Halloween 5: The Revenge Of Michael Myers

Boy, 1989 was a bad year for horror. Especially for certain horror franchises who ride high on box office success in 1988 but would give particular studio execs to release another sequel by the next year. That's the case with Halloween 5.
You know what I think about this movie? I think it's a complete time waster. God, I never witness such a pointless sequel. Well, it's not totally pointless since the last movie left us for an opportunity for interesting sequels. But I said INTERESTING. I was not invested into this in the least. I really wanted to, since it's continues Jamie's story, however, the movie refuses to do that. Most of the time we have to focus on utterly moronic teen characters that I pretty much didn't give a shit about, along with unnecessary scenes of pointless padding. It's incredibly boring and a chore to get through.
Let me just get this over with. It's really not much to go over and there's really not much to talk about in this movie. That's how non-existent it is.
The Story: After the events of the last film, Jamie is put into a Children's Clinic and seems to be suffering from PTSD, rending her mute. She also has a vivid physic connection to her thought-to-be uncle. Rising from his unmarked grave, he goes back to his unfinished business and it's only up to Jamie to break free from her psychosis to warn the people around that Michael Myers is back to release his blood lust.

The cast is terrible! though there are the exceptions with Jamie, Doctor Loomis, and a minor character named Billy. What the movie and therefore the script focuses on is the idiotic Tina and her equally idiotic friends. It's like the sequel never seems to take it's time with much more developed characters like Jamie and she should deserve as much screen time as she has because technically she is the main character but the director  refuses to do that. So we're left with the shrilling, ear-piercing voice of Tina for the majority of the movie.

First, let's start with Rachel, who was unceremoniously killed off early in the film. It wasn't the filmmakers killing her off that bothered me, it was HOW they killed her off. They could've had the chance to actually make her a much better written character but they just whisk her off like a tattered old piece of paper. And how they write her is also a problem. It's like none of the events of the last movie didn't effect her in any way. But as the saying goes: it is what it is.
And I cringe at the thought of this new character. Ugh. Without further ado, here is:

Tina. Oh dear lord, Tina. She is horribly played by Wendy Caplan, some actress I don't know or don't even want to know.

So what's there to say about Tina? Well, Tina likes to party. She's a party girl. Life is a party to her.....That's pretty much her character. She also hops around like a 5 year old high on sugar. And she's like that for THE REST OF THE MOVIE. Does a normal person act like this? Either she's on some hard drugs or she's really that mentally unbalanced.

What's even worse is that after Rachel is killed, she is our main focus. So what, she's our new final girl now? That's what I thought when first watching this. There was no rhyme or reason for this character to have this much time on screen, it was ridiculous. But I guess for some reason, the writer-director just found her fascinating and we are left to suffer this atrocity of a performance. By far one of the most despicable characters put in horror film.'
Now let's take a look at Tina's friends, trust me, I will go through this fast. There are nothing but caricatures, cardboard cut-outs to be laughed at:

We have Samantha, Tina's partner in crime. She's blond. And she's dumb. That's all I got, really. Though, I come to wonder why somebody like Rachel would be friends with these people but oh well.

Then you have Spitz. He is an example of what I call a male bimbo, which translate to himbo. He pretty much runs around the majority of the movie, squealing like an idiot.

Lastly, you have Tina's short-tempered, greaser-wannabe boyfriend Michael (get it). There's not much about him and he's only there just be killed by Michael M. and have his car stolen.

And just to squeeze this in here, we have these dumb cops who are treated as comic relief. I say comic relief because for some strange reason, clown music starts playing whenever they appear on screen. I really don't get this director but I'll take a riff on him later.
Just like what I did with the last movie, here are the more IMPORTANT characters:

Jamie, again played by Danielle Harris, thankfully has enough screen time for us to care about her as a character but sadly there are some inconsistences with her.  Where do these physic powers come from? I just don't get it. And neither does it continue on with this plot thread. Also they tried to retcon the ending of the last film, which is terrible but at least they found a way for us to make her sympathetic.

I do like the scenes between her and Billy. It's really sweet and it's one of Jamie's first experiences of Puppy Love. This what makes her grow as a character and the movie have so many missed opportunities of that. If there had been moments like this, I would've disliked the movie less.

