baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (The Phantom) (10/24/89)
HALLOWEEN 5
A film review by baumgart@esquire.dpw.com
Copyright 1989 baumgart@esquire.dpw.com
HALLOWEEN 5: THE REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS
-----------------------------------------
You know going into any film with a numeral in the title that you're bound
to be a little disappointed, but the Phantom was a bit surprised at what a
state the "Halloween" series is in. Certainly he believed that the awful
HALLOWEEN 3: SEASON OF THE WITCH should have killed the series once and for
all, and that if the irrelevant and boring Silver Shamrock shenanigans in that
film didn't do it, then the mechanical, clockwork Jasonized killings of
HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS would be the final nail in the
series' coffin. The fact that more people were involved in the making of these
films than attended them should have helped the series' timely demise.
But no, it seems that neither Michael nor Mustapha (Akaad, the series'
producer now that John Carpenter is long gone) can be stopped. And yet the
Phantom finds that he himself can't stop going; he was hooked at the tender age
of 14 and has made it a lifelong habit. He faithfully attends opening night
showings of even the most horrible horror film, in the hope that *this* one
will be an unexpected pleasure, this year's HELLRAISER or EVIL DEAD. But
HALLOWEEN 5 raises no hell, and it's a toss-up as to what's more dead about the
film: the plot, the script, or Donald Pleasence's performance.
If by now you get the feeling that the Phantom was less than satisfied
with the latest "Halloween," well, you're right. But the film has it's good
points, and although they aren't enough to salvage the film, they do make
watching it a little more enjoyable (or at least tolerable).
The camera work and cinematography are good and inventive (as they were in
HALLOWEEN 4). Although there are far too many false alarms, most of Michael's
scenes are well set up; unlike the "Friday the 13th" series, wherein people are
dispatched left and right by an all but unseen Jason, the "Halloween" series
has always had Michael skulk around a bit before getting down to business.
This adds greatly to the suspense, and some of the scenes in HALLOWEEN 5 are
done with nearly as much flair as the original HALLOWEEN. The opening credits
are also very nicely done; it's a shame that no one spent as much time on the
rest of the film as was spent on its first 90 seconds.
But the film (and the series) looks tired; the producers are just going
through the motions now, hoping to spend as little as possible on each film and
just enough on advertising to promote sufficient video sales and rentals to
turn a profit. Worse, the film has one of the most bogus endings of any in
recent memory. To those concerned with spoilers, let me just say that there's
a tall man dressed in black who steps off a bus mid way through the film and
that he doesn't help matters any. To anyone planning to see HALLOWEEN 5, the
Phantom strongly recommends getting up and leaving the theater just before the
final scene; you'll be glad you did. If you hang around the concession stand,
you'll be able to hear clearly the audience's collective reaction to the scene
you missed, aptly summarized by a greatly underaged boy in the audience: "Aw
man, that's bullsh*t."
If it weren't for that final scene, the Phantom would have given HALLOWEEN
5 a star and half (out of 4), but Michael sends us all home with such an air of
disappointment that 1 star is all it deserves.
Better to wait for this one to hit your local Blockbusters and save your
money for SHOCKER, Wes Craven's latest due out a few days before Halloween.
This one looks very good; it looks like Craven is trying to recreate the
success he had with the original A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. And since
NIGHTMARE 5 was so disappointing, the Phantom is glad that Craven is coming
back to remind us all how good a horror film can be.
Also on the horizon is Robert Englund in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (the ads for
which prominently display a disclaimer to the effect that the film is not based
upon any previous "Phantom of the Opera" film, stage show, or book); it's due
out a week after SHOCKER, but it doesn't look nearly as promising, not the
least because Menachem Golan, half of the now defunct Cannon Films, is
associated with the film.
The Phantom will be back in a couple of weeks with reviews for both.
Until then, he welcomes Phan mail from anyone interested in the, shall we say,
non-mainstream films he so loves.
: The Phantom
: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com
: {cmcl2,uunet}!esquire!baumgartkws1x@dale.acc.Virginia.EDU (Kenneth W. Smith Jr) (11/01/89)
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.