Starring: Donald Pleasence, Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, Wendy Foxworth, Beau Starr, Tamara Glynn.
Director: Dominique Othenin-Girard.
This is the point where the Halloween series basically becomes a run-of-the-mill slasher flick with little to no plot or sense meaning whatsoever. Only reason I'm even really bothering to watch it is, well, that's kind of the point of this whole blog and it's almost Halloween. Like, three more days for me to watch what are mostly groan-inducing sequels, reboots and remakes that will likely kill large portions of my soul.
After being shot by the Police and Mob at the end of Part 4, Michael gets washed down river, and ends up hanging out at the shanty home of some weird Sailor guy with a Parrot and goes to sleep for a year, because writing is hard. I don't see why he sleeps for a year. I don't see why the grungy sailor dude keeps him around...does the sailor also feed him? Bathe him? Does Michael, y'know, shit? They establish that the guy eats in the first movie... It's a full year, guys. Not a day, but a full year.
Did they retcon Jamie murdering her foster mom? I guess she just "attacked" her, which I guess is something you get over. Jamie is in some hospital under constant observation, is now mute, and apparently has some sort of psychic connection to Michael all of a sudden. It isn't the WORST hook, but it's not a great one, too. But, anyway, Loomis is back to gravelly deliver more lines and not present any civility or explanations for his actions and, as such, once again be the best part of the film. When Jamie feels some sort of fear that Michael killed her Dog and Rachel, Loomis calls and just shouts orders at Rachel with no explanations offered...to Rachel's credit, she wisely does what he says. If Loomis called me while I was in the shower and told me to run outside "now, now, now" I'd totally do it. Who'd argue with that guy?
I'm getting the impression Loomis might not be the best Psychiatrist in the world. He doesn't seem entirely up to the task of caring for a young girl, at any rate: I know he needs to bring down Michael and is rightfully paranoid that a return of the killer is imminent, but is yelling desperately in her face really, y'know, theraputic?
Why are the cops goofy Abbott and Costello types? Why does clown music play? I know writing is hard and all, and it was 1989, but...huh?
Of course, listening to Loomis ultimately bites her in the ass and Rachel comes down with a case of "sudden sequel death syndrome" and out. It's an odd choice...I'm assuming Ellie Cornell was just not game for the whole thing? Anyway, we're left with Tina which is actually probably my favorite thing in the actual movie. It's not that Wendy Foxworth is an exceptional actress or anything, or that the character is interesting at all, it's that Tina is not a character we usually see taking the role she does. Tina is very much the ditzy best friend who by all rights should be killed at the end of the first act to get things rolling. Instead, Tina is the ditzy best friend who 1)actually CARES about and loves Jamie, the little nutcase sister of her best friend and 2) actually has a decent head on her shoulders when push comes to shove. It's a very unusual element, fleshing out a cannon fodder character to an important role.
Loomis continuing to shout at, bully, intimidate and threaten a little girl is only really acceptable as sequel behavior: the guy has been through a lot and knows that shit is going down and doesn't exactly have time for civility or decency. A little wouldn't be a bad thing, of course, but Loomis is if nothing else a completely static character: there is no growth to Loomis, no real change, just the deterioration of his body and the deepening of his own obsession. It's a bit of a cliche, but Loomis is very much the Captain Ahab of this series, desperately hunting his white whale. The only thing that distances himself from Ahab himself is that while Ahab hunted the Whale primarily because it was there, and because he sought vengeance, Loomis has his obsession born from a desire to protect the innocent (at first anyway), he's just very extreme and impolite about it.
There's not a lot of cohesion going on-I had forgotten about the guy with the boots(all we see is boots) wandering around throughout the film that never goes anywhere-or any real...it just doesn't work. It wants to do a lot of things: be cute and funny, be suspenseful, seemingly have some sort of connection to various other supernatural thrillers...but it just feels flimsy and shallow.
Alright, I legit felt my heart warm when the boy with the stutter brought Jamie flowers and gave her his bracelet. It was really actually very sweet.
Tina's costume is pretty hot. It's a little strange that she doesn't seem to realize that Michael is not her boyfriend simply because of his sheer size and...well, she's dating the guy. Does she not know her boyfriend when he's a few feet away? I assume she figures it's him because he acts like a dick.
If there is anything this film does well, it's sentiment. Danielle Harris is a capable actor, and when she manages to squeak out Tina's name, or tearfully beg Tina not to leave, it's effective. Wendy Foxworth does well with the material as well: she provides her own tears in a way that feels very honest. Again, I can't say enough about how impressed in general I am with the way the character of Tina is handled and the tropes that it averts. The movie never forgets who she is, though, and so she does become a little uneven...but I honestly don't mind so much about it. It actually provides a dimension to the character not normally seen: we see her serious, we see her childish and ditzy. We see her responsible and we see her flighty: there's a version of her she puts out into the world and who she really is. I might be overstating it, maybe even reading into things a little more than I should (it certainly seems like it was a course correct due to the unavailability of Ellie Cornell), but I feel like Tina is easily the best thing about this film.
