In Defense of Rob Zombie’s ‘Halloween II’

When Rob Zombie is good, he is very, very good. No one understands the obsessive geek nature of horror cinema better than this true fright fan. Long before he became a Beavis and Butthead punchline, or the most easily ridiculed filmmaker on the planet, he was memorizing macabre, indulging in any and all types of terror tales - the good, the bad, and the sublimely schlocky. It was this dedication and devotion that gave Universal the original idea of putting him behind the lens. And it is this psychotronic encyclopedia like knowledge that made movies like The Devil’s Rejects and Halloween such career defining delights.
But when Zombie is bad, he’s baffling. Not irredeemable or unwatchable, just completely unsound in his motives or intentions. Take his first film, House of 1000 Corpses. It’s like a blueprint for every b-movie ever made dragged through an adolescent’s pot-smoke soiled imagination. By the time we get to the anticlimactic reveal of Dr. Satan, we’ve been put through the unrealized ambitions ringer. No wonder then that he tossed the whole monster mythology to turn Rejects into a sequel in sadism only. By highlighting the Firefly family and their endearing exploitation ways, Zombie salvaged his already sinking credibility…
…only to turn around and tarnish it once again by announcing his decision to remake the John Carpenter classic from the late ‘70s. Seen by many as one of the greatest horror films of all time, Halloween didn’t appear ripe for reinvention. Indeed, the straightforward story - killer escapes from an asylum 20 years after a horrific crime to seek revenge on the town (and family) he left behind - and Hitchcockian precision in which Carpenter realized his dread seemed almost untouchable. If Zombie wanted to set himself up to fail, he couldn’t have picked a better project. Still, with Hollywood flush with horror reimagination fever, Michael Myers joined Leatherface as the latest Me Decade icon to get the post-millennial make-over.
And in this critic’s opinion, it worked. While others can complain about screwing with the original, Zombie got the basic idea of Halloween down pat. While Carpenter could only hint at how evil his ‘Shape’ really was, this new film turned him into an authentic and quite realistic human nightmare. In Zombie’s mind, Michael is nothing more than an unstoppable murder machine, a shark with a brutal appetite for suburban blood and destruction. There is no cat and mouse, no “now you see him, now you don’t” games with the audience. Zombie’s Halloween may have a hackneyed set-up (the trailer town FBI profile is a tad sketchy), but once our demon puts on his mask, no one will be left alive.
Said aggressive nastiness is also present in Halloween II, but it’s now buffered by what the ad campaign is calling the completion of Zombie’s “vision”. For the layman, or those too wary to plunk down $10 bucks to uncover the filmic facts, what that means is that this surreal sequel is going to play by its own oddball rules, and if you don’t like it, the man behind the camera could give a crap. This time around, it’s all about style. For every act of horrific violence, for every moment of mind-numbing gore, Zombie is going to counteract the carnage with sequences of outright insanity. Not craziness from a character stand-point, but stream of consciousness creativity that, as one reviewer put it, melds the “grindhouse with the arthouse.”
Halloween II is indeed a strange, frequently flabbergasting trip. Beginning with a description of the symbolism inherent in the white horse (suggesting power, focus, and an end-of-times destructiveness), our filmmaker follows his own muses, mixing moments of brilliantly effective terror (whenever Michael raises his knife, the results are truth repugnant) with elements lifted directly out of David Lynch (Lost Highway, Twin Peaks) and Oliver Stone (Natural Born Killer, U-Turn). Indeed, while watching the events unfold onscreen, on gets the distinct impressive of experience JFK through the eyes of Eraserhead’s Henry Spencer - and that’s after his brain has been drilled for pencil end fodder.
