toomatta Halloween 5 is a waste of time. Donald Pleasance is not very good in this film. It was due to the director telling him to be cynical and unempathetic. He shows no remorse or sympathy when Jamie Lloyd's older sister is murdered. Jamie Lloyd is seemingly mute. Danielle Harris does give another great performance though, I must say. The ending is dumb and dragged out. The darker atmosphere is depressing (in a bad way), but not terrible. It does add to the film. Since Jamie Lloyd is mute, the focus is on the new batch of teens, for the most part. They're TERRIBLE! So unlikable, disrespectful, and obnoxious. They're really what kills this movie. Speaking of kills, they're actually pretty good. Some of my favorites in the series. The movie is just such a drag, and I don't really think it's worth 90 minutes. Overall, this isn't a truly terrible film, I just really don't like it. Good kills, good atmosphere, TERRIBLE characters, pacing, and plot devices. A very disappointing movie.

tuckerconstable-07055 "Halloween 5" finds Jami Lloyd locked up in a mental institution for killing her mother in the last film. Everything seems to be normal for her, or as normal as things can get, until she starts having visions of her uncle, Michael Myers, coming for her. Soon enough, Myers does come back for Jami, after being in a coma for a year. Which leads us to the dumbest thing in the film, Jami having a telekinetic connection to her uncle. Just saying that, it sounds dumb. But, when it comes from a "Halloween" film- one of the smartest horror franchises around-it really hurts to see."Halloween 5" isn't the worst sequel in the series, trust me there's far worse, but it's a great step in the wrong direction considering "Halloween 4" brought the franchise back to it's roots with a very chilling story. The best way to describe "Halloween 5" is that it feels like a "Friday The 13th" clone, even though "Halloween" came first. The teenagers are all sex driven maniacs who only have two emotions-annoyingly excited or just plain annoying-and the violence is toned way up for this installment. That's not to say I don't love a good bit of gore, but when you have such poor direction and the gore is the only thing going for your film, well... If anything good is to be said about "Halloween 5" it's that, despite the films many, many, many, many, many flaws, it still somehow manages to be frightening in a few scenes-specifically when Dr. Loomis is walking around the old dilapidated home of Myers. There's no jump scares or gore, but you have this heavy sense of dread throughout the whole scene. All in all, "Halloween 5" is pretty much the definition of an 80's horror film. You've got the big haired, sex crazed twenty somethings, you've got the zombified maniac lumbering around, but you don't have many scares-or a good plot for that matter.

zkonedog After the Halloween franchise made its "triumphant" return with the Michael Myers-based fourth installment, it became clear that the series was creatively bankrupt and nothing more than a cash cow. This fifth effort is a bit more watchable than that horrific fourth part, but not by a wide margin.For a basic plot summary, Myers seems to have no ill effects from his tumble down a mine shaft at the end of part four, and continues his pursuit of young Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris), whom he has seemingly developed a sort of psychic bond with (she can sense when he is about to kill). Still pursuing Myers is Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), as well as a mysterious "Man in Black" who is introduced in this film and explained further in the sixth part.The obvious problem with this film is that it is basically a retread of its predecessor, breaking no new ground whatsoever. Thus, things just keep getting more stale. Dr. Loomis keeps spouting the same warnings (which are never heeded until it is too late), Myers keeps on slicin' and dicin', and no real character development is present.I have to give the movie credit for trying to explain the demented character of Michael Myers (e.g. tattoo on wrist, "Man in Black" presence, etc.), but they needed to give us more than that in THIS film, not the NEXT one (which they ended up royally botching anyway). I think viewers are supposed to start to understand why Myers is such a maniac, but not enough hints are given to really make us care.About the only true bright spot (like in part four) is the acting of little Danielle Harris, who gives a very spirited performance for being such a youngster. Without her presence, this film would be very near an abomination through and through.Thus, if you are a fan of this series you'll watch this flick no matter what I say, but don't be surprised if you feel you have wasted about 90 minutes. Others just looking for a scary picture, please stay away and find something...anything...to take the place of this overrated sequel.

Anonymous Andy (Minus_The_Beer) Picking up hot off the heels of the action and box office success of 1988's "Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers," the titular masked killer returns with swift vengeance just a year later in "Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers." The film was rushed into production, and brother, does it show. With another director at the helm -- this time French director Dominique Othenin-Girard ("Omen IV: The Awakening") -- and the return of all the major survivors from the previous film, "Halloween 5" keeps continuity but still feels slightly off.It's a year after the events of "Halloween 4." Michael (played by a rather beefy Donald Shanks) has retreated, having survived a blast of gunfire at the hands of the Haddonfield police department. In the wake of his devastation, his poor, innocent niece Jamie (Danielle Harris) has been rendered mute and forever scarred. Once a familiar series of murders start cropping up, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) presses Jamie -- who now seemingly has a psychic link with Michael - - for information, completely oblivious to the fact that a mysterious man in black is ghosting him the whole time."Halloween 5" isn't a great or even a good movie, but it pretty much hits all the right spots as far as late '80s slashers go, and manages to introduce a few new intriguing elements to the series. Like "4" before, it's another relatively violent affair and the eye of the foreign director certainly gives this one a unique vibe and look. It's a terribly flawed film -- from its plot contrivances to a few annoying characters (oh my god, those cops...) -- but still pretty consistent with what came before. Michael's revenge ultimately isn't as compelling as one would hope, but it's certainly more enjoyable than his future curses and resurrections, respectively.