Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) User Reviews

Are we sure this is a Sequel to Halloween 4?

[MissCzarChasm · 5/10 · 30 April 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Halloween 4, my favorite sequel of the bunch, was a pretty good slasher film. It mad Halloween hip again, made Myers scary again, and presented us with the most shocking endings in a horror film in a long while. The way that film ended i was just sure that when the 5th Halloween was to be released they were going to do something new and exciting with it.

Unfortunately for us Halloween fans the filmmakers chickened out. They practially abandoned what they ended with in the previous installment and did this business as usual. To call this a sequel to the far more superior 4th installment is an insult. Why did things go horribly wrong, espcially since these films were shot and released within months of each other.

Halloween 5 does a few things right. It picks up where the 4th one left off. However the actual ending of the 4th film is given screentime in a flashback in the beginning but is totally ignored throughout the rest of the film. The performances are pretty dead on. Danielle Harris is even better than she was int he 4th installment. A very solid thespian for someone at a such a young age. Donald Pleasance presence is good thing in any Halloween film but his deranged bit that was used well in the 4th installment is slightly over-played in this film. There are 2 fairly good stalk sequences. *POTENTIAL SPOILER* One with Jamie trapped in a cellar as Michael stabs through it trying to get to his prey. The other being Myers trying to run Jamie down as she runs away in extreme terror. *END SPOILER*.

THE BAD HOWEVER MOST DEFINITELY OUTWEIGHS THE GOOD UNFORTUNATELY. Myers just isn't scary in this installment. He actually put chills down my spine in the 4th film however is this one it's the equivalent of a bum trying to hunt you down. The mask is also all wrong. It looks too goofy. The teenage characters are too annoying for words. When they're on screen i was rooting for Michael to take them out. One character that everyone thought was annoying was Tina. She was slightly nerve-wracking but her sacifice in the end made her a fairly likable character in the end. The movie is extremely slow. i understand when movies move gradually to build suspense but there are scenes in this film that just waste time. Such as the scenes with the two goofy cops. what was that all about? I understand that a series in its 5th installment needs to go into a new direction to stay fresh but the direction this film goes in is totally wrong. They should've stuck with the ending of part 4 and done something with that instead we get a new plot twist("the man in black") that is revealed in the 6th film but this plot thread buried the 5th and 6th film in my opinion. It just seems out of place.

*SPOILER*

Their biggest mistake was A)Killing off Rachel and B) If you're going to kill her don't kill her so early in the film. She was the heart and soul in the 4th film and she is killed within the first 20 minutes. Big mistake on the filmmakers part.

As you can see i was very disappointed with this film especially since it followed the far superior 4th installement. In the case of this series i'm glad they kept making films until they got to H20 just so they could finally do one worth watching.

The beginning of the end!

[markovd111 · 6/10 · 6 July 2019]

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 :)

"I prayed that he would burn in hell. But in my heart, I knew that hell would not have him."

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 18 January 2010]

No surprises that Michael Myers didn't actually die at the end of "Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers" in a blaze of gun fire, causing him to tumble down a cave and throwing in some dynamite to hopefully finish him off. Well that didn't work, as he barely escapes and finding himself floating down a river to be rescued by some old hermit who looks after him for a year to bring him back to health. Now it's close to Halloween again, Michael awakes to pay him back for his troubles. Myers gets back to his brutal business and heads back to Haddonfield with the intention of killing his niece Jamie. After the horrific ordeal of stabbing her step-mother, she's now at a children's hospital and left with the inability to speak but somehow shares a telepathic link with her uncle to know when he would kill. Dr. Loomis sees this in Jamie and tries everything to get her to use it so he can finally destroy Michael Myers.

"Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers" was one of the sequels that I wasn't to fond of when first watched it, but after continuous repeat viewings its slightly growing on me, nonetheless still it's not without its problems in what is an unsatisfying exercise. While a little more grittier being very misogynistic and graphic (which the previous sequel wasn't) with its deaths, it's run-of-the-mill formula fell on the dull, lumpy side with it being less punctuated with grinding suspense and moody atmosphere (as some of it takes place in full daylight) concentrating on visceral unpleasantness and plastered jump scares. This low-budget production feels like a rushed job, and the misguided, wishy washy script just doesn't cut it even with a decent concept for its basis and a few unsettling surprises that caught me off guard. However there are some odd out of character moments involving Michael (toying with his victims, driving after them in what I guess beats slowly walking after them and showing a glimpse of emotion is just to name a few), useless comic routine police officers with ridiculous sound effects backing them up and a cloudy inclusion of a man dressed in black that seems to be following Michael around. The performances are simply mediocre, however the like of Danielle Harris radiates again and Ellie Cornell proves how much of a bold talent she is with a terrifically wholesome turn. Donald Pleasance looks ragged, but he passionately camps it up (with some morbid streaks) to show the obsessive strangle hold Myers has over Loomis' personally and mentally. As now he would do anything to get his man, even risking the life of Jamie to do so. Outside these three, there's not much else. I didn't find the teens here as agreeably likable. Dominique Othenin-Girard's direction is competent, but generically flat with little visual styling (which was an imprint of "Return") and few intensity filled pockets of shocks, which you only wished it could hold it throughout. Still Michael is used unnervingly as a foreshadow within the background of many shots and it always seems to work as he could be lurking anywhere. Also the creative novelty of the film's opening credits is a nice touch.

It's more of the same, but an watchable pedestrian slasher blanketed with shocks.

The Coal Chute made the film

[bh_tafe3 · 5/10 · 5 February 2009]

I'll try the style I used semi-successfully in another life here on IMDb and see how we go.

The Plot: A year has passed since the events of Halloween 4, and Jamie Loyd finds herself mute and living in a child mental institution. She has developed a mental link with her Uncle Micheal, who's been nursed back to health by a rather nice fisherman, who Micheal thanks by killing him. Jamie senses her Uncle's presence, gaining the interest of Dr Loomis. His worst fears are confirmed as Loyd sees her sister dying and it actually happens. Loomis decides he will use Loyd to capture Myers and eventually the three of them are stuck in Micheal's old home for a thrilling finale, involving coffins, corpses and a locked coal chute. The film then ends nonsensically with a man in black boots kidnapping Myers and Jamie from a prison cell at the end film's conclusion.

The script: Uneven. Starts well, meanders through the middle in boring fashion, has a thrilling showdown and then a ludicrous ending.

The acting: Harris, as Loyd, is excellent. Pleasance hams it up to great effect as Loomis. Don Shanks is a terrific Micheal. Right shape and great mannerisms. Supportng cast is rubbish, particularly Wendy Kaplan as Tine. Cornell, as Jamie's sister Rachel, was good in Part 4, but under used here.

The film making: the scenes with Harris in the mental hospital are effective, the entire chase at the end, form the woods to the house and then in the house, specifically the coal chute was outstanding. The rest of the movie was fairly unremarkable. Shame you couldn't take the chase at the end of this and add it to the end of the fourth one.

Overall: Reccomednation to rent. Some of it is ludicrous, but the actual main event of the film, the big chase, is superbly done. There's a ridiculous ending and a lot of pointless exposition to endure along the way. But the coal chute scene alone is worth the price of a rental.

Tame sex scenes and nudity included.

Something went awfully wrong with this one...bad script...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 25 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.

Apart from Pleasence, everyone in the film is just going through the motions.

[G.Spider · 23 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.

As long as you know what to expect...

[icarus-11 · 5/10 · 21 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 =)

Flawed but enjoyable entry in the franchise

[dormesher-21565 · 7/10 · 7 October 2018]

Halloween 5 The Revenge of Michael Myers in my opinion the weakest entry of the original franchise (Not Including Rob Zombie's) it is an enjoyable film and I do have fun with it and it's Third Act is incredible and Michael once again kicks ass with some great kills.

