all the chases involving Danielle Harris and confrontations between Donald Pleasence and evil personified . . . even if said confrontations are on the silly side.
Speaking of Harris, despite her character not being able to talk in the script, she manages to rise far above the material and actually pull it off. Or in other words, while her character was written by a hack and sloppily thrown together, she works wonders with the very little she's given. It makes me really wish she got writing worthy of her performance, but like a professional, she makes the best of it . . . and to think the studio wouldn't let her reprise her role after this? A slap to the face after an insult . . . oy.
I remember reading on the VHS box of Halloween 5 the exclamation, `Michael finally unmasked!' And couldn't help but chuckle as I recalled him being mask-less at least once in every Myers-inclusive Halloween until this film. Granted, this is the first time he, himself, takes it off. Oh well.
As for the film's ending, I can't forgive because it lead to the atrocity known as Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers which felt Halloween 5 was extremely flawed but still fun . . . so it set out to make a sequel that was all flaw and no fun . . . or something.
Dumb, Duh-Duh Dumb
piratecannon27 December 2012
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.
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.
The town's infamous bad boy returns home.
michaelRokeefe26 October 2002
More or less a disappointing continuance of the Halloween saga. It has been a year since Michael Myers somehow survived massive gunfire and falling down a mine shaft. Upon healing his wounds he once again returns home to seek out his niece Jamie(Danielle Harris), who now herself is hospitalized and telepathic...knowing when the slasher is about to attack. Donald Pleasence, Ellie Cornell and Beau Starr reprise their previous roles. Also notable are Wendy Kaplan and Tamara Glynn. It is hard to tell if there are more squeals than thrills. My main complaint is they kill off Rachel(Cornell)way too quickly. Miss Harris is left with the most serious acting and does very well. This time it is Don Shanks playing the maniacal white masked menace. The finale is quite brutal, but is it brutal enough?
Where the Franchise Started Getting "Bad"
Gresh85430 June 2018
Halloween 5: The Revenge Of Michaels was a jarring experience, for the most part. The editing in this film seriously was giving me an aneurysm, and that's about the scariest part that happened during the runtime I was watching this movie. The great majority of the film is suffussed with uninspiring cheeseball moments and slapstick (yes, I said slapstick; the film attempts to add comedy into the mix) that is barely endurable. I will however admit that the last 20 minutes of this film were near fantastic. They nearly made up for the abundance of idiocy that was witnessed before, and also contained frightening, sinister moments that reminded me of what made the original so damn spectacular. With that being said, I still conclusively think this movie dropped the bomb. Even Michael Myer's didn't want to properly put on his mask for this one as shown in the actual film. (Tuck in the damn mask for heaven's sake!) We haven't quite hit "awful" yet in this franchise, but we've just encountered hitting "bad." (Verdict: C-)
Flawed but entertaining
rivertam2624 February 2020
Michael returns again in this rushed sequel that's still quite a bit of fun. Picking up a year after the events of its superior sequel. Jamie now lives in a foster home and is mute. Once again played by a solid Danielle Harris. After falling down the well in the last film he's saved by a homeless dude and awakens a year later to try and get Jamie once again. This entry is a little uneven tone wise. There are weird lapses in humor most because of two goofy cops. Michael is still in pretty strong form but his victims are mostly forgettable. Sadly Ellie Cornell is only in a small part and the new final girl Tina isn't as strong. It all leads up to a questionable finale and although nothing is on par with the rooftop sequence from the last film. The laundry schute scene is pretty terrifying.
A great Halloween sequel!
sam_aj_0115 September 2008
Supprisingly better than the fourth, Halloween 5: The revenge of Michael Myers kicks of to a good start.
Michael Myers miraculously crawls out of the mine entrance where he was presumed dead. Jamie is recovering from the trauma of killing her foster mum and having some connection with Michaels grisly work. Of course Halloween wouldn't be Halloween without the return of our old friend Dr Loomis...
The first 20 minutes of this film is rather slow and boring, its like watching the fourth film all over again. Finally it gets into a good story, unfortunately it drags on towards the end...
The most annoying thing too is that this film was followed by the sixth instalment, you would of thought after all this time Michael would give it a rest. I guess he really is pure evil...
Michael Myers miraculously crawls out of the mine entrance where he was presumed dead. Jamie is recovering from the trauma of killing her foster mum and having some connection with Michaels grisly work. Of course Halloween wouldn't be Halloween without the return of our old friend Dr Loomis...
The first 20 minutes of this film is rather slow and boring, its like watching the fourth film all over again. Finally it gets into a good story, unfortunately it drags on towards the end...
The most annoying thing too is that this film was followed by the sixth instalment, you would of thought after all this time Michael would give it a rest. I guess he really is pure evil...
A revenge that is neither scary or thrilling
TheLittleSongbird15 January 2018
John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic. To this day it's still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters Michael Myers.
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. To me, and many others it seems, 'Halloween 5' is one of the worst of the series. Even with its attempt at a grittier tone, it is far from a thrill ride and there is very little scary about it, other than one scene and how poor quality the film is.
Danielle Harris and Don Shanks give strong performances, as does Ellie Cornell in the limited screen time she has. Donald Pleasance does his best and succeeds in creating an unnerving presence, but his character is now too much of a caricature which is at the writers' door not his.
There is one effective scene, that with the laundry chute which is actually pretty freaky. The setting has a haunting eeriness when it is not hindered by the low-budget-looking rushed-looking filming.
