Related Sections: Horror Movies Reviews
Review: Michael Myers returns—unfortunately—in Halloween II
Comparing Halloween to Halloween II is a little bit like debating the comparative value of two bowel movements. Both are equally worthless, but the first was excruciating while the second just uncomfortable—although it's unclear whether there's an actual difference, or you were simply prepared for the pain after having gone through the experience once already.
That said, Halloween II is in fact better than its predecessor, which means that the series went from abominable to merely unwatchable, and which means that "fans" of the 2007 reboot may indeed enjoy it. But anyone uninitiated with Rob Zombie's brand of grainy hillbilly brutality would be better served by eating a bran muffin and steering clear of this particular horror film, because it's a compliment to call it a piece of crap.
Picking up more or less immediately after the events of the first film, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is taken to a hospital after killing Michael Myers (Tyler Mane), only to discover that her brother has revived himself, escaped a coroner's van, and is dead-set on tracking her down. As he swings his axe down atop her already bruised body, she awakens to discover that a year has passed, although she is clearly still haunted by the memories of her traumatic confrontation with Myers. Now living with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and his daughter Annie (Danielle Harris), Laurie ekes out a living at a local bookstore and tries to keep her demons at bay.
Unfortunately, Michael's not only loose, but in full control of his actions; his dead mother Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) communicates with him through his adolescent self (Chase Wright Vanek), and informs him that it's his responsibility to bring the family back together. Before long, Michael's destructive rampage has begun anew, and Laurie unwittingly finds herself on a collision course with her brother, with only Sheriff Brackett and the opportunistic Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) standing in the way of their potentially homicidal family reunion.
The irony of Halloween II is that Zombie has noticeably improved as a director since the first film, and demonstrates a real ability to create interesting imagery, even if he still isn't able to marry it to compelling characters or a remotely satisfying story. There's an early shot where Michael stands immobile over one of his victims in a nurse's station, and it's one of the few moments that echoes the haunting terror of John Carpenter's original film; but even when he's indulging his own idiosyncratic and generally vulgar impulses, Zombie composes several shots that possess a dreamlike quality that evokes the filmmaking of folks like Dario Argento—that is, if Argento was weaned on American exploitation films from the 1970s and a steady musical diet of bands like Lynyrd Skynyrd and Nazareth.
But the movie itself doesn't come together for a second, or have any idea where dream logic ends and reality begins; for example, is it part of Laurie's flashback, or an actual event, that places a cow in the road where Michael's van is driving, offering him a chance to escape? Where is everyone, much less anyone, when Michael visits Laurie's hospital, or the strip club where his mother used to work, or any of the other places where he strikes down humping teens, vigilant cops, or passersby? And why does everyone blame Loomis for the deaths that Michael caused? Most of the answers to these questions are probably available to anyone already giving the film the benefit of the doubt, or perhaps the extended-cut DVD provides a few additional details. But the convergence of story strands and character developments feels clumsy or rudimentary at best, and Zombie's title-card explanation of Michael's visions (in particular, the white horse his ghost-mom has at her side) reiterates that the filmmaker is grasping at concepts rather than truly mastering them.
In fact, the number of half-formed ideas is what frustrates the most, because it's as if Zombie hasn't thought at all what they mean or why they're included. In Carpenter's original, Michael's mask was this smooth and emotionless façade, and now it's ripped and contoured to resemble a real face; mysteriously, however, Michael doesn't wear the mask all of the time, grows a beard that looks like Zombie's real one, and wanders the countryside like Aragorn in Lord of the Rings, Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk TV show, or in a best-case scenario, Robert De Niro's version of Frankenstein's monster in Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel. Meanwhile, Annie has recovered completely from Michael's attack in the first film even as Laurie struggles on a daily basis, but when Annie is attacked again, in a matter of seconds Laurie overcomes a night of binge-drinking and surprise trauma in order to take care of her.
The fact that there's anything redeeming to discuss in this film at all is an indication that it's a better movie than Zombie's other Halloween. But it's also a sure sign of desperation that the only moment in which the writer-director really references Carpenter's films is in the final scene, when he uses the original's familiar piano refrain to emphasize a character's deteriorating sanity, and unfortunately, underscore the difference between jarring shock-exploitation and genuinely disturbing suspense: no matter how graphically one can depict a scene of violence, its impact will never compare to the lasting effect of an image, much less an entire film, in which a palpable mood is created and then successfully communicated to its audience.
Given the turnout at a midnight screening on Thursday in Los Angeles (there were no press screenings for critics, so yes, I paid for a ticket), there is evidence that suggests people do in fact want to see more of this kind of film. But when "not totally sucking" has become any measurable standard for the entertainment value of a moviegoing experience, and in fact the level known as "totally sucking" has been firmly established by a film's predecessor, it's a sad indication that audiences just aren't thinking at all about what they watch—even enough to suggest they know the difference between the two—which accounts for, if not excuses them from indulging their appetite for this kind of material.
But then again, maybe it's no less than what we should expect, since the filmmakers clearly aren't doing much thinking either; in any case, let's hope that Halloween II is the final installment, if only to make sure that at least one crappy horror series stays off the big screen. Because Rob Zombie may have brought Michael Myers back from the dead twice now, but what he really did was kill the franchise for good.
By guido62 at 10:58 AM ON 08/28/09
Maybe if people stopped talking about the CRAP he puts out he would stop making CRAP. I can't believe he wants to remake the Blob. There has already been one bad remake, we don't need another one.
By DreSteed at 11:38 AM ON 08/28/09
Come on people....it's a horror movie.! Love or leave it!
By Michael at 12:11 PM ON 08/28/09
@ the author of this review: Since Zombie's HALLOWEEN remake did phenomenal box office and the DVD sales also weren't too shabby, I think your definition of "totally sucking," as you put it, is different from those of us who actually enjoy good horror films. Personally, I think your attitude sort of indicates that you're not familiar enough with the genre to know what endears it to its fans, so perhaps you should consider reviewing...um...I don't know...romantic comedies, perhaps?
@ guido62: I agree with you on one point—I'm also not happy that Zombie is remaking THE BLOB. But only because I think is original material, like THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, is much better, and like everybody else, I'm sick of the Hollywood remake bandwagon.
By pjowens75 at 12:13 PM ON 08/28/09
Yes, DreSteed, it's only a horror movie, but it's a remake of one of the most beloved and honored horror movies of all time. Anyone, even Mr. Zombie, who attempts a remake without even the slightest understanding of what made the original the classic that it is, is going to wind up with, as guido62 says, a piece of CRAP.
By andrew at 12:34 PM ON 08/28/09
I sort of liked the first one and will hold my opinion on the second one. I think maybe three of the originals were worth while. Once again, when you make a remake(which I am getting tired of remakes or "reboots") you will get the geeks (who practically worship the originals) picking the new ones apart. Look, it's just a movie!!! Like DreSteed said, if you don't like it, leave it. Some of the fans of Halloween are starting to remind me of Trekies and Star Wars geeks. Which also were good movies, but we don't need them to be picked apart. GET A LIFE!!!
By Lordmoon at 12:51 PM ON 08/28/09
I personally enjoyed Zombie's first Halloween film. It's great as a remake and it's great as a stand-alone film. Did it need to be made? No. The original is fantastic and modern tech can't really add anything to it. But was the remake worthless? No. It was well filmed and crafted and actually showed how to make a remake the right way (although, for the most part, I do not condone remakes).
By Jimbo at 1:40 PM ON 08/28/09
Zombie's first Halloween remake was such a disaster it was almost painful to watch. No, you don't excuse crap just because it's a horror film -- horror films CAN and SHOULD be well made. Blood, gore, and splatter might be included, but if that's all a movie has, then why not just watch medical shows on Discovery. It's not "snobbish" to expect movies that are watchable -- instead of feeling as if we've just stepped into something we need to scrape off our shoes. Zombie just makes white-trash movies -- it's all he knows. The only good thing about Halloween 2 is that Zombie has said he won't make any more -- THANK GOD!!! I know, I know -- you Zombie-lovers will just say, "You don't have to see it." True, I don't -- and I won't...but that doesn't preclude me from having an opinion about this film series, which is based on the greatest (in my opinon) horror film ever made. I saw Zombie's first Halloween because I loved the original so much -- but Zombie's version was so vile, I actually had to go see another movie just to "cleanse my palette." For those of you who don't know any type of horror besides Rob Zombie, Saw, Hostel, or similar garbage piles, here's a list of TRULY great horror films. Enjoy -- then after watching them, see if Zombie's films don't leave a bad taste in senses too...
The original Halloween, Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Omen, Amytiville Horror, Scream 1, 2, and 3, Sixth Sense, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Night of the Living Dead, American Werewolf in Londong, The Blair Witch Project, Psycho, The Shining, Carrie, The Ring, Pet Sematary, and many, many more.
By Andrew at 2:13 PM ON 08/28/09
Umm,
Yeah ok Jimbo, if you think Scream 1, 2, 3 were horror films then you've got some screws loose, no matter how many fancy words you use like "palette." Those movies were good "who done it" movies, but they weren't horror. I will agree with you on the nightmare on elm street movie though and as for the Saw movies, they sucked, In my opinion, I thought that the first one (Halloween remake) was as close to an old fashioned horror movie as you will get this day and age. I suggest you do what I do when a movie comes out that I have no interest in, IGNORE IT!! I on the other hand will wait to see the movie before I decide if it is worth it.
By Michael at 3:07 PM ON 08/28/09
@ Jimbo: The word is PALATE, not PALETTE. You clearly don't know the difference between the roof of your mouth and an artist's mixing board, so how can I trust your opinions about films?
By IHeartHorror at 3:38 PM ON 08/28/09
Who did this review. I didn't notice a reviewer name anywhere. Anyone can write a rude review like this especially if they don't have to answer for it. There was not one bit of constructive criticism in it. Scifiwire should be ashamed of this article.
By what the hell? at 4:24 PM ON 08/28/09
Zombie's first shot with "Halloween" I thought was a waste of a remake. The first 15 minutes resemble nothing of a horror movie but more of Zombie's hillbilly taste from his original films. William Forsythe's character is completely worthless in the movie, and honestly the whole child aspect was totally unneeded, and if anything TAKES away from the mystery of Myers, it was that. He did what Lucas did to Darth Vader, only it wasn't HIS character to begin with. I don't care why this guy is the way he is, it's a mystery which kind of is the point of the fucking original character to begin with.
The fact that someone thought Zombie was suitable to do a remake of one of the most beloved horror movies of all time should have been a sign that the following would be under-par. If Zombie enjoys butchering a classic with his own spin, he just needs to stop using the name and then he can make all the knock-off movies he wants. Why bruise the character anymore?
By andrew at 6:21 PM ON 08/28/09
grow up "what the hell?" Your language shows your lack of intelligence.
By Andrew at 6:23 PM ON 08/28/09
grow up "what the hell?" Your language shows your lack of intelligence.
By Ra-Amun at 6:24 PM ON 08/28/09
agree w/ what the hell? It's the not knowing why he is killing that makes the boogey man idea work in the orignal. From what u can see in the original, MM grew up in a normal suburban home. There was no 'reason' for him to kill (until the cult aspect was put in the later instalments). I would rather watch H III for 24 hrs straight than watch 24 min. of zombies H. (I did enjoy Devil's Rejects so i think he & the rest of hollywood need to put out more original ideas instead of ruining the classics!!!!!!
By Andrew at 6:24 PM ON 08/28/09
Thought I would put that up twice so that you understand. I would speak verrrry sloooowly for you "what the hell?"
By Ra-Amun at 6:33 PM ON 08/28/09
I'm not a fan, but I still want to know who thought it would be a good idea to release a movie called Halloween on a day other than Halloween!!!!