I think the worst thing about this film is it's attempt at humor. I keep trying to put my finger on what it is exactly about this film that makes it feel so...awful. The humor is probably the worst of it. I think the thing about it is that Halloween 5 isn't that bad a film, really: it handles sentiment and character well enough, it's as generally technically sound as any other average film...it's just that it's not a GOOD film at all, either. It manages to justify itself well enough-I'm beginning to feel like maybe this movie is given a harder time than it deserves-but it just doesn't manage to make the horror elements quite work. Michael is pretty standard slasher movie monster, killing randomly and without purpose which-given that the series was always based on him hunting a very specific person and killing whoever got in his way(or potentially could get in his way)-is entirely out of place. Why would Myers go to a party and kill teenagers when Jamie isn't anywhere near there? Is Jamie no longer the target? It's just stereotypical slasher film stuff. There's no suspense or tension...no plot, just random kills.
Kids in danger is always easy but usually effective. There's a single shot of Jamie running across a field through the fog with a car chasing her, the headlights the only illumination in the frame...it's well done. Once Jamie and Tina are united and both attempt to distract Michael from the other, things come alive a bit more, even if Michael just doesn't seem as credible a threat as he has in other films. Actually, we got to the end of Tina. It's not as dramatic as I remember, but it still worked well enough. Just as Michael gets the drop on Jamie, Tina leaps into action to protect her and is stabbed as she tells Jamie to run. It's not the most fitting end for Tina, exactly-it would have been nice if she made it to the third act, she had earned it-but it always tickles me when a character who has no real business being heroic acts heroic.
The set-up for the third act isn't great. Loomis gives a speech designed to make Michael go to the house after Jamie (suddenly that's his goal again) with the entire Haddonfield Police Force hanging around outside. It seems like it's supposed to be a trap but...what was the end game of that? It does have Troy Evans, though, a great character actor. Unfortunately he comes off very To Catch A Predator in his scene with Jamie and he clearly isn't meant to. He recovers, though, once Loomis shows up. But really, this set-up isn't great. The only thing that works is Loomis clearly expecting the Police to do the dumbest thing possible (being manipulated into sending the entire police force away by what is obviously a diversion) and preparing to spring his trap which, apparently, was to have a chat with Michael about rage and love or whatever. Shockingly, it doesn't work and Loomis takes another slash and is thrown through yet another window. Then Michael kills Troy Evans, to the surprise of no one.
It feels like the film falls completely apart after Tina is removed from play. We like Jamie well enough that we aren't completely bored or whatever, but Michael stalking her around the house while she hides in a dumbwaiter or whatever isn't exactly exciting. I will say the fact that Jamie is kind of taking a beating in this flick is somewhat surprising and maybe a little alarming. But there's very little sense of proportion or spacial reasoning happening here: just a house that doesn't seem to have any logical sense of space. It's way bigger than it should be for a suburban house.
Why does Michael suddenly have a shrine basement? Why did he keeps the body of the dog hanging around (but kudos for remembering you introduced a dog, guys)...why is Rachel's body still there? It's hard to imagine Michael carefully setting up this quaint little room with candles and stuff before going out and killing people.
The film attempts to use sentiment to it's advantage again and very nearly succeeds. As Jamie attempts to reach whatever humanity is left in Michael isn't entirely ineffective...it might have worked better if it had been instrumental in his defeat, but instead it's just kind of a random thing that happens to break up the narrative. After this attempt fails, Jamie runs into Loomis who uses her to lure Michael into a trap with a solid steel chain and then beats him into the ground. I don't know where Loomis had this net stored, or how he got it where it was...but, maybe if Jamie had used sentiment to lure him into that trap instead of being bait we might have gotten somewhere.
Michael Myers sitting quietly in a jail cell makes no sense whatsoever. Myers has freak super strength. Why did he just sit mournfully and not keep smashing at the cage to get to Jamie (who is literally standing on the other side of the bars)? Then the guy with the boots massacres an entire police station and absconds with Michael...Jamie sees the carnage and cries a little and then we're done. What a lousy last act and a lousier ending.
Final Thoughts: The worst sins of Halloween 5 are how utterly run-of-the-mill it really is. There's no plot, no suspense, no tension, just random kills and scenes with very little cohesion. Plus, that last act is very by-the-numbers and ludicrous with one of the more rotten endings in recent memory. That being said, the film does a few things well: The subversions apparent in the character of Tina are well played and interesting, even if that's blown to all hell by the sudden need to unceremoniously ditch her at the end of the second act, and the film plays well with sentiment and emotion (even if the characterization, particularly in who they are and what they do, is occasionally in question), with a few capable actors making those emotions work. It isn't a good film, but I wouldn't necessarily call it the utter pile of garbage that many make it out to be. I feel like it's heart is mostly in the right place, there just wasn't enough skill to keep it all afloat.
Final Rating: Two and a Half Stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment