Review: Halloween 2
Filed under: Horror, Thrillers, Theatrical Reviews, The Weinstein Co., Remakes and Sequels, Summer Movies
.jpg)
Upon recently re-viewing Rob Zombie's 2007 take on the classic Halloween, I felt a little bit less harsh about it. Don't get me wrong: it's still mighty tedious and nowhere near scary, but at least I got the impression this time around that the rocker-turned-auteur was trying to fashion more of a character study around boogeyman Michael Myers -- who he was, why he was -- and while diluting the mystique of our killer effectively diluted the suspense, the film still delivered on the basest level of having someone get visibly, viscerally dispatched every so often. If all you had to ask of that film was a body count, Halloween slowly but surely delivered.
But while people do die in Zombie's Halloween II, that's just not enough to make up for all that pesky in-between.
The in-between in question is less a remake of the first Halloween sequel -- a sequence taking place in a hospital right after H'ween '07 would've ended does not last very long, nor does it count for much once truly explained -- and more a remake of that first Halloween remake, which is to say that physically and psychologically scarred survivor Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) in still kicking around Haddonfield, IL with some new friends to be picked off, the presumed-dead Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) is once again lumbering back towards Haddonfield after her, and Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is too making his way back to Haddonfield by way of a thoroughly shameless book tour.
It's a clever bit, that last part with Dr. Loomis, a protector now turned marketing machine who relishes the good business that comes from what others consider bad taste. How far is this from Mr. Zombie himself, a man who suffers the pains of promotion to convince people that he's giving them a glimpse of Pure Evil? I can't say for sure, but it's ironic if that's supposed to be the case, because claiming a glimpse of anything would be pushing it. Halloween II is shot in more muted tones than its predecessor, and more death scenes are hacked by the editing process more than the killer himself. That person's alive, Myers shows up, we think they broke a bone, and then they're dead. Nothing in the film comes close to suspense or tension, but even the cheap thrill seems to go botched in every other scene.
And in the other every other scenes, we're granted a whole new concern -- the re-appearance of Mrs. Sheri Moon Zombie as the late mother of Michael and Laurie, appearing aside a white horse in white garb with a white light behind her as the most heavy-handed and risible justification for either character's psychological dilemmas yet. It's a device that allows A) Rob to keep his wife on the payroll, B) Rob to indulge in surreal flourishes more apt for his own music videos, and C) Rob to slip a half-dozen dream sequences that beef up the body count without really adding anything to the story.
There we have it, that body count again. We're in trouble when that's all that matters. Hey, I can enjoy a simple slasher myself from time to time, but if it doesn't have a campy or tense tone (which this film does not) and/or tense or intense kills, what's left? At one point, we see a long shot of Michael Myers in silhouette dragging a victim in silhouette out of a truck and then stabbing them again and again and again and again, and it's an image which singularly sums up what a numbing experience the whole film is. No flashes of blood, no hints of character, just shadows killing shadows.
If that's all you want to see, Halloween II is probably for you. But goodness knows it wasn't for me.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Exclusive 'Nine' Poster Premiere!
Exclusive: Title Track for 'The Road' Soundtrack
Movie Popcorn is Bad for You? Who Knew?_thumbnail.jpg)
'New Moon' Smashes 'Dark Knight's' Opening Day Record!
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
8-28-2009 @ 2:42PM
Master X said...
Worst movie I seen in years!
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 3:40PM
Don Sabatino said...
I agree about the movie being bad, but it was not "shadows killing shadows". It was one of the most brutally violent movies I've ever seen, and I enjoy horror movies. I enjoy the original Halloween so much because it was more psychological, and cerebral. It didn't need a ton of gore to be scary, but Rob Zombie's fetish for violence as well as blondes in all of his movies has taken it's toll on me. The amount of gore and brutallity in this last movie I think was more than his first three films combined. Excessive is an understatement especially considering that this movie could've been just as scary if not scarier had he muted the blood a little, and not put that crap in with his wife, because the cinematography was fantastic and very creepy in my opinion. I haven't decidedyet if this was more scary or just flat out disgusting.
Reply
10-27-2009 @ 4:23PM
dante said...
shut yo dick head ass up trynna sound smart ya cunt dis movie was da shyt
8-28-2009 @ 3:48PM
NP said...