Danielle Harris yet again gives a good performance, though unfortunately she's mute by half of the movie. But it doesn't hinder her acting. Even though, I think this is a low quality film, Danielle Harris pulls through just fine.

Sadly, I couldn't say the same for Dr. Loomis. He seems so wasted in this sequel, coming off like a deranged old man in a clichéd horror film. And it's not so much on Donald Pleasance's performance, it's just how the character is written.

Okay for instance, by the end of the movie, he uses Jamie as bait. Really? This isn't the Dr. Loomis I know. Donald Pleasance is still great but there is some underlying fact that the Dr. Loomis character might be going crazy himself.

I have to say my piece about Michael, as always, before my get to the more infuriating things about this movie. I like that they actually choose an actor with the right kind of build for the character but still not lovin' the mask though. I would say it is a step up from the last movie, but this mask looks more like Paper Mache.

There is the one particular moment that is still controversial till this day....Michael Myers cries. I really don't see this as a big deal, but him being describe as "evil with a face" and then all of sudden, getting one shred of emotion, kind of confuses things. Though I would say that scene between him and Jamie was kind of touching, though sadly, he still tries to kill her. Seeing that scene, tells me that Michael maybe truly suffering from some type of mental condition but the movie never goes deep into that and it just lives us confused. But don't worry, the next movie stupidly explains this.....
The suspense is either hit or miss. Mostly miss. Half of the movie consists of jump scares from our idiot teen characters. But some can be a hit with the climax involving Jamie and Michael. It's always scary when a child gets menaced like that and I was at the edge of my seat the whole time.

Speaking of Part 6, there are certain key elements that would lead us to the next movie. First, there is the thorn symbol, that we constantly see and secondly, the man in black, a character that would lead up to one of the most confusing, dumbest endings put in a horror film. But you know what the real punch line is? Writer-director Dominique Othein-Girad just thrown it in there to stretch out the movie more. Wow. Just Wow.
Which leads us to some Trivia:

Debra Hill was the one who suggested Dominique Othein-Girad. Love ya, Deb But I have to say that was a pretty huge mistake.
This marks the second time Michael Myers has been unmasked as he also was in the original.
The final budget of the movie was 3 million dollars. What a waste of money.
Rushed in production before a script was even written, Producer Moustapha Akkad admitted he was drunk of the success of Halloween 4. He's not the only one though, Just take a look at F13: Jason Takes Manhattan and NOES: Dream Child.
The reason why the Myers house looks vastly different from it's original exterior was because Dominique Othen-Girad wanted a house that fitted into the scenes of the script. But to be honest, I think he wanted more atmosphere for the film, rather that was a bad idea or not.
Shem Bitterman originally wrote a script that revolved around Halloween 4's shocking ending. Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasance was pretty much on board with this but Dominique Othenin-Girad was not. He hated the idea, and wrote a new fresh script with Michael Jacobs. Really, truly a bad idea.
The film ranked in 11.6 million dollars at the box office, which surprisingly made back the movie's budget. But it was not received well internationally, being released direct to video in some foreign countries.
The reviews of the movie was harsh and rightfully so, though I would say this movie is more....disappointing. It had the potential to be something more, have some actual character development but what we got was just hollow and boring to watch. It was really tedious to sit through. Danielle Harris alone what saved  the movie and there was at least some passion behind the writing before Mr. Othein-Girad( sorry I keep butchering his name, I 'm just not familiar wit the director) ruined it.
Trust me, this is a pretty bad movie but there were chances of not being one. So I said what I said, it's nothing more than a forgettable dud.
My last word: Don't waste your time on this.

 

Hunk Of The Day: Mystery Guest

Guys, I have a confession to make....I had a specific little childhood dreamboat in my day, that I would like to disclose...I have a major crush on.....

Steve Guttenberg. I know he's a little too old for me but hey I like a daddy once and for a while. At first, I thought he was some goofy comedian in the vein of Tom Hanks, But then I found him to extremely handsome with a really nice body. I was totally hot for this guy for some reason. And you know what, til this day I would dig him. But enough small talk let's indulge into the manliness of this 80's hunk.