The main negatives I have with this entry In the franchise is how they just ignore that great shock ending in Halloween 4 and make Jamie a mute who now as weird connection with Michael and can sense whenever he is near by an interesting idea and one that does play out really well but not what I was expecting at all from this entry after that great ending in 4 this movie would of been so much better if Jamie had the evil.inside of her this time like it hinted in the end of 4. Another negative is the fact that they kill one of the greatest characters in the franchise Rachel she was a great final girl in the last entry and they just kill her in this one like she was nothing but a cameo that's so annoying and they replace her with Tina the most annoying character I've seen in a horror Franchise.

However the third is incredible with the laundry shoot scene being a highlight of this film and the entire franchise and credit to Danielle Harris for doing that scene because it was a real knife that they was stabbing through the laundry shoot so definitely credit to a kid actor at the time doing that stunt.

Donald Pleasance again playing Sam Loomis is just incredible this is a character I can never get bored of watching always entertaining to watch and he is even crazier in this one I love his determination to stop Michael in all of these movies.

The look Michael in this one I'm not a fan of something about the mask in this one just looks weird. I do enjoy the Introduction of the man In black and introducing the Thorn storyline not the best story arc in this franchise and can get a little complicated for Michael Myers but it's very interesting and to be honest really what this franchise needed at this time was different and interesting.

Verdict 7/10 flawed movie and the weakest of the franchise for me but still very enjoyable and watchable

Not my favorite Halloween flick

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 5/10 · 26 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

Not that bad of a sequel

[jaredkeoppel-34311 · 6/10 · 9 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

[Toronto85 · 5/10 · 3 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

Has it's moments...

[MrTaft · 8/10 · 4 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.

Classic Series

[mrskywalker · 7/10 · 29 October 2002]

1, 2, and 4 were the best. 5 is also good regardless of the comments. The little girl is perhaps the best of all screen horror children surpassing Poltergeist and Linda blair in the Exorcist.

Donald Pleasence is one of the great actors of all time adding incredible class to the series. He is in the league of Peter Cushing and Cristopher Lee. A true great in which the series is meaningless without him.

Halloween 5 spends too much time on teenyboppers with a little too much stuff borrowed from Friday the 13th with silly teen lust combined with slasher stuff. But this film excells when it cuts to the real story of Meyers chasing the girl and the doctor's relentless pursuit. Thank goodness it refrains from too much extreme gore ad special effects which has hurt horror so much in maby other films.

Meyers here is madder than usual and more hyper. He also commits some murders that make him a truly hated figure to me. Spoiler: At the end I wished there would have been another quick sequel and really wanted to know what would happen especially to the little girl and the doctor. I know that there would not be another Halloween for 8 years so I do not really know. I have not seen 6 yet but I fear 8 years is too long to remain relevant to the little girl's story.

4 and 5 makes you really want to meet the doctor and the little girl as if they were real people. Perhaps that is the most haunting thing in the series. Now that Pleasance has really died one can only wonder that movies can in some ways can be far more than movies.

Could've Been Better!

[gwnightscream · 5/10 · 27 February 2012]

Donald Pleasence, Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, Wendy Kaplan and Jeffrey Landman star in this 1989 horror sequel. This entry picks up a year after the events of the last film and Michael Myers (Don Shanks) returns to finish what he started. His niece, Jamie (Harris) is in a psychiatric clinic and has a telepathic link with him. Dr. Loomis (Pleasence) returns to stop Michael once again with Jamie's help. Cornell returns as Rachel, but not for very long. Jamie has a couple new friends, Tina (Kaplan) and Billy (Landman) who also endure her fate. This sequel could've been better, but Pleasence and Harris & aren't bad and I like the intro. I still recommend this for Halloween fans.

The series goes downhill from here

[Mlinville817 · 5/10 · 22 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 better than the Curse of Michael Myers (part 6).

[legendaryunderdog · 5/10 · 5 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.

These Mystery Boots Are Made For Walkin'

[utgard14 · 3/10 · 4 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.

Good scare scenes...

[boomcar61 · 28 February 2005]

After facing a firing squad and falling down a mine shaft at the end of part four, this next sequel continues with Michael crawling out through a hole just before the police throw in a stick of dynamite, and then he proceeds to escape down a river. He eventually comes to a cabin, or something like that, and once inside it he faints and ultimately goes into another of his famous comas. Thanks to the resident hermit, Michael gets plenty of rest for a whole year...

Now telepathically linked to her uncle, young Jamie(now mute and unable to make use of her vocal cords)waits anxiously in Haddonfield Children's Hospital, exactly one year later. She knows that her uncle is coming, but cannot express herself with speech. Thankfully Dr. Loomis is still around, and he senses that Jamie knows something but believes that she is protecting Michael. Jamie's sister Rachel(Ellie Cornell)reprises her role for about ten minutes, unfortunately, since Michael eventually kills her in one of the many well-directed scenes in this installment. Replacing her is Tina(Wendy Kaplan), the widely hated bad actress who I actually kinda liked. Aside from being a bit annoying, I still don't think that she was as bad as some of the buffoons from part six...

Anyways, I used to believe that Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers was superior to its predecessor. However, having recently watched the two back to back, I realize that I was wrong about that. This sequel still has some redeeming qualities, though. While part four delivered some great scare scenes, director Othenin-Girard capitalizes on this formula and delivers even better scares this time. Examples are the aforementioned death scene with Rachel, the chase scene with Jamie in the hospital's basement, the car-chase scene with Tina, and a very suspenseful scene with Jamie in the Myers's laundry chute. In fact, every scene that takes place in the Myers house is superb.

Overall I rate Halloween 5 a 7/10. Some of the editing and voice-overs were absolutely awful so I had to take away a point. Other than that I think that this installment is at least worth a viewing, and the ending will certainly leave you craving more. Too bad we had to wait about six years for another one, and sadly Danielle Harris(who plays Jamie in four and five)does not return. So, to end this, part five is at least better than the next sequel, Halloween 6:The Curse of Michael Myers.

Downgrade from the previous Halloween

[UniqueParticle · 6/10 · 1 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!

Awful in pretty much every way imaginable

[Polaris_DiB · 1/10 · 4 May 2007]

Ho boy, where to begin? At this point in the series, Dr. Loomis has become abusive, the characters are all hateful, Michael's slipping, and the scripts are making even less sense.

We begin right where we left off from Halloween 4, a la Halloween I and II: Michael escapes from the mine shaft, crawls to safety, and gets nursed back to health by some random bum with a parrot. One year later and with a lot more energy, his immediate action once he's able to move is to off the bum and head back to town, hoping to hunt down his niece who now has a psychic connection with him. A troop of teenagers are introduced, and the movie promises carnage. Sort of.

This movie is bad. By bad I mean incompetent on pretty much every level. In horror movies, part of the delight and part of the terror is the fact that the teenagers die, but one character at least we hope will live. Not so in this one. Every single character is a hateful, stereotypical 80s idea of idiocy, and Michael's carnage can't come soon enough. This storytelling is backed up by probably some of the worst editing and directing I've ever seen, as characters move sporadically through jump cuts to... well, they don't really do much of anything, except ignore the warnings of a traumatized little child with a psychic connection to a serial killer. That role is given over to Donald Pleasence's Dr. Loomis, who somehow still has a practice and still is listened to, despite the fact that at this point he breaks about every rule of clinical ethics and the fact that he's an obnoxious jerk.

Breaks every rule... that's what this movie does. This movie is so unable to bring actual horror, suspense, or gory delights to the fore that it literally just bumbles around hoping for something to photograph until Michael comes around, and then the storyline and directing are so incompetent they can't even make Michael seem cool. The scenes in the barn are pretty much must-see for film students who want to know exactly what NOT to do. And then, as if it's not enough, the movie has the audacity to introduce a new character for the sole purpose of letting Michael out of prison... who he is, what he's there for, what he knows, even if it's a he... there's no explanation. They literally wrote a character into the script because they were too lazy to know how to end this movie. That's like THE single basic screenplay no-no.

