After the course correction that was Halloween 4, executive producer Moustapha Akkad wasted no time striking while the iron was hot and immediately commissioned another sequel. However, inexplicably, Akkad rejected the ending of his own previous film, which saw Michael Myers "pass on" his evil to his niece, Jamie (Danielle Harris), who, in a shocking turn of events, stabbed her adoptive mother, seemingly taking up where Michael started off and bringing things around full circle.
Scoffing at the very idea he'd agreed to in H4, Akkad passed on a script adopting this premise by writer Shem Bitterman, which would have seen both Myers and a now teenage Jamie killing a host of new victims, eventually engaging in a bit of a showdown towards the end, with a returning Rachel (Ellie Cornell) caught in the middle.
To be fair, this would have meant jettisoning Harris for a new actress, as she would have been too young for the role, so perhaps it was for the best that the script was rejected, especially for us Harris fans. Besides, Akkad had promised Danielle she would return for the sequel, and he kept his word.
A new script with a different premise that was more similar to the events of H4 was written by Michael Jacobs, which simply had Michael nursing his wounds for about a year, then resuming the killing on the following Halloween in 1989, the same year the film was to be released. Akkad, as before, wanted to keep things simple and straight-forward.
H4 director Dwight H. Little passed on the project, not wanting to repeat himself, and the hunt was on for a new director. Producer Debra Hill, who had co-written the original Halloween with John Carpenter, recommended a foreign filmmaker by the name of Dominique Othenin-Girard, then-hot off the art-house horror flick After Darkness, and who would go on to helm another horror franchise sequel, Omen IV: The Awakening.
Girard agreed to do the movie, provided he could rewrite the script to add some more depth to the proceedings. It was his idea to have Jamie have a telepathic connection to Michael which allowed her to "see" through his eyes, thus helping others, like the also-returning Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), track him down. (Shades of the Carpenter-penned thriller Eyes of Laura Mars.)
It was also his idea to make Jamie a mute after the traumatizing events of the prior film, though he relented to Akkad's wishes in allowing her to talk about halfway through the film, which actually came in handy, given what ends up happening in the final reel.
Another idea that was shot but later taken out and replaced was the opening, which originally saw Michael discovered by a young man who was studied in the occult and used these methods to help resurrect Michael from what would have been presumably death, given that he was shot to pieces and left for dead in a mine shaft.
As those who are familiar with the following entry, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers, are aware, this would have given this film a much-stronger connection with that film, given all the cult of Thorn stuff going on. However, this was taken out and an older actor was brought in (as well as a parrot!) and the scene was re-shot to give it more of a Frankenstein-type vibe, as in the similar scene in that film where an old blind man helps the creature.
It would be oddball decisions like that which caused the film to have an almost parody-like quality that sets it apart considerably from the other films in the series, for better or worse. For instance, there was the Keystone Cops-style bumbling policemen, complete with a "wacky" theme song, meant to be a tongue-in-cheek homage to similar characters in Wes Craven's classic Last House on the Left. It didn't work in that film, and it doesn't work here, either.
In another bizarre touch, Michael dons an alternate "old man" mask that he gets from a victim. (Also considered: a Ronald Reagan mask!) While not completely unprecedented- see Michael's donning a sheet to "play" a ghost in the original- it doesn't work at all here, inspiring more chuckles than chills. To add insult to injury, Michael actually stops to let a would-be victim get cigarettes at one point!
The most notorious example of this weird new approach was, of course, the infamous "Man in Black," which was something that was never really thought through, and ended up being somewhat ret-conned as well in the following film. On the plus side, they did think to feature a "Cult of Thorn" tattoo on the Man's forearm, which Michael has as well, so there are some connections there, in spite of their getting rid of the aforementioned opening scene.
That said, though, in the final scene, we clearly see Jamie arriving with a police officer at the jail to find the Man in Black has broken into the place, blown parts of it up and killed a bunch of policemen in order to spring Michael from jail for whatever reason. However, in the follow-up sequel, Jamie is taken as well, which is not what happens here.
I suppose the Man could have hung around and nabbed her, too, or sent someone for Jamie later on, but it's pretty clear that they were making this element up as they went along and didn't think it through. Girard confessed later that this was indeed the case and that the final scene wasn't even scripted and that no one had any idea who the Man in Black was and that it would be "figured out later." Akkad himself called it a "hook" for the next movie, The Curse of Michael Myers.
