Why is this a good flick? I think there is a freedom in building upon a pre-fabricated story-much like fan fiction. In this 3rd direct sequel,that power is only amplified - more stretched,more unreleastic,more implausible,campier: and in this fantabulastic realm of who-gives-a-fuck-about-canon, sometimes there is luck;and characters shine through, and emotions appear, and the magic of cinema pervails-in shitty films.
Worth seeing only for Danielle Harris who act her little heart out, but it doesn't manage to connect the loose ends from film 4 and much of the film looks improvised during production. The ending of the last one and the beginning of this one makes no sense and Donald Pleasence now just don't care and act his role as a sleazy old man instead. Too many fake scares and it's non-ending ruin the experience totally.
Part five is the most effective entry since Halloween II; it’s claustrophobic, atmospheric and even quite chilling at times. All the characters go absolutely mental, the screenplay is fun and there’s some cool death sequences. I won’t sit here and say that any of these sequels are classics or anything, I just find them entertaining.
Part 5 is one of the best Halloween films, and I still have NO idea why people hate it so much. Clown cops, tattoo man/ending and an unexplained Myers house upgrade are certainly oddities, which could be taken as faults. But I actually think Girard directed a fantastic film with a lot of depth. This isn't a joke. Loomis is now understandably a madman, trying to catch Michael at the expense of Jamie Lloyd's freedom.