By shroudedwolf at 6:41 PM ON 08/28/09
I'm not really sure where to begin here. The reviewer obviously hasn't had any courses in criticism, film or otherwise. I haven't seen the second Halloween yet, but the first one worked in almost every way. This includes realizing the 'half formed' symbolisms and themes that were in it. It gave a meaningful and realistic background for a human turning into a slasher. I would argue that it is possibly one of the most well thought out horror movies I've seen to date (that would be out of MANY horror movies I've seen).
Of course, that's just the tip of what is a very arbitrary subgenre of entertainment. There is a very large variety of horror styles which are subjective to viewer taste and should be accounted for in serious criticism--which it never is. For example, you have films like Hostel--Torture Porn at its best. It is built around shocking gore and situations and relies on the viewer being disturbed by these things more than it does anything else. Then you have The Grudge. It relies on mystery and unnatural visions of children that can meow (which you should watch the commentary to understand better) to unsettle the viewer. You cannot compare the two movies. You can't say that one is crappy horror while the other is not simply because you just don't happen to like one style versus another. The author of this article did compare this to the first one, but he called them both pieces of crap based on what he/she thinks "horror" should be.
Now, if you don't like the Slasher style of horror, fine, you don't. But don't call it crap because of that. Some people are more horrified by it than what you might consider good horror.
I for one enjoyed the first Halloween for its thoughtfulness (something slashers don't usually employ) and look forward to the new one. My favorite horror? Stuff like Hellraiser. Strange creatures are just fun to try to wrap my mind around. :)
By what the hell? at 7:47 PM ON 08/28/09
Andrew, if my language shows my lack of intelligence, what's that say for said movie?
You're a fucking tool.
By Huck Badger at 1:50 AM ON 08/29/09
Wow. It's hard to even comment on a review this scathing. As a huge fan of Carpenter's original, the remake worried me. Zombie mad eit his own: relentless where the original was suspenseful. If the reviewer says Zombie's H2 is better than his first Halloween, I'll probably love it. As will a lot of other people.
By Kev at 4:20 AM ON 08/29/09
There are people who want to see a suspensful, engrossing horror film and people who want to be bludgeoned with relentless violence. I find the latter boring. The original was made on a shoestring budget and is a definative classic of the genre. In fact, it invented the genre. Zombie spent 25 million odllars on a film that depicts a series of brutal killings and silly flashbacks that will be forgotten as easily as it's predecessor. Zombies films are not horror, not scary, and certainly not suspensful. They are a collection of realistic death scenes focused soley on the suffering of the victim sandwitched between rather bad diologue. If that's you bag then you'll love this film - and please note that you are in the minority. These films sell on the name, not the Director. This review is 100 percent accurate.
By TheMachine at 6:10 AM ON 08/29/09
While crap, Halloween II is still better then the steaming piles of dog poo offered up by Syfy.
By PALADIN at 8:19 AM ON 08/29/09
The review is absolutely correct in one respect;
Where the original 'Halloween' is a masterful build up of suspense leading up to a chilling pay-off, the Zombie re-makes are just crude efforts by comparison.
Where Carpenter carefully honed a razor of suspense; Zombie clumsily wields a baseball bat of brutality.
IF Rob Zombie was somehow attempting to evoke the essence of a horror classic with his films, he has instead only demonstrated the painful truth that Michael Myers discovered and that Thomas Wolfe already knew:
( Sadly; )
You Can`t Go Home Again.
By J. Warner at 9:51 AM ON 08/29/09
Correction: The "Scream" series is as much HORROR as it is a part of any other genre.
By Andrew at 12:28 PM ON 08/29/09
Oooh OOhh what tool am I "what the hell?"? I hope it's a hammer. I like hammers You prove my point "what the hell?" Brilliant comeback.
By entertainmenttodayandbeyond at 4:29 PM ON 08/29/09
I agree with this review as the movie is just AWFUL. Zombie can do his thing with his own films like The Devils Rejects but he had no business turning the Halloween franchise into trailer trash garbage. The blood letting in this film is sickening and the actress who plays Laurie Strode is beyond bad .