 

 

 

Here as a young stallion back in the day. Yum.

 

 

Even when he's much older and distinguished, he still got it.

 

 

Gotta love the wet suit. Look at that package!

 

 

But I know what you guys want. So here are some shirtless pictures to do you some good:

 

Just look at that chest I could bury my face in it

 

 

And here's the full view for your pleasure

 

 

The Tarzan look really suits him

 

 

Even now he's still got that awesome body.



 

So there's at least one of my secret crushes. Here I am, as young as I am, still drooling over a guy that was a staple of  the 80's, a decade before I was even born. But who cares, This guy is one sexy daddy that still got his mojo running and that's always something I appreciate.







 

Movie Review: Halloween 4: The Return Of Michael Myers

It's been 6 years since the massive flop of Halloween 3. So producer Moustapha Akkad decided to bring fans what they wanted in a long time: Michael Myers.
There have been many ideas to bring a fresh new take on the story but still have the essence of the original. The filmmakers even tried bringing back some of the old cast but they only brought back Donald Pleasance since Jamie Lee Curtis was a huge star at the time and this being a low-budget movie they couldn't afford her massive movie salary. So this was at the time where movies like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street were taking over cinemas and This Halloween project was going to be a stiff competition. So it wouldn't be a surprise that the filmmakers decided to make it more harder-edged and brutal than the earlier films, along with the continuation of Halloween and Halloween 2.
I can see why everybody enjoyed this one, however, It was rather dull. Not that it was bad or anything, it was just so-so, I thought there would be more to this but it came to a point where it's just another generic slasher film. There was so many ideas that would've made this movie better, however, it all fell flat at the end. The biggest problem I have with this is the writing. There was a big writer strike in 1988, which is part of this problem. We have far more important storylines the filmmakers needed to focus on yet the majority of the movie involves an unnecessary teen love triangle subplot which is rather boring and uninteresting. The plot holes are pretty obvious as well. Okay, Michael Myers from the second movie was basically incinerated but in this sequel, apparently, that hospital explosion only got him into a coma with a few burn scars here and there. That's impossible, I mean he was literally burnt into a crisp. This also goes to Dr. Loomis who has tiny scars on his face even though he too was blown to bits. The movie's excuse was that he was thrown out of the hospital but that's just goes beyond logic. How come Jamie is having visions of Michael when she doesn't even know who he is? I know the next movie stupidly explains this but there is no rhyme or reason Jamie is suddenly having nightmares about him. When did Michael have superpowers? Head crushings, throat-rippings, and impaling somebody with his thumb? What? And there is one death scene that goes beyond physics and I'll tell you later in the review.
Guys, I don't think this is a horrible movie or anything, sure it's entertaining but there is just so many  flaws, plot holes, and inconsistences that keep this movie from being any good.
The Story: It's been ten years since Michael Myers terrorized the streets of Haddonfield and now that the mass murderer is being placed in a coma, Smith's Grove officials decide to transfer him but before someone says he has living relative in Haddonfield he instantly breaks out of his coma and proceeds his deadly path of finding his long lost niece. Meanwhile, young Jamie Lloyd is preparing for Halloween along with her foster sister Rachel but little do they know is that Michael is dead set on their tracks and he's ready to spill blood on Haddonfield once again.

The cast is actually good but it's just certain characters that are not just that interesting to me.

Okay, let's start with Rachel. I know she's a fan favorite and everything but I don't think she's all that special. When she is first introduced, she comes off like a typical whiny, self-indulgent teenage girl. Sure, it makes her somewhat realistic, however, all her storyline revolves around this guy named Brady, a guy she doesn't even know herself.

But I would say this, the moments between her and Jamie are sweet, even though she says the wrong things at the wrong time with her.  The fans say that Rachel is likeable but maybe it's the actress that makes her likeable. I'm sorry I just don't think Rachel is the true main character to me. With Laurie from the first movie, we've got to know her as a person. With Rachel, not so much.

Then there's Brady, Rachel's main squeeze. What's there to say about Brady? Well, he's cute in a generic 80's sort of way. But surprise, surprise, He cheats on Rachel with the Sheriff's daughter. So yeah, Brady's kind of a jerk but that's all I can say about him other than being a stereotypical horny teenage boy.

