Review by Daniel Emery Taylor
You have likely read dozens of reviews for this film before arriving at mine. You have likely read a couple of reviews on this very website. This film, by nature, is a very polarizing piece of cinema and you are likely to find very strong reviews on both sides of the aisle. Was it good? Was it bad? Well, that all depends on what you were expecting. I'll be upfront and say that, for the most part, I found it to be a highly entertaining film. I loved Rob Zombie's first "Halloween" and I am a tremendous fan of his earlier two films. I wasn't expecting a remake of John Carpenter's "Halloween II." I wasn't expecting something that followed the Carpenter mythos. This was an an entirely new creation.
You will find that I am generally a fan of judging movies based on what they were trying to accomplish. You don't tear apart the plot of "G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra" because, frankly, it's a movie about action figures. You expect stuff to blow up and crash. The verdict? Mission accomplished. You can, however, shred something like last year's "Prom Night" because it set out to thrill and scare -- and did neither. It was boring. That's a failure. Where does "Halloween II" fall?
In judging remakes you can't always hold them captive to the original source material. If you're a comic book reader you may be familar with Marvel's Ultimate Universe. It's a whole new take on familiar characters, giving them new origins, jobs, functions, and interactions that better mesh with modern society. Peter Parker's not a photographer -- he's the website designer. Decades of continuity is streamlined and compressed to make it readily accessible to a new generation of fans. It doesn't replace or usurp the original characters and storylines we all know and love. It's a different take. It's a different interpretation. It's the same way with film remakes and reboots.
Look at the most recent "Friday The 13th" film. The series had to be rebooted if it was to continue. After Jason has become undead, gone to Hell, gone to space, and fought Freddy Krueger there really wasn't much else he could do. Instead, it had to be refreshed and renewed. We know the original story: Jason's mother is the killer of the first film, Jason is wearing a sack in the second film, and he finally gets his trademark hockey mask in the third installment. What do casual movie-goers know? "Friday The 13th" is a film about a serial killer in a hockey mask. You couldn't do a film in 2009 called "Friday The 13th" without a killer Jason in a hockey mask. What was the answer? They had to streamline the origin story, squeezing the events of the classic first two into the opening moments of the remake. That got us to wear we really needed to be: Jason in a hockey mask.
That brings us to "Halloween." The original film was simple: a masked man killing teenagers for no reason in particular. We then get a backstory: he's trying to kill his sister, but we aren't sure why. By the time he's kickboxing with Busta Rhymes, we've learned that Michael Myers is likely possessed by demons and is carrying out a curse placed on the Myers family by a religious cult. What? In order for the series to survive, it had to be stripped back down to something simple. Rob Zombie gave Michael Myers a plausible backstory: he was a strange kid, likely suffering from some degree of mental illness or an emotional disorder that is made worse by his white trash family. This angered a lot of the fans of the classic series because it did not fit the original backstory. It was a different Myers, an entirely new creation. Nevertheless, it got us where we needed to be: a masked Michael Myers trying to murder his sister.
To make the "it's nothing like the original" argument is really pointless. Zombie never intended on making a shot-for-shot remake of the original film. It was a reimagining, another interpretation. Much like Marvel's Ultimate Universe, the Myers world had been simplified and compressed down to make it easily accessible to a new generation of fans. I think the effect was generally successful, even if some naysayers still object to the changes made.
We now arrive at "Halloween II." It is clearly and admittedly not at all a remake of Carpenter's "Halloween II." It's instead a direct sequel to Zombie's "Halloween." The issue is no longer "how much is it like the original?". The issue is now "how true was it to the continuity of the first film?" and "was it an effective film?". With no prior film to judge against it, it is judged solely by its own accomplishments. What was it trying to accomplish? Did it follow the spirit of the first film? Was it entertaining?
Be warned ... spoilers follow ...
There seems to be some disconnect with what Zombie was trying to accomplish. In many ways, it's the most realistic film in the "Halloween" franchise. The Shape's mask is falling apart. You can see Myers' long, crusty beard hanging out from under the mask. What? You thought Michael got a nice, clean shave each time he went into hiding? He is squatting in a farm house and eats random unclean animals for food. Laurie is a mental and emotion wreck. Her life is in shambles. I hate to watch a sequel where, a year after someone's entire family is murdered, the hero is healthy, happy and going on about his business. It's good to see characters that were deeply affected by the horrible events of the previous film. That's character development!
One issue that really riled a lot of fans is that Michael Myers doesn't wear the mask the entire duration of the film. Why would he? It's hot. He's got to breathe and eat. This, I believe, helps the character and makes him more believeable. He takes it off when he's walking around but puts it on when he's ready to kill. Anything else would be silly.
So, thus far we have about two-thirds of an awesome, gritty, realistic horror sequel. Next, we get Sheri Moon riding in on a white horse.
Okay, so I understand Michael is insane and having visions of his dead mother. I can dig that, even if it is very Jason-esque of him. The white horse is goofy, but, whatever. I can even understand him having visions of himself as a child. In his mind, the child IS him while the Shape is just something he's trapped inside. I like that. It's deep. All of this is perfectly okay within the confines of the story Zombie has written.
Where it all loses me is when Laurie and Michael are having (and interacting with) the same visions. It is implied that there is a supernatural bond between the brother and sister. They're both seeing little Michael. They're both seeing Mommy. Little Michael is holding Laurie in place. Laurie's screaming "I love you, Mommy" while Michael looks on in excitement. The entire time I'm just wondering "What is going on?" I figured they were sharing hallucinations but it didn't make sense. It's too supernatural for the gritty, ultra-realistic world Zombie had created. It just doesn't make sense. Laurie spends half of the movie having dreams about young Michael and her mother. Why? She didn't know she was a Myers. Was the mother's ghost influencing her? Was Michael telepathically sending her visions? I don't know.
Now, from an entertainment standpoint, Zombie's dream sequences were beautifully filmed and sufficiently creepy. Perhaps he would have been better suited for the "A Nightmare On Elm Street" remake. In this story it just didn't make sense.
Another sore point is the character of Samuel Loomis. Okay, so his fame as an author has turned him into a prima donna. I can understand that. He spends the majority of the film being hideously annoying. That would be fine if it was building to some great redeeming moment. It doesn't. Loomis' moment of redemption falls horrendously short. His "I'll save the day!" moment is such a failure that it does nothing to erase the last two hours of prickishness. As the mighty Loomis falls you aren't thinking "Wow, what a turnaround! He really had the heart of a hero!" You're thinking "Wow, what a douchebag. I'm glad he's dead."
I love Zombie's film style, so the direction and design of the film is something I take no issues with. The cast is entirely competent, especially Brad Dourif who was, in many ways, the star of the film. The action is good. The soundtrack is great. As I said earlier, it's about two-thirds of a great movie.
My final verdict? It really depends on your opinion of the first film, your devotion to the series as a whole, and your thoughts on Rob Zombie as a filmmaker. Me? I liked it but recognized it had some plot issues. I'm going to step out and give it a mild recommendation with the warning that a certain segment of our readers is absolutely going to hate this movie regardless.
Oh, and the ending? Meh. Now if it results in a third film about a Scout Taylor-Compton killing spree, I'm down. Perhaps we can start a tradition of "Halloween III" never having Michael Myers in it -- regardless of how many reboots the series gets.