This makes the movie hard to get a handle on, and that’s a death sentence in today’s “hurry up and hurt someone” ADD addled demographic. A lifetime of VCR vicariousness, fast forward button bringing the gruesome good stuff in perfect Pavlovian waves, has altered the perspective of the contemporary fright fan. They need simplicity in order to stoke their fires of their video game fried imaginations. They demand ample arterial spray when a few well placed deaths would do twice as much ambient damage. Even worse, they get antsy when someone suggests they view their favorite genre in a different or difficult manner. They’re not really interested in horror handled personal panache. They want Hostel, and if they can’t have that, it’s time to hit their prized collection of Faces of Death DVDs.
Naturally, this is a gross overgeneralization, as insensitive as any case of cinematic bigotry can be on both sides. But it’s also an attempt to get a handle on the K-2 sized slamming that Zombie is facing right now. Granted, Halloween II is not an outright masterpiece (it may indeed be one of the more original scary movies ever made, however), but it’s definitely not the worst movie ever made. Heck, if considered in that camp, it’s barely even the worst film of 2009. It has the guts that Michael Bay and his bravado belch known as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen only pretend to own, and it’s miles ahead of such tired hackwork as The Ugly Truth or Land of the Lost. Indeed, to consider Halloween II the bottom of the barrel, one needs to quantify said container. And in most cases, the view is just as biased.
Indeed, the reason for most of the anger aimed at Zombie is that he is free to do what he wants with what many considered to be a sacred serial killing cow. Michael Myers lives in the rarified realm of Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, the aforementioned Chainsaw champion, and various other members of the post-modern macabre clique. Sure, Stephen Sommers can crap all over the Universal classics with his nauseating Van Helsing, but more people are pissed as Zombie for “ruining” big Mike than ever came to Frankenstein or Dracula’s defense. It’s not like he’s destroying Carpenter’s original version. He’s just taking the material and riffing on it, reinterpreting it and ad-libbing like a jaded jazzman - or a know it all televangelist.
Maybe that’s what angering so many - Zombie’s ease at adapting Halloween to his own ideas of terror. His is definitely a design honed by endless hours sucking in all manner of filmmaking forms and approache. If one can wipe away the ire from their eyes, they could relish some incredibly powerful shots (the Brackett home, solemn in the sparseness of a Midwestern Fall backdrop) and a lot of visceral fear. There are times when actresses Scout Taylor-Compton and Danielle Harris do such a great job of selling the fear that it becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. Purists also love to point out how useless Dr. Loomis has become, how the once heroic psychiatrist has turned into a money-grubbing media whore. Exactly. In Zombie’s world, no one who spent their life looking after Michael Myers wouldn’t try to capitalize on such a sensationalized status. This is the age of the tell-all and the tabloid.
Even the frequent visions work to remind us of what is (supposedly) going on in Michael’s head. There’s even a nod to some of the latter sequels when Laurie shows signs of “psychically linking” with her murderous brother. In fact, Halloween II shares a lot with the other great controversial title in the franchise - Part 3: Season of the Witch. If one remembers correctly, Carpenter never really expected the Shape to be the focus of each film. Instead, he hoped other filmmakers would take the name and the ideas forwarded in the films to invent their own take on the material. Seems like Zombie is doing just that - whether the vocal majority like it or not.
In the end, it all comes down to a sense of adventure. If you honestly went in to Halloween II with an open mind, uncluttered from the always fervent online arguments and self-aggrandized suppositions, free of the feelings you had from the first film and Zombie as a creative force in general, and still came out a miffed, at least your conclusion is sincere. It’s not based on the current zeitgeist or formed out of a desire to dump of your favorite dread dork whipping boy. But if Halloween II merely confirmed you already lagging impressions of this exceedingly unique filmmaker, if it offered up the same sense of dissatisfaction and disgust for what he previously did to Carpenter’s classic, you’re not alone. But that doesn’t make you right, either.
