Or as Sam Loomis would say, "that's an oxymoron." Overall, I wasn't really a fan of this movie, but it was, let's say...interesting, at least for a slasher film. It's a worthy addition to what is otherwise a pretty lackluster series. It should be stated however, that outside the first film, I'm not a particular fan of this series. Yet, for some reason, beyond my own comprehension, I keep coming back.
First off, I liked this movie much more than the one from 2007. Zombie improves on several aspects that had me cringing before, namely, the whole prequel concept, which in my opinion did not work at all and even seemed to contradict itself. This was a more traditional Halloween movie, with Michael Myers simply stalking his prey rather than all the hogwash explaining why he is the way he is. Zombie simply expands on the formula.
It's two years later, Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis, both of whom died in the previous movie, return with no explanation whatsoever as to how they survived...but it's not the first time this has happened. Anyway, the killer is wandering the earth, or something, while Lorie Strode still has nightmares from the events in the first film. She's seeing a psychiatrist and trying to achieve some sort of balance in her life, but slowly ends up loosing her own mind from grief and paranoia and a strong addiction to an excess of alcohol and narcotics, which she uses to suppress sociopathic tendencies that creep their way into her mind from her past encounter combined with the realization that she shares a genetic connection to her stalker. She's afraid of her own identity and what she has the potential to become, and whether or not her psychological journey is a success or failure is up to the viewer, assuming the viewer even cares. Meanwhile, Michael Myers has inner demons that haunt him as well, this being really the first film in the series to show us what exactly it is that goes on inside this monster's head, but doesn't quite explain what compels him to act the way he does, or why he feels the need to keep stabbing people even after they're already FUBR-ed. By the way, this film seemed to have an excess of blood and gore in it to the point where if a character stubbed their toe, I'd expect red corn syrup to come spewing out of their foot.
One thing I found interesting was the humanizing of Michael Myers. We're given a glimpse into what is life is like in between Halloweens...how he eats, where he sleeps, etc. Although, John Carpenter seemed to portray the character as more of a force, not a man, and the frailties that Zombie bestows on our slasher anti-hero would best be suited more for a character who is a little more human, like Leatherface or Jason Voorhees. Which brings me to another point...none of the characters in these remakes are the same people that they were in the original films. They've all been completely transformed and re-imagined, which to some may seem sacrilegious, but to others, perhaps a more practical direction to go with the series. In a way, I praise Zombie for putting his own spin on the story, as opposed to working within the confines of John Carpenter's original film, but I can't help but criticize these remakes as an impractical subject for such experimentation. It's a new direction for a film that didn't need to be made. At this point, Zombie may as well have just made his own movie with his own characters.
Also, I don't feel like the whole death metal atmosphere is appropriate but being Rob Zombie's interpretation, I can't be too surprised. The problem is, it's a film that, at times, looks like it was made by a rock star, not a filmmaker. All things considered, this is the best effort I've seen from Zombie so far.
On a side note, I strongly object to the idea of having Danielle Harris in this film, as I did with the previous film. Not sure what the logic was with that, but for any follower of the series it's nearly impossible to separate the idea of her as Michael Myer's niece from parts 4 and 5, especially in this movie. A minor gripe, but it doesn't help what is already a pretty flawed piece of work.
I think the biggest issue is that Rob Zombie is trying to make something artistic out of what is essentially a non-artistic genre. On the surface, slasher films aren't really any different than porn, substituting sex for blood and gore, although not all the time. Mostly, the bits of dialogue are to get from one graphic sequence to the next. You can try to make a gourmet meal out of fast food ingredients, but it's probably not going to do you a whole lot of good. John Carpenter was an innovative filmmaker interested in exploring territory and telling stories that hadn't ever been told in the film world, whereas Zombie seems to be more about taking cheap entertainment and turning it into something its not. It's certainly not lacking in its ambition, but for all its merits, Halloween II is pretty hollow. For a Halloween movie, it's okay, or dare I say, "good" but, for a Halloween movie, that's not saying a whole lot.
First off, I liked this movie much more than the one from 2007. Zombie improves on several aspects that had me cringing before, namely, the whole prequel concept, which in my opinion did not work at all and even seemed to contradict itself. This was a more traditional Halloween movie, with Michael Myers simply stalking his prey rather than all the hogwash explaining why he is the way he is. Zombie simply expands on the formula.
It's two years later, Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis, both of whom died in the previous movie, return with no explanation whatsoever as to how they survived...but it's not the first time this has happened. Anyway, the killer is wandering the earth, or something, while Lorie Strode still has nightmares from the events in the first film. She's seeing a psychiatrist and trying to achieve some sort of balance in her life, but slowly ends up loosing her own mind from grief and paranoia and a strong addiction to an excess of alcohol and narcotics, which she uses to suppress sociopathic tendencies that creep their way into her mind from her past encounter combined with the realization that she shares a genetic connection to her stalker. She's afraid of her own identity and what she has the potential to become, and whether or not her psychological journey is a success or failure is up to the viewer, assuming the viewer even cares. Meanwhile, Michael Myers has inner demons that haunt him as well, this being really the first film in the series to show us what exactly it is that goes on inside this monster's head, but doesn't quite explain what compels him to act the way he does, or why he feels the need to keep stabbing people even after they're already FUBR-ed. By the way, this film seemed to have an excess of blood and gore in it to the point where if a character stubbed their toe, I'd expect red corn syrup to come spewing out of their foot.
One thing I found interesting was the humanizing of Michael Myers. We're given a glimpse into what is life is like in between Halloweens...how he eats, where he sleeps, etc. Although, John Carpenter seemed to portray the character as more of a force, not a man, and the frailties that Zombie bestows on our slasher anti-hero would best be suited more for a character who is a little more human, like Leatherface or Jason Voorhees. Which brings me to another point...none of the characters in these remakes are the same people that they were in the original films. They've all been completely transformed and re-imagined, which to some may seem sacrilegious, but to others, perhaps a more practical direction to go with the series. In a way, I praise Zombie for putting his own spin on the story, as opposed to working within the confines of John Carpenter's original film, but I can't help but criticize these remakes as an impractical subject for such experimentation. It's a new direction for a film that didn't need to be made. At this point, Zombie may as well have just made his own movie with his own characters.
Also, I don't feel like the whole death metal atmosphere is appropriate but being Rob Zombie's interpretation, I can't be too surprised. The problem is, it's a film that, at times, looks like it was made by a rock star, not a filmmaker. All things considered, this is the best effort I've seen from Zombie so far.
On a side note, I strongly object to the idea of having Danielle Harris in this film, as I did with the previous film. Not sure what the logic was with that, but for any follower of the series it's nearly impossible to separate the idea of her as Michael Myer's niece from parts 4 and 5, especially in this movie. A minor gripe, but it doesn't help what is already a pretty flawed piece of work.
I think the biggest issue is that Rob Zombie is trying to make something artistic out of what is essentially a non-artistic genre. On the surface, slasher films aren't really any different than porn, substituting sex for blood and gore, although not all the time. Mostly, the bits of dialogue are to get from one graphic sequence to the next. You can try to make a gourmet meal out of fast food ingredients, but it's probably not going to do you a whole lot of good. John Carpenter was an innovative filmmaker interested in exploring territory and telling stories that hadn't ever been told in the film world, whereas Zombie seems to be more about taking cheap entertainment and turning it into something its not. It's certainly not lacking in its ambition, but for all its merits, Halloween II is pretty hollow. For a Halloween movie, it's okay, or dare I say, "good" but, for a Halloween movie, that's not saying a whole lot.