My rebuttal to a YouTube idiot reviewer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMkNnE3uHYo

I was in bed searching for some Halloween series content on Youtube, and came across this. I immediately left bed fuming mad, returned to the office to compose an essay of my thoughts, and so here it is. I am NOT going to like this video or subscribe, and I'm not interested in making vids myself. If this sort of take is par for the course for Stuckmann, then this is not a very intellectual or thought provoking reviewer. Since nobody is likely to take the time to offer a rebuttal to this negative review, I guess it falls to me.

My main complaint here is the lack of literary deconstruction. You cannot make a claim that an entry in a beloved series has nothing to offer and doesn't move forward with anything unique if you are not actually providing genuine analysis. Obviously, these movies are all made with the goal of making money, and the horror fandom are always clamouring for them. Win/Win. The only way I can see how a respectable production can fail is by being too lazy and just retreading old ground. On the contrary, Part 5 (along with 6) is quite dynamic, and I'm sorry he missed it. Also, the very presence of European Gothic director, Girard, works against his argument.

Loomis, and all the new characters from 4, have been dealt some supreme trauma. Instead of resetting, and keeping them stagnant, their characterizations evolve in a very real way. We are introduced to new characters who haven't faced Myers, and they are allowed to be the naive happy-go-lucky pranksters. The beloved Rachel was courageously aborted as a main character, sure, but it's terrifying and organic. Why? Because her good girl-next-door persona doesn't work well in the confines of a movie spearheading a rural "harvest" themed setting, an actual party with adult costumes (another first, believe it or not) and mischief.

Part 5 also was the first to do something that you may have missed. Until Tina finds the four bodies (her two friends, plus the keystone cops) at the Tower Farm, there was absolutely no rational evidence that a killer was at large. This happens about three quarters of the way through the movie. All the other films in the series are a cat-and-mouse game of chasing the escaped lunatic. It's a very powerful scene, and Wendy Kaplan was one of the most capable protagonist actors that the series has ever had to offer. You really feel it when we see her realize that all the paranoia that Loomis and Jamie were laying on pretty thick to everyone was REAL. Her sacrifice to make amends and save Jamie was catastrophic and touching.

While I'm on the subject of Tina, let me talk about the most brilliant subtlety brought to our minds (for those who actually use such things) by the filmmakers. This movie was marketed as "Michael Unmasked", but why? Was it talking about the scene in the attic? No. What we actually learn about Michael through 5 that we had never seen before is his actual humanity. His human personality. The only way to learn anything about a mute antagonist that doesn't do anything but stalk and kill is by catching his subtle reactions to the behavior of his victims. Now he kills everyone regardless, but in this film only, is the one where he exhibits any hesitancy.

- Jamie is Myers' closest relative. They share a telepathic connection after physical contact.
- Jamie has never been more enthusiastic about a personality than she was about the manic, Tina.
- Jamie is not in lockstep with her straight-laced foster family. In fact, Jamie stabbed her foster mother.
- Laurie Strode, Jamie's mother, also had a foster family, and was also straight-laced herself.
- Myers' observed Tina and her boyfriend, stole the boyfriend's car, imitated his driving, and picked up Tina, and had a very palpable reaction to her and her behavior. No ordinary victim!
- Tina Williams is quite like a female version of a character from Part 2, Jimmy Lloyd.
- Jimmy Lloyd is Jamie Lloyd's biological father.

Tina = Jamie = Jimmy Lloyd = Michael Myers! Pretty freakin' cool, huh? If this man were not being used as a cult enforcer for ritualistic sacrifice, then that would be his human personality in the absence of Evil. "Michael Unmasked" Any film capable of hiding a novel Easter Egg like this below the surface is worthy of my time and attention. Kind of puts a supposedly well-received sequel like H20 to shame, huh? It does likewise with your claim of it being a feature-length trailer for Part 6, which had a far inferior director.

What this all means is that Jamie is her father's daughter and is not like Jamie Lee Curtis' Laurie or Ellie Cornell's Rachel. This is also why he stalked Annie and Lynda first in the original, which had been long debated. He expresses his prankster nature through his ritualistic sacrifice, and he often gets sidetracked by the fun-loving people over his actual prime targets.