I was never against Rob Zombie’s initial remake of Halloween. I felt it wasn’t needed because the original withstood the test of time remarkably well, but I make it a point to never discriminate against horror remakes. Sometimes you get something better than the original – The Ring being a prime example.
Now, I wasn’t exactly a Zombie fan. In fact, I still don’t quite understand how he’s built so much muscle in the horror arena amongst producers and fans alike. House of 1,000 Corpses was a disaster and The Devil’s Rejects was just a smidgen below mediocre. Neither were made well enough to exactly be unnerving, which is what a good horror movie should do.
Still, I was curious what this guy would do with a personal favourite of mine. At the very least it’d be fun, right? Well, he took Halloween and he tried to humanize Michael Meyers. Huh. Wasn’t the original concept of the kid simply being evil good enough? I know it freaked me out as a kid, just having this other kid kill his family for no reason. Zombie’s Myers? Abused and neglected as a kid, just like every other stereotypical serial killer in a thousand other movies. Didn’t Zombie know the best cinematic murderers are those you simply can’t explain? Not only that, Zombie made a movie that not only mimicked the original, it even felt more amateur. With all this money and modern technology at his disposal, as well as his ‘go for broke’ reputation on gore, he actually managed to make a tamer movie than the original. Michael was as unmenacing as can be and I don’t remember any particularly creative kills.
And do teenagers really say the word ‘fuck’ that often within singular sentences?
It was confounding, really. He was given a clean slate to ‘reimagine’ the franchise, and he chose to copy the original. Only he made it worse and over explained everything, as if saying, “horror fans a naturally retarded, so here’s 40 minutes explaining why Michael kills people.”
But enough about the piece of crap that was the 2007 remake, let’s talk about the sequel, H2 (I swear, now he’s even copying a naming conceit of the series – remember H20?).
First, click here for the trailer and then come on back.
Finished? Alright, let’s break down exactly why it looks like it’s going to suck (I’m not passing judgment mind you. Okay, maybe I am).
Firstly, let’s address “the secret…behind his madness.” What. The. Fuck? Did we not waste half of the first movie learning this? Now Zombie’s taking it one step further by showing the personification of Michael’s psychological torment?
And that torment is the ghostlyvisage of his crackwhore mother?
Bravo Mr. Zombie, you not only neutered Myers’ mystique, now you’re trying to make him into a damaged mamas boy. Myers has been downgraded from The Shape to Angsty Latchkey Kid.
Another problem I have is Zombie having to have every single one of his movies be white trash, grungy garbage. I don’t remember the Halloween series being this mopey and hill billy-ish. From what I remember, doesn’t this series take place in a rather affluent suburban setting? So why does Laurie look like a trailer park reject throughout the trailer?
To make matters worse, he shoots this low rent motif with some of the very worst production values I’ve ever seen. You can make a tight budget go a long way in a horror movie. Just look at The Hills Have Eyes and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes. Neither are exactly classic, but they had low budgets that looked awesome because of good direction and cinematography. Here? You can tell Zombie did it all himself because it looks cheaper than a Hallmark movie, and less scary at that. If Zombie didn’t handle DP duties, whoever did needs to reassess his credentials.
Concluding Zombie’s “extreme” vision my ass. These were the same sort of buzzwords around the original remake. I just don’t think Zombie knows how to handle gore properly. In 1,000 Corpses, it was nonsensical and cartoonish because of its excess. Devil’s Rejects just sort of had it. There was nothing visceral, and the camera work was so wonky that it was hard to tell who or what was bleeding. In Halloween there wasn’t any I can recall.
Lastly, what the fuck is up with Loomis? Last I remembered he had his *spoiler* head crushed in at the end of the last movie. And now he’s back, not a scratch on him? Hell, he got off a hell of a lot better than Myers.
I’m not saying this is going to be a bad movie, I’m just saying it will likely be. Will I be going into it with a bias? Yes, when a director has never made a good movie, one tends to do that. Will I admit it if I actually enjoy it? Oh yes.
Though I doubt I will.