Bad taste is the petrol that drives the American Dream

Not that it matters (since at this point you've already seen it or wouldn't ever), but I'm spoiling the shit out of Rob Zombie's Halloween II below.

Rob Zombie makes horror movies like the seasoned fan watches them. You can almost hear him repeating from the director's chair, "It's only a movie. It's only a movie." His heightened level of awareness drives him to fill holes normally left in the genre's offerings. A prime example of this is his Halloween II, which aims to examine the effects of being a final girl more intently than anything I've ever seen. As a sequel, it has a conceptual responsibility lacking in horror. It starts with a hospital visit immediately following the events of the last film, during which we're treated to lingering shots of the wounds Laurie Strode (once played by Jamie Lee Curtis, now by Scout Taylor-Compton) suffered at the hands (and knife) of Michael Myers. Giant gashes are cleaned, a fingernail is removed and Laurie's hysterical display suggests the trauma is beyond skin deep. The mere transition from one film to another isn't enough to heal Laurie's boo-boos (as it is in virtually every other sequel situation). Zombie is making sure you understand the complete picture of the damage inflicted by Myers (and, by extension, himself).

And that's reasonable in theory. In practice, accountability blurs into gratuitousness to the point of being indistinguishable. Are Zombie's movies appropriately heinous depictions of heinous subject matter, or do they exist for the sole purpose of being heinous? Is the circle closed, or is it a stab wound? I don't know, and I'm not sure that he does, either. When Zombie's Myers stabs someone, he does it with pummeling force. It's an elbow-greased affair with innards squelching in response. On one hand, I like that he's telegraphing the difficulty in killing someone by knife, because it's something that can be easily taken for granted; on the other, I wonder who really needs to know how much effort goes into effectively stabbing someone in the first place.

It's probably not worth pondering that long, anyway, because ultimately Halloween II is not very good, nor is it particularly sharp. At the same time, it's not as bad as it's been made out to be. Zombie has a better eye than just about anyone who's immersed himself in the slasher genre (there's a back-lighting motif here that produces consistently gorgeous results of light ribbons framing the characters). He also has more ideas than your average gore monger -- they just aren't always good ones. So while you can appreciate that a filmmaker finally asked, "What the hell do these cinematic serial killers eat?" you also groan when the answer turns out to be dog. (Michael Myers eats it raw and freshly slaughtered, during a scene in which Sheriff Lee Brackett is admonished by his daughter and Laurie for loving sausage on his pizza. The question Zombie's asking is, "What's the difference between eating one animal and another?" The answer is, "A lot of things...and are you being ironic by beating a dead horse here, or what?" I mean, how many times have you heard this debate by now? A million? Two million?)

That hospital sequence described above? It turns out to be a dream...or something. It's disappointing back-pedaling, which doesn't make very much sense since the purpose of this movie is to chart Laurie's descent into madness, as a result of experiencing the terror of and sharing DNA with a human monster. Great! The way Zombie illustrates this is...not great. He presents an extremely silly series of scenes, in which Michael, his child self and his mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) walk with a white horse. Laurie shares these visions with her psycho brother, to suggest that she is at one with his psychosis. Regardless, this imagery is quasi-religious nonsense (are there two embodiments of Michael to suggest the father and the son or the huh and the wha?). As it has has been repeatedly pointed out that it's ultimately just an excuse to get his wife's dead character back into the film

Because Zombie's not just saying, "It's only a movie," he's saying, "It's only my movie." His first prequel/remake Halloween hybrid was obviously at the mercy of its source material, constantly referencing John Carpenter's infinitely greater original. In Halloween II, though, Zombie has Laurie don the same cheap clown costume that young Michael wore in the prequel section of his first Halloween, and almost kill her friend Annie the same way Michael killed his stepfather. Zombie is beyond referencing greatness; here he references himself. Similarly, Laurie and another one of Michael's near-victims from the first film, the aforementioned Annie, along with Annie's father are now inexplicably white trash, Zombie's favorite breed of human. They're, like, write-on-their-walls trash. I wondered if this is more a symptom of these characters' experience with Michael Myers or Rob Zombie.