We'll get to that movie next week, but I think it's safe to say that we all know what a train wreck that one turned out to be, almost single-handedly screwing up the franchise in one fell swoop. However, as fans know, an alternate "Producer's Cut" of that film eventually redeemed its reputation somewhat, even though it's still a bit of a mess. (I will be comparing the two in my next review, for those unfamiliar with the alternate cut, which is quite different from the original, theatrical release.)
Be all that as it may, though I had mixed feelings about Halloween 5 when I first saw it, I actually had fun with it this time around. My biggest complaint isn't actually all the stuff I just mentioned- if anything, it's insane touches like that which make it fun in the first place- but rather that they chose to kill Rachel so early on in the film.
Granted, the character was a bit bland in the prior film, but here, we get a sense of what could have been, as we see Rachel a bit more free-spirited and fun, and getting into "party mode," however short-lived. Yes, it's a fairly common trope in horror movies to have the previous film's survivor killed off in the first twenty minutes or so of the sequel- see also Friday the 13th, Part Two, Hostel 2, and the dreaded Halloween: Resurrection- but that that doesn't necessarily make it a good decision.
While Rachel getting knocked off is admittedly surprising when you first see it, especially given that she narrowly escapes Michael's clutches just minutes before, thus implying that she'll be okay, at least in the short term- the real problem is that, with Rachel murdered, it inherently leaves us with following her natural successor, best friend Tina (soap actress Wendy Foxworth, formerly Kaplan, of Guiding Light).
To say that fans are divided over the Tina character is putting it mildly. There are some who think her wacky "charms" are, well, charming. But for most of us, she's about as annoying as that "wacky" police theme music, with a sort of inane theme of her own, courtesy of her own mouth in the scene in which she somewhat rudely interrupts a tender moment with Jamie and Rachel with her "bup-bah-dah" bopping and goofing around.
Sure, one could argue that she's only acting goofy to cheer up poor Jamie, who's forced to stay in a children's clinic to receive psychiatric treatment after the trauma she faced in the last movie- and when that "treatment" includes a never-crazier Dr. Loomis lurking around shouting at you like a lunatic, one can say that Jamie deserves a little light-hearted encouragement from a nut-bar like Tina.
But that doesn't change the fact that there's no off switch on the crazy in this girl. Her actions are frequently moronic and, though it clearly pains her to leave Jamie's side- after, I might add, Jamie flat out saves her life (though she doesn't really know how close she came to death, admittedly) - she still does just that, and even worse, puts herself in harm's way repeatedly throughout the movie. About her only redeeming quality is that she sacrifices herself to save Jamie in the end.
On the plus side, Tina's friend Samantha (Tamara Glynn, Daddy & Them, Hillbilly Horror Show- which she also produced) is hella cute and half as annoying, in the patented "virgin ready to give it up" role. Of course, we all know where that gets you in a horror movie, but she's a sexy little devil while it lasts- and hey, she even practices safe sex to boot- not that it does her any good in the end.
My qualms about Tina and Rachel's premature death aside, though, H6 is a cool little slasher, and Danielle Harris' strong performance, even when literally rendered mute for half the movie, is enough to anchor the movie, leading to what are easily the film's most intense sequences, as Michael brutally tries to kill her at near every turn.
The best of the bunch include the inspired run through sheets in the children's clinic's basement, the chase in the woods near the party and especially the pulse-pounding laundry chute scene. These key scenes ensure that the film has some scary moments, even if the sillier ones and even goofier scenarios (the alternate Michael mask, the lame-brained cops, the whole thing with the kittens in the barn, which reminds me of Twisted Nightmare) muffle things a bit by breaking up the action with a little too much humor, unintentional or otherwise.
All of said scenes are exceptionally well-shot for maximum intensity by cinematographer Robert Draper (a regular for TV's Tales from the Darkside & Tales from the Crypt), and the level of personal involvement of the viewer is naturally increased by the very fact that it's a child at risk, rather than the typical teen or young adult that usually populates a horror flick. Put another way, if you can't actively root for a little girl to evade a serial killer, something's wrong with you, lol.