Pretty much agree with yr review all the way through. Very disappointing. The insertion of his wife into as many scenes as possible just became so irksome.
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 6:22PM
Disappointed said...
I agree with the article above. I enjoyed the original Halloween as much as the next person but Zombies's version just butchered it all. It would have been better if it didn't bare the "Halloween" name and he made it as original film because it was so off from the original written by Carpenter. I understand it's a "remake" and "his" version of the film, but don't journey so far from the original film that it loses it's stigma of what Halloween is suppose to be. Michael Meyers has always been the silent assassin, almost like a ninja. This new Meyers is making so many grunt noises I don't know if he's killing somone or having sex. And since when does Michael Meyers takes his mask on and off in between murders? It appeared to me that you saw the shadow of him without the infamous Halloween mask more than you saw him with it on. I never got the suspense feeling I crave for when watching a really great movie. The movie was short running, but felt like it lasted forever. I did however enjoyed the ending with the mindtrick it played, but it wasn't worth going through the previous 90 minutes. Please Zombie, stick to the grade B cheap porn/slasher flicks. The film wasn't scary and should definately disappointment any true Halloween fan.
Reply
9-07-2009 @ 11:52AM
thresa said...
what saddens me the most about both of these Halloween re-makes, is that Zombie has put a trailer-trash quality that only HE can master.The original movies were set in small-town USA,theory being that , if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. The 70s suburban scenery helped make Myers more frightening, because he DID NOT BELONG there.People EXPECT murder and dismemberment to happen in this run-down, derilect, white-trash setting he has put these movies in,there was no imagination needed, the suspense wasent really suspense, you knew that a gory dismemberment was 3,2 minutes from the last one!!Most of us are chilled by the fact that the original Haddonfield reminded us of where we grew up, I hope Zombie grows up to the fact that he picked the biggest cult horror film of all time to screw up, BADLY~! This should have never happened in the first place.THE BEST DOSENT NEED TO BE RE-MADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9-08-2009 @ 2:31PM
Disappointed said...
I have never thought of it that way, but that is such a true statement. Watching H2, I was wondering what was missing? I couldn't really put my finger on it, but besides from it being horribly directed, something just didn't feel right. and you hit the nail right on the head.
The violence belonged there. Every thing was predicatable because it looked like a town that is use to violence. And the thought of a 7 foot mountain man on the loose with burned looking captain kirk mask and a butcher knife was the norm.
The first two Halloweens were classics. And the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think most would have agreed if Zombie had kept the dialogue to the original and just made the kills a little bit more violent than Carpenters version, his versions would have also been classics. Instead he possibly ruined a great franchise and Micheal Meyers will never be looked at the same ever again.
10-14-2009 @ 10:25AM
nathan said...
if your such a big fan and have seen the original then you would know that michael myers makes loads of grunting noises wilst killing people. i think we shoud all apreciate what rob zombie has done to these films taking a big project on like this as a favour. (mm) is definatly scarier in these films and who ever said his parents werent like that then think they are wrong 2 because you dont even see them in he original. zombie is a legend.
8-28-2009 @ 10:17PM
dave said...
I am a huge Halloween franchise fan. This was absolutely a bad movie. It makes me long for the good old days of Halloween 5.
Zombie, in trying to have his own take on Meyers totally takes away from the character that was interesting. Its Jason in a Capt Kirk mask. Just plain horrible. And the mom and horse thing was laughable and embarrassing.
i wont give away the ending for those that want to watch..but lets just say that was funny as well..or should i say painful?
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 10:17PM
Sam said...
I'm a film FAN above all, but I wrote off Rob Zombie after The Devil's Rejects. Never again will I see a movie that shitty and predictable... at least not with his name on it.
Reply
8-28-2009 @ 10:17PM
tru,horror.FAN said...
IM A TRUE HORROR Fan and i cant belive corporations still fund rob zombie movies. its horriable. what kinda crap are they trying to sell to us. any true horror fan will tell you that this is not michael myers this is a waterdowned zombie version. rob zombie needs 2 do what he does best and make music.
Reply
8-29-2009 @ 1:11AM
Jason said...
This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen....What the hell was Rob thinkin????? Oh yeah...where was Carpenter's music...just a total screw up of a movie!!!!! Pisses me off!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
8-29-2009 @ 9:48PM
Mike said...
