data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/625d6/625d662fa2c0e7c0efbbbc57b0cf865799322039" alt=""
Given that John Carpenter is one of my favourite filmmakers, the prospect of watching a remake of one of his movies should fill me with a mixture of dread and disgust. We've all heard the 'horror stories' of directors like Rupert Wainwright (The Fog, 2005) and Matthijs van Heijningen jr (The Thing, 2011) trying (and failing) to update Carpenter's movies with inappropriate cast teen stars and needless CGI. But the thing with Halloween is that, arguably, it's been remade countless times already. I mean when you think about it, all the Halloween films (bar number 3) were all pretty much the same basic story. On Halloween night, in a suburban neighbourhood, indestructible killer Michael Myers murders a bunch of people with a large kitchen knife. So the prospect of watching a fresh take on this particular movie made me more... curious than angry.
The
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b6cf0/b6cf001222a25069e50a329ebd6e6003634007dd" alt=""
A lot of people hated Rob Zombie's Halloween when it was released but I actually quite liked it. The film, like DePalma's Scarface and Carpenter's The Thing before it, did what every good remake should do; it took the basic elements and gave them an entirely different spin. Whereas Carpenter's Halloween feels like a ghost story you tell around the camp fire, Zombie's Halloween feels like something you'd read about in the newspaper. Everything feels realistic and grounded (except maybe the part about Myers growing up to be a 7ft tall man mountain). I particularly enjoyed the first part which examined, in detail, the aftermath of Myers murders as a child. It was riveting to see Loomis' psychology sessions with him. I sat there kind of wishing Myers would get cured! It's a dangerous thing to do in films; to examine the villain's back story (just look at the horrible job George Lucas did explaining why Anakin became Darth Vader) but I thought Zombie did a decent job that didn't shy away from difficult answers.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4e74/e4e74dfbef9c7f025f81367d09eb75487c8bc6f6" alt=""
In fact, if I had to point out a problem it's that, while the first half is great, the second half is nothing more than a truncated, 'Platinum Dunes'-esque remake of the original. But, then again, I guess Zombie had to fit the original film's storyline at some point otherwise it wouldn't be a remake. In the actual murder scenes Zombie goes for viciousness and brutality rather than creepiness and tension. Again, he's trying something new here with the character of Myers, and that's to be applauded, but for me it didn't really work. It made the film shocking but not very scary, which isn't a good thing for a horror film. In fact, I'd almost go as far as saying that Rob Zombie's Halloween can (or should) be viewed as more of a thriller than a traditional slasher/horror.
I've
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87451/87451fde34e7fa18a2e547ea7aef8aa005b5a8cd" alt=""
Ultimately, I think Rob Zombie's Halloween isn't a better film than Carpenter's. It's just different. I think a lot of people thought that because Carpenter's film defined the 'slasher' craze of the 80s, Zombie's film should be as important. To justify its existence it should do nothing less than redefine the horror genre again. But let's face it, it was never going to do that. Zombie's Halloween is a good film, with some great ideas and great acting, let's just leave it at that.
GRADE: B
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/844aa/844aaf276764c57a78061173e00950790e783950" alt=""
I think it's important to note that Zombie never planned to make a sequel. It's very apparent in the original workprint that the film was meant to end with Myers being definitely dead but, of course, the producers wanted some sequels so he changed the theatrical cut's ending to be more ambiguous. Despite this compromise Zombie's Halloween II doesn't feel like too much of a shameless cash-in. Again, the film characterised by a ballsy script that seems to revel in messing with the established characters and atmosphere of both the earlier films and, strangely, its own predecessor. Once, again it's a film of two halves with the first half dealing with the aftermath of the Myers rampage.