Admittedly, the gore quotient is minimal- this was the height of the MPAA cracking down on horror, and, as such, a lot was cut in order to secure an "R" rating, unfortunately. That's too bad, as none other than KNB EFX did the honors here, aka Robert Kurtzman, Greg Nicotero and Howard Berger.
Some of you may readily know Nicotero in particular, as he is the main man behind the FX for AMC's The Walking Dead, and has directed many episodes of the show as well. Nicotero has a brief cameo in H5 in the gas station scene with Wendy Kaplan, whom he was dating at the time.
Anyway, not much memorable in terms of gore to report here, though the killing of the "other" Michael (Jonathan Chapin, Sixteen Candles, Twice Dead) in broad daylight isn't bad and the pitchfork death of Myers poser Spitz (Matthew Walker, Child's Play 3) is decent. In the original cut, so to speak, poor Jamie was also stabbed in the leg in the laundry chute scene, but it was edited out. (You can still see the aftermath, though.)
Despite that, it's still an enjoyable movie, none more so than whenever the delightfully insane Donald Pleasence is on screen. He really bumps the crazy up a notch here, as he terrorizes several children, not the least of them Jamie, to the point where you really wonder who is in charge at that children's clinic and why they haven't run him out of there long ago.
As ever, Loomis has the best lines in the film. Here's some of the best: "I prayed that he would burn in Hell, but in my heart, I knew that Hell would not have him."
To Jamie: "Today in the cemetery someone dug up a coffin. It was the coffin of a nine-year-old girl. What do you think he's going to do with that? Huh? You're nine years old, aren't you Jamie?"
To Jamie: "Tears won't get you anywhere! Help me to find him. We'll find him together! There's a reason he has this power over you. Do you ever wonder what it is?"
And so on. Given Loomis' seriously decreased presence in the following film, it's great that Pleasence really goes for broke here, making it more of a fitting finale for the character, who was originally going to die in the end. As it stands, it's great fun to see him set a trap for Michael, putting him in a net, tranquilizing him, then beating him down with a 2X4 so hard that he actually broke poor actor Don Shanks' nose!
Speaking of Shanks, he's a much more formidable Myers here than the previous one, who, lest we forget, had to have shoulder pads and the like to make him seem bulkier than he was. Shanks doesn't need any of that, to be sure. He's one big dude. Pity that the mask is still a bit off, although it's at least an improvement over the last one. (A pod-caster I listen to compared it to that of Mr. Burns, the sinister Simpsons character, lol.)
All in all, Halloween 5 isn't perfect by any stretch, and it definitely has its debits, but overall, it's a lot of fun- much more so than its immediate predecessor, for sure, even if that film is far superior, in terms of atmosphere, performances and overall direction.
Halloween 4 feels more like a Halloween film, but Halloween 5 is an entertaining slasher that one can enjoy if they just plain like such things, and for that reason alone, I can see where fans of the sub-genre would actually prefer it for that reason, whereas fans of the series on the whole might find it a bit more ridiculous.
I mean, after all, it not only shows Michael's face at several points in the film- and makes him a brunette at that, when every fan worth their salt knows he's an established blonde- but it actually has him inexplicably shed a tear at one point! And don't even get me started on how wrong the Myers' house is- it's spooky, to be sure, but it isn't even remotely like the one in the original in any way.
The film certainly doesn't warrant director Girard's masturbatory, self-congratulating commentary on the DVD- truly one of the worst, if not the worst kind of commentaries there is, second only perhaps to those where the commentator simply tells you what you're already seeing on screen. (With the exception of the ones by Arnold Schwarzenegger, which are comedy gold.)
But it's a solid sequel, and certainly nowhere near as divisive as what followed. Halloween 6 is way more upsetting to fans on a variety of levels and much depends on which version you see, and lots of people just plain hate Halloween: Resurrection and Rob Zombie's entries in the franchise- although H2O certainly has its fans. H5 tends to fall right in the middle for most fans of the Halloween movies and that seems about right to me.
Join me next week for my look at Halloween 6, aka The Curse of Michael Myers. I'll be looking at both the original director's cut and the producer's cut (both of which are readily available on DVD/Blu-Ray, for those who didn't know), and how each compares and differs from one another. Which is better? Read my take to find out! 🎃
No comments:
Post a Comment