Of course, there's always room for camp, but camp only works when the film goes in outrageous directions and does things creative and fun. This movie isn't even creative enough to come up with crazy, out-there ideas like Halloween 3, it just lazily serves the tropes of its genre without even the craft and skill required to make a successful continuity cut! By the time this movie ends, you will feel frustrated, bored, betrayed, and uninterested. While this movie plays, you will wish for every character to die just so that you no longer have to watch their stupid, mindless antics, and you will regret renting (or buying) the disc. Halloween 5 isn't even worth the plastic it's printed on, and that's bad considering how cheap it is to put things on DVD.

--PolarisDiB

Ok...let me try and review this movie again...

[Gravedigger-2 · 7/10 · 24 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..

After surviving the mine shaft explosion in the fourth film Michael Myers returns for his niece Jamie Loyd.

[baileygiannini · 5/10 · 20 August 2013]

Having said before that Halloween 4 was a success and worked for me this one I was on the fence with. Halloween 5 was a film that I experienced awhile back. But I still remember it of course. I feel this one wasn't as accurate in its performance than the fourth film. The reason being is that this is when the gore came in. And ever since this film in the Halloween franchise there's always been blood and guts.

And it gets worse as the franchise and the movies goes on. Danielle Harris does a great job of playing Jamie. But the one thing that I didn't like (SPOILER ALERT) was that they killed off Rachel played by Ellie Cornell. She should've been in the movie longer. As for the effects. Good. I felt that this film is a lot more darker and grittier also gorier than the other four films that came before it. But overall even though it's 5 stars it's worth seeing.

We actually got too much from the fourth sequel....

[tyhemp-2 · 9/10 · 13 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.

The most underated film of the series [spoilers]

[Gravedigger-2 · 7/10 · 14 October 2000]

This movie gets a lot of crap for many reasons. One is the beggining of the putrid Thorn storyline...well actually it was OK in this film...It didn't get really bad until the next chapter.

Firstly, I'd like to say that this is a step up from part IV. The acting was 80% better. The characters ranged from okay to likeable. And this is the only character development we've seen from Loomis or Michael throughout the entire series. This movie actually set up to do something different, using more a more psychological rather than the same tired old formula.

It takes place a year after Halloween 4, with Michael Myers apparently dead...Jamie Llyod under the care of a children's "clinic"...and all those affected by the previous rampages trying to get on with their lives. Hoewever, Halloween time is nearing and Loomis knows that Michael is still out there. How does he know? He's a recurring character...obviously he'd know!

This time Michael is becoming more and more agressively and Jamie has some sort of bond with her uncle. Now she can see what he sees. Michael uses this to sadistically torture his nine year old niece by killing off all her friends one by one and she can feel it every time it happens.

Another interesting storyline is Loomis trying to reach Michael's human side. Very, very good for a sequel.

But the bad stuff brings it down. Too much of the movie was used as a set up for the next sequel and it couldn't possibly stand on it's own very well. The Myers mask could've been better..

Overall, a very good slasher flick, just below the first two. If they had ditched the entire thorn thing and given us a more satisfying ending [like Michael simply being locked away in prison for the rest of his life] then this movie could've been better than the first two.

I also didn't mention the excellent directing, loads of suspense, and a very agressive interpretation of Michael Myers...that makes it a good movie too. Just don't except something too much in the vein of the first film because this one is different.

I prayed that he would burn in hell...but in my heart, I knew that hell would not have him!-Donald Pleasence

A disgrace to the "Halloween Series".......

[cny_cd · 2/10 · 27 January 2010]

This film was incredibly bad on many levels. By the middle of it, honestly I was bored and at times forgot that this was a horror film. This is a movie that should have never been made, and is one of the worst of the series. This film is really for "Halloween" completest only, and is for the most part unwatchable. The storyline that ended "Halloween 4" isn't revisited (with no explanation), and goes in a really strange and awful direction that is continued in the EVEN WORSE film that follows. The whole "man in black" concept is ridiculous and silly, and actually isn't even explained until the next film. The acting is very bad, and Donald Pleasance seems like he is really slowing down and ill throughout the film. I actually felt sorry for him watching this. Do yourself a favor, and don't even waste your time renting this.