With the Weinsteins just announcing that the next Halloween would be in 3D and not feature a certain heavy metal musician in the director’s chair, the creepshow cosmic chaos can finally fall back in alignment. Whatever comes next, it won’t have his Something Weird Video sense of spectacle behind it. Rob Zombie is almost a genius. He’s also a bit of a joke. And in the current state of safe, sanitized shivers, such confusing complexity is more than welcome. One thing’s for certain - while perhaps not appreciated, his Halloween II will be remembered.




Comments
Interesting take on it. I abosolutely LOVED this movie and think it will get the props it deserves in time. Indeed, Zombie has melded “the arthouse and the grindhouse” in a truly impressive and absorbing way. It’s not often that truly brutal and disturbing horror films are so aesthetically beautiful - and often outright witty.
Comment by Benjamin — August 31, 2009 @ 8:54 am
My daughter and I are horror junkies and we LOVED both movies. Yes the original is a classic but Michael Myers is just the boogeyman. Rob Zombie makes him real flesh and blood and mindless brutality. Refreshing change from the sanitized PG-13 horror we have been subjected too these days
Comment by Sharon from Virginia — August 31, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I went in with an open mind, but I just didn’t like it. It just wasn’t scary or surprising.
Comment by Bob — August 31, 2009 @ 10:41 am
Haven’t seen the movie, but hated his remake of the first one. That being said, I do appreciate him for his vision (and I thought Devil’s Rejects was pretty damn good).
Comment by Christopher Eggertsen from Los Angeles — August 31, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
My biggest problem with the movie was the hyperactive editing. Rob managed to compose some genuinely arresting and haunting images (he’s been rewatching some Mario Bava flicks lately I see), only to leave them up there for 3 of 4 seconds and then we’re back to the quick cutting hand held stuff. I really wanted to like the movie. It was a suprisingly ambitious movie that had some real ideas (even if they were borrowed from better movies). But it was ruined in the cutting room.
I’d recommend it to horror buffs, who will find it a grown up movie made by someone who really cares about the genre. But until Rob starts paying more attention to basic film grammar, he’s not going to become the director he could. Guy’s got talent, but he needs to back off the flash. A lot of grainy hand held camerawork and quick cutting is annoying. Its also a cliche. When Matt Damon is in movies that look like that, it isn’t cool anymore.
Of course, poor pacing and inappropriate editing have marred most of his films. House of 1000 corpses (which I kinda like) is basically a long music video. He gets better at this stuff every time, but he ain’t there yet.
Watching “Inglorious Basterds” this weekend provided a useful comparison. Where Rob is unimaginative and cliche, QT knows exactly what every shot is for, and he’s not afraid to take his time. I know these two films use very different styles, but still. It’s hard to imagine QT releasing a sequence as muddled and impatient as Halloween II. A little bit of this stuff is scary and exciting. Two hours is it is exhausting.
I’m not giving up on Rob yet. He’s got a great eye (there were some beautiful shots in Halloween II, even if he didn’t hold them long enough to let them make an impact) and he’s got his heart in the right place. He just needs to learn some patience.
Comment by Jamie — August 31, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Wow, Bill, you’ve actually made me curious to see this one, and I wasn’t particularly a fan of Zombie’s first attempt—I thought that the “humanizing” of Michael Myers sort of missed the point. Zombie’s a good director, but he’s not particularly subtle.
I might check this one out, though, to see if I’m wrong.
Comment by Josh Ellis from Las Vegas, NV, USA — August 31, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
My Mother and I loved both movies.
Allot of people that don’t like them didn’t grow up in the era we did when Basil Gogo’s artwork graced the covers of Famous Monsters of Filmland, those German die cut Halloween decorations where in every window, and Ed “Big Daddy” Roth had monsters driving hot rods and inspired Weird Wheels trading cards. They weren’t influenced or inspired by that artwork like you me and Rob were so they weren’t into the visuals. Or they’re so into body count movies that they can’t handle any extra story telling.
Comment by Steve Mezo from Keansburg N.J. — September 4, 2009 @ 9:55 pm