By Knifey at 4:47 PM ON 08/29/09
I liked all the nudity in Zombie's first Halloween. There isn't enough in most horror films nowadays. That was also the best part of the new Friday the 13th. I hope the new Halloween II has a good amount of nudity. Then I'll be happy with it.
By kebgd at 12:14 AM ON 08/30/09
Just because a movie makes money at the box office it doesn't mean that it was a good movie. On reflection I don't think I like Rob Zombies' Halloween movies; I prefer the original.
By ginaswo/MiM at 11:39 AM ON 08/30/09
Todd you NAILED it!! Thank you! WHAT an utter waste of time money and a fabulous classic franchise. This line in your review sums it all up :
... no matter how graphically one can depict a scene of violence, its impact will never compare to the lasting effect of an image, much less an entire film, in which a palpable mood is created and then successfully communicated to its audience.
By ginaswo/MiM at 11:43 AM ON 08/30/09
Jimbo
I could not agree more, and for the dude who thinks SCREAM were not horror, you missed the entire point of those films, they were themselves a send up of their own genre done the way only a true master like Wes could do them...any idiot can film gore and take the most disturbing child protective services cases and call that a plot, that does NOT make it so
and many of us actually study FILM so we are not geeks for preferring someone actually attempt to move something forward and not just mangle it for cash and kicks..
By givezombieabreak at 7:26 PM ON 08/30/09
I think people are looking at it all wrong. Zombie is not remaking the originals he is showing them in his own interpretation and unique style. The original was legendary and that was down to John Carpenter's ability to create tension and a mood that feels real and will never fail to scare. Rob zombie's style is to shock and disturb with gore, sex and torture. You should know this if you have seen any of his other work including halloween I, which I realy liked. Just think what you are comparing everyone views things differently, the critic was obviously not a rob zombie fan and will not like the film as will everyone else who views it and are not fans of zombies work. I wounder why they watch it if they dislike his style you know what to expect, I don't think rob goes out to please everyone im sure his fans will at least enjoy some bloody twisted parts of the film and maybe thats all that matters!
By Tyrayklg at 7:08 PM ON 09/05/09
First Rob Zombie remake was great.. II on the other had was horrible. And why did he make this movie anyway? To let his wife be on screen again. She was pointless and a stupid addition to the movie. I wanted background and depth. Booo to the waste of time and money!!!
By DerangedThoughts at 12:12 AM ON 09/07/09
First off i think everyones missing the point of Zombies remake of these movies, he's bringing a fresh look into the eyes of a generation with a lil more imagination and perception as to what horror should be,as far as the childhood part, doesn't anyone with an IQ above their shoe size want to see what made michael myers a monster? As for the second one, I thought he was brutal and every bit , if not more the brutal monster carpenter tried to touch on . maybe most of you would rather watch a stomp the yard remake or maybe one more final destination in 3d remake, we all know how "good" those 3'd movies are remmeber jaws 3?
By JQ at 7:48 PM ON 09/09/09
Those who can't do, critique. Though I can't call the writer of this review a critic. He's just a bitter little fanboy, upset that he had to pay for his ticket like the rest of us.
Halloween II is one of Zombie's best films. It borderlines into Lynchian territory. I'd gladly see this over PUBLIC ENEMIES (worst film of the year) or any other teeny bopper movies trying to pass themselves off as "horror" films (PROM NIGHT).
So Mr. nameless movie critic, go back to your Mom's basement and continue your pathetic witless jealous commentary.
By the way, this film, almost all of it, is in Laurie's head.
I really can't believe what rottentomatoes.com is counting as "critics" these days: a guy who writes about bowel movements in the opening paragraph of their review. What a loser.
Visit mobile.syfy.com/wire on your mobile device.
JQ:
Those who can't do, critique. Though I can't call the writer of this review a critic. He's just a bitter little f...More »