2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

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.

Mark Habeeb I don't see why this movie got such a low rating on IMBD. I actually liked Halloween 5 a little more than 4. While part 4 was still good, I found 5 to be overall more fun and more adventures with how the plot develops. Plus this one has a more darker and scary feel to it, and it actually scared me. In this one, Jamie Loyd, Michael's niece, is mute and is in a children's care center. But she also has psychological connections with her uncle. I know it sounds a bit cheezy, but it actually plays out quite well. There is some serious tense and suspenseful scenes, in which Jamie is trying to warn people that Michael is about to kill someone, but cannot due to her muteness. This one is more campy and fun and felt more true to the slasher genre than the previous. It's also quite an exciting ride as we follow Michael and Jamie around Hadonfield and eventually to Michael's old house in a great climax! Definitely recommend this one to any Halloween or horror fan.

Ilikehorrormovies This movie suck out the fun out of this movie and make it boring. Like ever since the ending of HalloweeN 4 sucks, this film went down hill including part 6. This is the first one that feature the whole pointless cult thing. Like I said in my HalloweeN The Cashgrab of Michael Myers review "It almost ruined Michael Myers character" and why they use the cult as why Michael been brought back to life over and over? I have no idea. It's worse than the first remake like I espect the same rating like the remake but I didn't enjoy this one more. The story is bad including the plot and pace. This is one of those movie that you watch once and forget about. This is my review on HalloweeN 5 (1989), this movie sucks.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com There comes a point in time where a viewer who has seen enough sequels to a horror franchise where it doesn't phase them anymore. When a formula is repeated over and over and over and over again, the redundancy feels more like an attribute of lazy writing versus actually copying out of flattery. It's obvious as to why studios love making sequels but it's crazy as to how they believe one exact formula is necessary for all entries. There has to be some kind of creative brainstorming going on in the background otherwise every entry after the original continues to just rinse and rehash the same concept until the end of its run. After the blunder of Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) and the lukewarm return of Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers (1988), production studio Magnum Pictures Inc. felt a year later was just enough time to make another sequel. Unfortunately since Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982), there has been a stagnation of quality in this series. This is okay but nothing to cheer over either.Written by Michael Jacobs, Shem Bitterman and Dominique Othenin-Girard, the story picks up a year later after the last film. After killing her stepmother, Jaime Strode (Danielle Harris) now lives in a child care clinic where she is under the supervision of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). Knowing that her uncle Michael Myers (Don Shanks) is still alive and well, Dr. Loomis hopes to get whatever information he can from his now mute niece. Trying to keep a cool head is returning characters Jaime's stepsister Rachel (Ellie Cornell), her friend Tina (Wendy Foxworth) and the local sheriff Ben Meeker (Beau Starr). It sounds like an okay setup but really much the execution is flawed. For the three writers mentioned, all but one had prior horror film making experience so that's already a fairly bad start when it comes to continuing a horror franchise. Directing this sequel was also writer Dominique Othenin-Girard. Girard's direction unfortunately does not improve the viewing experience all that much.What truly hurts this sequel's performance is how empty the story is on substance and the few frightening moments. This is by far the sequel with the most holes in its plot. There's no explanation to numerous things. No reason as to why Jaime no longer has the Myer's killer instinct. No understanding is made as to why Michael Myers returned exactly one year later when he could've done so much sooner. Nothing is justified as to why Jaime is mute after the events of the first movie. There's even a new character that enters this series and he too is given no background information whatsoever. What gives? The pacing is another problem. Like the slew of other slasher films that were inspired by its original film, many scenes contain teenagers walking around calling out into vacant rooms and saying how much it isn't funny anymore. There needs to be development in some of these characters otherwise, there's no scare factor involved throughout the movie. There are some moments of intrigue that are made as the film gets closer to the finale but that's it.The kill scenes are also rather disappointing. Only a couple of Michael Myers' victims have a memorable scene with him. A lot of the other deaths are off screen. There's also nothing wrong with the idea of less is more, but there's nothing new that's added to the end result. However here is what does work. The main actors such as Danielle Harris and Donald Pleasence are the best parts. As much as it's sad to see Pleasence continue to try and make this series watchable, he still carries some kind of dramatic heft. Although his character is becoming less and less useful. Harris was okay although she is mute. Her fear looks real on screen as well when Myers is around. Shanks as Myers was okay too but did miss the opportunity to do several Myers like responses such as the infamous "head tilt". The rest of the supporting cast is all right but they do not add much to the actual narrative. The thing viewers can be grateful for is at least the casting department brought back what was left of the previous cast for another round.The visual aspect of things was decent as well. Robert Draper handled the cinematography. Although he had worked on small and big screen productions, this was Draper's first big theatrical entry. For what was shown, it looked adequate. It was when Draper's skill and the set decorations worked together to create some creepy scenes. Sadly it wasn't very often but when it was seen, it worked. This takes place in the old Myer's house. Returning composer Alan Howarth produced the musical score. Considering he has been apart of the franchise dating back to Halloween II (1981) with John Carpenter, it's reassuring to know there's one more dedicated crewmember. Howarth's score continues Carpenter's memorable theme from the series and includes various other motifs as well. It isn't perfect nor is it entirely effective but it does make up for a lot of the other issues going on with this movie. The score itself is still mainly made up of synthesizer keyboard and that's fine looking at it's origins.While it may have a decent musical score, returning credible actors and adequate camera-work, this sequel continues to hit the middle of the road. The story is bare bones developed, the reasoning behind several things goes untouched, its pacing is pretty slow and the creep factor is hardly there. It's not worse than any other prior entry starting from Halloween II (1981) but it doesn't bother to add much either.