I havent seen the film yet. However I have to put this film in perspective. Rob Zombie was given a film that was written already, and give a short schedule to make changes and make his own film.
Reply
8-29-2009 @ 11:05AM
Steven said...
I was lucky enough to see "Halloween" (1978) in theaters in its original release, and have been a devotee ever since. It's been my favorite horror series, even "Halloween 4" and "Halloween Resurrection."
With that said, I just saw what must be one of the worst movies ever made. It is just mind-bogglingly bad. It isn't scary. It isn't funny. It isn't thrilling. It seem to be an exercise in gore by someone who possibly was inspired by the "Texas Chainsaw" series. It is devoid of any narrative or suspense. I can't imagine why anyone would want to see people scream in the rain, while being stabbed in the most random, non-sensical order, one after the other.
I must say that virtually everyone around me booed and said it was horrible, while rushing for the exits.
It is safe to assume that this is the end of the "Halloween" series, and I really can't imagine that John Carpenter will be able to milk any more $$$ from his films, as both "The Thing" and "Village of the Damned" were both remakes. John, I hope your house is paid for -- welcome to the end of the line.
Reply
8-29-2009 @ 11:05AM
Alex said...
Um, yeah, John Carpenter hasn't had any involvement in the Halloween series whatsoever since Halloween III. And that was pushing it for him. Watch any interview with him about it, he has always said that he only ever intended for Halloween to be one film, and that he felt there was no more story to tell with Michael Myers after Halloween II. Laurie being Michael's sister was something that he threw into the script at the last minute because he couldn't think of anything else to keep the plot going. That's why Halloween III has nothing to do with the rest of the series, because Carpenter wanted it to be done with Michael and instead do other scay things happening on Halloween. But the fans demanded Michael back, and Carpenter left the series and didn't look back. Jamie Lee Curtis tried really hard to get him back for 20 Years Later, but he wasn't interested because he felt the story was over with the second film. It was the producers, Moustapha Akkad and later his son Malek, who kept the series going.
But anyway...yeah, there's no way in hell I'm going to see this film. Rob Zombie's utter rape of the first movie was one of the worst "films" I have ever seen, and you could not pay me to see this.
9-04-2009 @ 11:24AM
gina said...
I am as big of a horrer fan as everyone else. i like all the old holloween movies too, but that is the important word OLD!! come on if you seen one you seen them all! one was the same as two, and it went down hill from there. myers, jason? always the same predictable!! I am glad zombe made this movie different, because we all seen the OLD ones. I wanted something new and fresh and I got it! But look it is like this If he would have made these movie just like the old ones you would still be on here complaining about something, The best way to enjoy these movie is to let the h1 and h2 stand on there own. Everyone is calling them remakes, Theres nothing really the same. very different movies. I think they are all good.
8-29-2009 @ 11:06AM
chuck said...
This movie is just AWFUL. A complete an utter disgrace. It's violence is sickening. This is not a Halloween movie (everthing is reinvented) and I will never watch it again. Zombie needs mental help. Sick but talentless.
http://blog.entertainmenttodayandbeyond.com/
chuck
Reply
8-29-2009 @ 1:38PM
Branman42101 said...
I agree, I mean...Michael wore a hoody and a friggin scarf in the movie...that is all that needs to be said...
Reply
8-31-2009 @ 11:07AM
Steven said...
Alex, am I mistaken in believing that Carpenter continues to get royalties from "Halloween" as the originator of the characters? And what explains the fact that there are two Halloweens, a "Fog," and a "Pelham" all in the last two years? I find it hard to believe that he has had no financial involvement -- although I do know that he walked away artistically after the first "Halloween 2." (Is this the first remake of a sequel, by the way?)
Reply
8-30-2009 @ 12:27PM
Alex said...
"And what explains the fact that there are two Halloweens, a "Fog," and a "Pelham" all in the last two years? "
The fact that the major Hollywood studios have been either unable or unwilling to make original films anymore. Seriously, now that I think about it, I think I've only seen 2 completely original movies this year, UP and District 9. Everything else has either been a remake, sequel, or an adaptation of a previous work.
And yeah, I'm sure Carpenter probably does get royalties and such, especially for the music, but he's not the one who's been "milking the series" all these years, it was the Akkads who refused to let it die. That's the statement of yours I took issue with.