Reel Horror

Fray's Logo that he created for us

Click To Play

Click To Play

Michael Vario's Review of Halloween (RZ):

Okay, I guess it's time for me to weigh in on the sequel. Upfront I just want to say that I thought the original was greatness. I'm also a big fan of Zombie's TDR. But I'm not a fan of remakes in general.

As far as the style of the new movie, it's the Devil's Rejects version of Halloween. The early parts of the films especially have that dirty, gritty look. The new whit trash Meyers family seems to be a distant relation to the Firefly clan, at least in spirit. Michael's mom is a stripper (in yet another cinematic incident of a stripper who doesn't take her clothes off... RZ, you are so whipped).

Hollywood PC makes an appearance of course. Gone are the pot smoking and cigarettes smoking of the original. The one character who lights up a cigarette in this is killed withing seconds. But Zombie does come through by giving us a little bit more nudity than was in the original, so I guess there is one Hollywood trend he's bucking.

Rob Zombie is sticking with that whole handheld thing. Like 98% of this is shot handheld, can someone please buy the guy a tripod, or at least a steadicam? On the plus side, Zombie isn't locked into the quick-cut thing giving us plenty of long cuts when the mood warrants it. While he doesn't use too much of the infamous shaky-cam technique throughout the film he overuses it at the end. The scenes with the attack on Annie and the two attacks on Laurie are a mess of shaky-cam, quick cuts, too-tight close-up and overall under-lighting. I know, this kind of anarchy-on-screen for action scenes is real popular these days, but I still think it's bad film making.

This is a much more brutal film than the original. Time is spent on what I guess is a typical Michael Meyers day of killing animals and dealing with bullies. The first killing has a particular brutality that sets the tone of the flick.

In making this movie different Rob Zombie decided to make it about Michael Meyers instead of Laurie Strode. That works in the first half, and I think fails in the second. It gives us some insight while Michael is talking and not wearing the mask, but that leaves the whole latter Haddonfield story with and empty foundation. Personally I think if you had the need to change focus then it might have worked better overall doing the Loomis story. But I guess stylistically wouldn't be Rob Zombie.

I thought the acting was for the most part pretty good. Malcolm McDowell has been a victim of typecasting in Hollywood for a long time usually playing overly melodramatic heavies. Here he gets to act, and (in the first 2/3's of the movie) I haven't seen him this good in many, many years. The fact that he pretty much carries the flick only makes me feel even more that the movie should have been done with Loomis as the central character. On the down side, he does slip into melodramatic mode in the third act. Daeg Faerch as young Michael and Sheri Moon also did extremely well bringing their characters to life. Everyone else does a competent job except...

...the three heroines of the the third act. Nancy Loomis kind of stood out in the original as the weak actress next to Jamie Lee Curtis and PJ Soles. We don't have that problem here because all three actress were lacking. From affected deliveries to performances lacking personality, the actors cast didn't really bring anything to the parts. So as not to put all the blame on them, they did have to deal with some awful dialog. I don't know if Zombie can write "normal" dialog without slipping into mundane and insipid. Either way we have three important characters who were central to the original, now relegated to the third act, who ended coming across as inconsequential bit characters.

While the focus and central character are different from the original, most of the film, at least until the end, follows along pretty closely, except that the bulk of the original is compressed into the third act while the first day (prologue in the original) and Michael's time institutionalized is expanded. One thing I read Zombie say in an interview had to do with the Michael driving in the original which has been taken as a plot hole of sorts. Unfortunately his way of dealing with that was to avoid it altogether with no explanation on how Michael gets for Smiths Grove to Haddonfield.

I'm sure I'm the only one who thinks so, but I was hoping he would have dropped the whole "Laurie is Michael's sister" thing. In the original Michael didn't have a younger sister, it was a plot device created with Halloween 2 in order to continue having Jamie Lee Curtis as the star and justify having Michael chase after her. I thought it was a weak plot device at the time, and in the franchise world it led to increasingly more convoluted story lines necessary in order to keep introducing relatives for Michael to pursue. Unfortunately Zombie chose to retain this bit of canon from Halloween 2 and inject it into his remake. While he has no plans for a sequel the Weinsteins most certainly do and I think this bit of tacked-on storyline will again prove an unwelcome bit of constraint down the line.

A few days before the release of the Halloween remake a copy of a work print form last May escaped. I got a chance to check this out to see the differences between it and the final release version. In general the release version added some murders and extended others and was a generally gorier piece. The work print also contained a rape scene that really made no sense whatsoever (and didn't deliver any nudity aside from a little butt) which was replaced with the scene where the guards decided to move Michael (why? where to?) from his cell. Even without an explanation for the move the new scene worked a whole lot better. On the other hand the release version changed and extended the ending. I guess the test screening audience was clamoring for a longer "chase scene" but I preferred the ending from the work print much more. I think it worked better and was more in keeping with the spirit of the original.

As for the film overall... well it was entertaining. It wasn't anywhere near as good as Devil's Rejects... there is only so much originality that can be injected into the shell of a remake. And it wasn't anywhere near as good as the original. I re-watched that one again and I still think it's one of the greatest horror films of all time. So that sort of makes this remake another unnecessary, though better than usual, rehash of an older, better horror movie. It was fun watching it, and it was interesting to see Rob Zombies take on it. I guess I' give it like a 7 out of 10. It was a good flick, but why bother? Rob, go make something new now.