What's truly infuriating here is that for all of his wacky self-conscious and self-serving ideas, Zombie ultimately craps out. I didn't particularly enjoy Halloween II and I wasn't ever scared, but I was intrigued the entire time as Laurie glided more and more off the rails while Michael neared her, slashing everyone in the way. The movie ends with the two of them in a shack, surrounded by police and helicopters. A self-important and fame-deluded rendering of Dr. Loomis (in a turn baiting Donald Pleasence to spin in his grave) even comments on how ridiculous this mess Zombie has thrown his characters into ("Michael Myers is not going to respond to hostage negotiations!" he snorts in disbelief). In the end, Loomis enters the shack, is killed by Michael, who's in turn killed by Laurie (again!). She comes out wearing his mask. The final scene is of her in an improbably long white room, twitching. She looks up at the camera and smiles, so as to suggest she's made the full transition into the Myers family madness. Great. We had to watch all of that white-horse/white-trash nonsense to get to the same point on which Halloween 4 ended (Michael's niece Jamie is wearing his clown costume and brandishing a knife). I don't know if Zombie just thinks we're dumb or forgetful or if he's making some kind of comment on the ultimate creative bankruptcy of the horror genre. I wonder if Laurie's sneer is actually his, that he's laughing at us for ever being invested in the first place. The sadism is appropriate -- after all, Michael and Laurie's stupid shared vision is actually his.

Comments

[Hugh]

She's A Talker

She's A Talker

[Chris P]

As i couldnt love this blog anymore, you go and put Laurie as your banner. You are the best man ever. Chris.

[Chris P]

P.S now that i've read your review, which I always trust. I now know that I wont taint my love of the original and sequel. Thanks yeah.

[Dandy Darkly]

I'd love to read your thoughts on the recent gruesome melding of horror movie and reality tv show...

[gi_janearng]

After seeing Rob's "House of 1,000 Corpses" I vowed never to see another one of his movies again. I chalk it up to the fact that I am old skool at heart and prefer old skool horror. A good horror movie doesn't have to be all about visualizing and drawing out the blood and guts to be scary. I think Rob was all about pushing the envelope and ended up over doing it.

[Lorin]

I'm surprised you didn't mention the Diablo Cody moment in the store, where the three girls engage in some sort of dialogue made up of non-slang.

[woody]

not to mention:
how was annie left completely unaffected (besides a scar on her face) after surviving the same near death attack? and not the least bit concerned about spending halloween alone?
how did dr loomis recover from the same near death attack, write and publish a book and put together a press tour that garnished enough fame to end up on a talk show with weird al, all within one year?
and how does one become such filthy white trash in a 12 month period? because her half dreadlocks were replusive.

[frigg]

As I've come to expect, another fine bit of thoughtful film writing/crit. Well done, Rich.

[spazmo]

Great analysis - too bad the mindless Shapes that make the opening-weekend box-office bean-counters drool won't be reading it.

Is there an irony in the fact that Carpenter and Hill were basically leveraged/contractually arm-twisted into making Halloween 2, whereas Zombie was under no such legal obligation? Y'know, I like Rob Zombie...he's very well-spoken and articulate, but am I to gather then, that he felt an artistic obligation to remake what was primarily a creatively bankrupt retread?

Because that's just ridiculous.

[jeremy]

As long as the next one is worthy of Season of the Witch, I'm fine with however Zombie chooses to interpret this (fairly boring) mythology.

[Josh]

This review is so amazingly dead on. Halloween 2 was awful.

[Cy]

While I haven't seen Halloween 2, this post perfectly sums up my confusion about the other three Rob Zombie movies. Is he going for pure gross-out factor or is he trying to make you think? In the end, I just don't care enough to sit through this one to try and figure it out.

[Vanessa M]

I couldn't make it 10 minutes into the first reboot. I don't see how anyone could remake Halloween. It scared the living shit out of me when I was a kid like nothing else (except The Exorcist. Thanks for that, Catholic school.) Since then, the masked unkillable slasher has veered into parody both directly and indirectly to the point where there's nothing left.

I do love how much benefit of a doubt you are giving Rob Z tho. Is it a statement about how the creative well is long used up for this genre? I highly doubt it.

(you know what I did find surprisingly tolerable was the My Bloody Valentine remake which had no illusions of big ideas.)

[Sarah]

I'd like to start by saying I dig House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects. And I liked the first Halloween movie, if only for the stripper pole/sad kid/"Love Hurts" mash-up.

I HATED Halloween 2. The plot started out as a continuation of the last movie, which you mentioned becomes a dream sequence, and I almost wish it had stayed that way. I wouldn't have to see rebellious Laurie and her rebellious friends acting like morons while the plot went nowhere. Also, replacing the kid who played Michael in the first movie was a terrible idea - his face was so unique.

[Emily]

I had a theory that maybe Zombie wanted us to think it was actually Laurie the whole time. The early murders--wherever the hell they occur, as Zombie grounds NOTHING in location--are never discovered or acknowledged, so for all we know, maybe they were just in her mind. I like the idea because it brings something new to the franchise, but I just can't get over how poorly edited and directed the whole film was. Maybe an extended cut (which most of us have no desire to sit through) would clear up a few things?

Either way, great review as always!