There's really nothing for me to say about Kelly or Kathleen Kinmont's acting. She just your usual blond bimbo in a horror film and she's also nothing more than a fan service treat for guys. Though, there's one interesting thing about her is that she gets one of the most confusing death scenes ever put in a slasher film.
Now for the more important characters:

Danielle Harris gives a heartbreaking performance as Jamie, a young girl who is not only psychologically damaged by her parent's sudden death but seem to be troubled that she's Michael Myers's niece. Viciously bullied at school and haunted by the eternal boogeyman, Jamie is now at the same position her mother once was when the night he came home.

Jamie is a thoroughly-written character, it's just there's not much time with her. In the end, she's treated like the typical child in a horror film, even though I feel she is the actual main character. however, I can't help but feel she was sidelined a bit. Overall, Danielle Harris is an accomplished actress and having a such a perfect performance at such a young age, she came a long way.

Donald Pleasance comes off as a bit worn down in some places but he still is magnetic as Dr. Loomis. He has even become more iconic as the shape himself.

He takes things in his own hands in this version whenever Michael wreaks havoc. I would also like to point out this one pivotal scene he has with this preacher guy. They are both trying to fight different evils in the world and I thought the movie handled that well. But to be honest, not much is focused on Dr. Loomis. Sure, he fights his way into saving the town of Haddonfield, It's just not much importance on him to salvage the story.

And now The Shape is back and powerful than ever.....Here is.....Michael Myers....Though this version of Michael is a mixed bag for me. A VERY mixed bag. Let's first talk about the mask. Oh God, it looks like a cheap dollar store copycat. It's just so plain-looking. I know that they couldn't make it look like it once was back in 1978 but at least they should've put the effort to replicate it.

Not only that but he looks extremely bulky in this version.

He also seems to be incredibly powerful as he rips apart people with his bare hands. he just comes off too much like a Jason Voorhees knock-off.
Which leads me to this:

How the hell can he impale someone with a shotgun? It just goes beyond the laws of physics. But really, this isn't the Michael Myers I used to know. I feel like a certain slasher villain have their own agendas and strategies. I don't think this version of Michael is not as pure or scary as he was in the original.
In this sequel, they tried really hard to make this a gorefest which isn't really effective but I do appreciate a certain scene when all of the characters are in one house, anticipating whether Michael would pop up or not. It's one of the few scenes in the movie that is actually suspenseful.
Now for some trivia:
Melissa Joan Hart (yes, that's Sabrina The Teenage Witch) once auditioned for the role of Jamie.
And Here's a Freddy and Michael connection! Actress Ellie Cornell once auditioned for the role of Alice Johnson (or Kristen Parker, from other sources) in  A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: Dream Master.
And Speaking of Jason, Here's a Jason and Michael connection:

Stuntman Tom Morga who once played Jason in Friday The 13th: A New Beginning, also played Michael in the first few scenes. To be honest, I would rather the filmmakers had him to play the role in general instead of just a stand-in. He has the tall, slender build that filmmakers needed for the role. But oh well.
John Carpenter originally teamed up with Dennis Ecthison to write a Michael Myers-centric storyline. Their script focused on how traumatized Haddonfield had become following the first two films, banning the Halloween holiday altogether. It was then by the attempted erasure of his legacy that Michael Myers returned. Moustapha Akkad rejected the script as being too cerebral. Well, in my opinion, it would've made the movie better, it would've had more story than it does. A lot more than the stupid subplot with the teens.
But at least the movie made money at the box office, cashing in at 17,768,757, even bigger than it's 5,000,000 budget. Wow.
I just don't know what to think of this one. Some part of me wanted to like since it is a fan favorite but there's just too many flaws that are so open.

There's one good thing I could say about this is the ending which probably had the potential to open doors for much more interesting  sequels but sadly that never came to be.
I was kind of hoping that this would be an anthology series and then make a sequel about Michael Myers. It would've been more......substantial. More interesting. But it is what is and we have the next two horrible sequels to cover. So brace yourselves, guys.
My Last Word: It's just okay to me. It can be watchable at some point but it's not memorable.