Sadly, most of the time it is with the editing being especially amateurish. The direction is also sloppy, especially in the dramatically inept non-horror scenes. The music is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the three previous sequels. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
'Halloween 5' is also seriously lacking in atmosphere and the darkness and grittiness doesn't come through enough because too much of the film is dull and descends into overly-silly camp. Again, 'Halloween 5' feels more of the same, the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical. The characters mostly are very bland and annoying, especially Tina. High quality of acting and dialogue is never to be expected in a 'Halloween' film, but both are especially bad here. The script is so last-minute sounding and not even half-baked and outside of the aforementioned the acting is terrible.
In summary, one of the worst of the series. Scary and thrilling are the two last words to describe this revenge. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Which is why it is such a shame that not only are all of the sequels nowhere near as good but that the decline in quality is so drastic. Ok, the original 'Halloween' is very difficult to follow on from, but most of the sequels could at least looked like effort was made into them. To me, and many others it seems, 'Halloween 5' is one of the worst of the series. Even with its attempt at a grittier tone, it is far from a thrill ride and there is very little scary about it, other than one scene and how poor quality the film is.
Danielle Harris and Don Shanks give strong performances, as does Ellie Cornell in the limited screen time she has. Donald Pleasance does his best and succeeds in creating an unnerving presence, but his character is now too much of a caricature which is at the writers' door not his.
There is one effective scene, that with the laundry chute which is actually pretty freaky. The setting has a haunting eeriness when it is not hindered by the low-budget-looking rushed-looking filming.
Sadly, most of the time it is with the editing being especially amateurish. The direction is also sloppy, especially in the dramatically inept non-horror scenes. The music is here a drawback when it was one of the better elements of the three previous sequels. Here it sounds cheap, goofy and would have sounded out of date even in the 80s most likely.
'Halloween 5' is also seriously lacking in atmosphere and the darkness and grittiness doesn't come through enough because too much of the film is dull and descends into overly-silly camp. Again, 'Halloween 5' feels more of the same, the chilling scares, nail-biting suspense and the feeling of being unsettled. There is nothing creative or shocking about the scares or deaths, it's all by-the-numbers, over-familiar and indifferent. Everything is just too predictable and dull in pace to be remotely suspenseful.
Stupidity is also all over the film. So many moments are intelligence-insultingly ridiculous and almost illogical. The characters mostly are very bland and annoying, especially Tina. High quality of acting and dialogue is never to be expected in a 'Halloween' film, but both are especially bad here. The script is so last-minute sounding and not even half-baked and outside of the aforementioned the acting is terrible.
In summary, one of the worst of the series. Scary and thrilling are the two last words to describe this revenge. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Very fun and good Halloween Sequel!
esamer4 July 2018
I don't see why this movie got such a low rating on IMBD. I actually liked Halloween 5 a little more than 4. While part 4 was still good, I found 5 to be overall more fun and more adventures with how the plot develops. Plus this one has a more darker and scary feel to it, and it actually scared me. In this one, Jamie Loyd, Michael's niece, is mute and is in a children's care center. But she also has psychological connections with her uncle. I know it sounds a bit cheezy, but it actually plays out quite well. There is some serious tense and suspenseful scenes, in which Jamie is trying to warn people that Michael is about to kill someone, but cannot due to her muteness. This one is more campy and fun and felt more true to the slasher genre than the previous. It's also quite an exciting ride as we follow Michael and Jamie around Hadonfield and eventually to Michael's old house in a great climax! Definitely recommend this one to any Halloween or horror fan.
As good as the 4th one, which means, it's pretty good
ajaws4ever30 September 2006
Halloween 5 is one of the most intense Halloween movies in the series. At the least the ending in. The full title is Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers. He is taking his revenge on Jamie (his niece in the movie), and Rachel (Jamie's stepsister), for running him over in the previous film. Michael just barely escaped the explosives, and now he wants revenge. Not as pointless as you may think, it still carries the first Halloween movie's plot with it. The only Halloween movies that don't carry the Halloween plot is Halloween 3: Season of the Witch, and Halloween 8: Resurrection. Halloween 5 is still one of the best Halloween movies in the franchise.
Original MPAA rating: R
My MPAA rating: R: Strong Horror Violence/Gore Including Intense Terror, Disturbing Images, Sexuality/Nudity Including Dialogue, Language, and Drug References.
My Canadian Rating: R: Violence, Gory Scenes, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content, Mature Theme, Coarse Language
Original MPAA rating: R
My MPAA rating: R: Strong Horror Violence/Gore Including Intense Terror, Disturbing Images, Sexuality/Nudity Including Dialogue, Language, and Drug References.
My Canadian Rating: R: Violence, Gory Scenes, Frightening Scenes, Disturbing Content, Mature Theme, Coarse Language
Not bad, but not good
duce1227 October 1999
The film starts out scary with some frightening scenes, then they all abruptly stop as soon as Rachel (Ellie Cornell, unfortunately so underused in an early death scene) dies. So we are left with stupid, unlikable characters.
4 was better.
4 was better.
Not the best
Eraser818 February 2003
Halloween 5 was a step down compared to others. A better director probally would have done better with the script, which wasn't that bad.
Donald Pleasence again trys to put away Michael Myers, but this time takes a swat team into the Myers house with him. Well of course they are no match for Myers, but Loomis does manage to capture Myers in chains and beat him to a pulp.
Good performances, but badly filmed. It looks like a made for cable movie.
**/****
Donald Pleasence again trys to put away Michael Myers, but this time takes a swat team into the Myers house with him. Well of course they are no match for Myers, but Loomis does manage to capture Myers in chains and beat him to a pulp.
Good performances, but badly filmed. It looks like a made for cable movie.
**/****
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