The
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e65e0/e65e05ab1c4cf3fd1742f60a034c3e16c6052436" alt=""
Zombie's Halloween II is a bit of difficult film to like but there's still a lot that I admired about it. The film feels quite loose and rushed (which I'm guessing it was given that Zombie only signed on to do it in 2008). One of the major points everyone criticises the film about is the 'visions'. In this film, we get introduced (in a rather hamfisted fashion) to the idea that Myers 'sees' visions of his dead mother and a white horse telling him what to do. I think I wouldn't have minded if this was shown (or hinted) at in Zombie's earlier film but it wasn't. Still it's a neat idea - the kind of thing you can imagine a serial killer admitting to - and something fresh for the series.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/63681/63681b844932ce89dcedf165ddd5cfea312934af" alt=""
Despite these two points, I enjoyed most of the rest of the film. The idea of Laurie being permanently traumatised by her experiences felt in keeping with the realistic atmosphere of the previous film and Scout Taylor-Compton does a really good job portraying her depression. I also liked the idea of Myers becoming a creepy hobo with a long beard and torn up mask. Again, I think it was good for Zombie to make the film his own and show what Myers is really like behind the mask (both literally and figuratively) rather than make him some indestructible killer. Brad Dourif is an excellent addition too. Though he had a small role in the previous film, he gets a much larger one here playing Laurie's ersatz father figure Sheriff Brackett. His helplessness to protect his daughter is truly heartbreaking.
As
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/87f15/87f151a612856565b6e3ed0dd203d7603b343ec0" alt=""
GRADE: B
I'm a big John Carpenter fan and have only seen the original Halloween. I'm glad that Rob Zombie tried to do something different as I never saw the point of remakes that basically tried to just copy the original and don't bring much new to the table.
ReplyDeleteExactly, I'd far rather watch a crazy remake than faithful one.
ReplyDeleteSo I actually just saw Zombie's first Halloween this past Halloween for the very first time. I'm still a little torn. I liked how brutal it was. I liked Tyler Mane as Myers. I liked the kid who played the young Myers and I have to admit, Zombie has a gift for casting his films with really great character actors and cult icons. I think my biggest problem was that I just didn't like the way it was filmed at all. I feel his particular exploitation-handheld style works well with films like House of a 1,000 Corpses and Devils Rejects, but didn't really think it worked well with this kind of film and story. I couldn't help but think it would have looked and felt so much better had he gone more streamlined and artistic, taking full advantage of the widescreen aspect ratio like he seems to have done with the soon to be released Lords of Salem. But that's just me. That's what I kept thinking through the whole thing as I watched it. That the look was bothering me so much that I couldn't fully enjoy it. But other than that, I must say I found it surprisingly enjoyable. And I loved McDowell's Loomis. I thought that was brilliant casting.
ReplyDeleteI still haven't seen Part 2 yet. I just read an article with Zombie having to defend his sequel and saying he likes that film very much and thinks it's good. But that he's definitely out if they ever decide to do a Part 3.
Btw, are you on Facebook? Because of things going on, I found myself not doing reviews anymore on my blog, not for months now, but I enjoy starting a dialogue on Facebook with other filmgeeks about certain films I just saw. So it's an outlet for me in a way since I don't do the reviews anymore. Just wondering if you were on so we could connect that way and get your input on the things I've seen.
Yeah, I know what you mean. The handheld style wasn't great. I think the reason he chose it was to avoid comparisons with Carpenter's original which had all those distinctively smooth steadycam shots.
ReplyDeleteI don't think either of Zombie's films are great but I really appreciate the left field decisions he chose. Like re-inventing Loomis and showing more of young Michael Myers. I just allowed the film to have their own lives separate from the original.
- I'm not on facebook at the moment but I'm happy to join to chat about film. Give me a day or so to sign up.
Hit me up when you do!!
ReplyDeletefacebook.com/JasonElizondo76
Get signed up yet?! ;)
ReplyDeleteZombie's problem is his fetish to make the bad guys good and the good guys bad. He does it in film after film. I get a sense that he was hampered when he did the first "Halloween" remake, and then was given free reign for the sequel, and the result is jarring.
ReplyDeleteI get trauma, but turning your lead heroine into a shrieking siren for an hour and a half is grating. I was very pleased to see McDowell as Loomis for the first film. No one can equal Pleasence, but McDowell was a good fit. Then the sequel happened, and they just butchered him.
It doesn't help that Pleasence made Loomis an iconic role. He's the focal point of the sequels. For Zombie to corrupt the character seemingly for the joy of it was painful to watch. blurring the lines between good guys and bad guys works for original characters, but doing so with Loomis was a huge mistake on his part.