(dir. Rob Zombie)
Halloween II has the distinction of being one of the only genre sequels I know of that actually treats its characters with respect and realism. Generally, horror sequels are simply an exercise in gore/technique with a new cast, aiming to bring in the original audience and hopefully a few more. This film turns that cliche on its head: some really disturbing and disgusting things happened in the first film, and rather than repeat it all over again with some fresh faces, Zombie instead probes the much more interesting question of, "What actually happens to someone who's been through something like this?" As such, the cast is mostly the same (the boy who played Michael in the first film was replaced - apparently he matured a lot in two years), but they've all gone to much different places.
Take Laurie. In the first film, her parents were killed, most of her friends were killed or left for dead, and she shot someone in the face. The second film starts mere minutes after with her wandering the streets, covered in blood, an expression of sheer confusion and disbelief on her face. She's seen and experienced things no one should ever have to go through, and now she's left to deal with the consequences. The film is mostly about her transformation.
Also returning from the first film is Sheriff Brackett, who's basically adopted Laurie. His daughter, Annie, was on the brink of death at the end of Halloween, and naturally this film finds him much more cautious and protective of the two of them. He will even post a detail outside his house if he feels uncomfortable. His character is perhaps the most tragic. Annie, on the other hand, has all but withdrawn from society. In the first film she was popular, social, upbeat; this time around she stays home all the time, speaking only to her family. Emotionally she seems stable, but her scars are an obvious reminder of what has happened, and thus she prefers to stay safely confined in her house.
And then there's Michael himself... what a paradox. Without the Michael Myers character or presence, Halloween would not exist in the first place, and yet he is perhaps the least interesting of all the characters. In the first film, Rob Zombie tried (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to explain what events caused him to become the stalking killer everyone knows. This time around, Myers is truly a minor character, showing up periodically to kill and remind the audience that he is, indeed, coming for Laurie, but that's about it. Zombie even tries to occasionally show the world from Michael's perspective, but aside from providing a surreal respite from the slash and gloom, these scenes are mostly ineffective.
The most intriguing aspect of the film by far is the transformation of the Laurie Strode character. She was so naive, innocent, sweet; a stark contrast to the troubled, pill-popping teen of this film. She continually has nightmares about what happened in the past, even nightmarish visions of Michael's rampage and (perhaps?) future events in waking thoughts. The violence has consumed her, changed her; she cannot escape it. The film suggests that she (and by extension we in the audience) may be just as capable of such violence - it's simply a matter of whether she (we) reaches the tipping point.
Despite some very strong scenes, the plotline remains troublesome, and the film ultimately left me wanting more. Too often the violence just felt like it was on auto-pilot, and too many scenes (especially early in the film) go from violent to gory to flat-out gratuitous. This is less of a problem toward the end, thankfully (indeed, the most effective murder of the film is left off-screen entirely, revealed only in bursts), but is off-putting nonetheless. I wish the film focused more on Laurie and her character's change than Michael's rampage through every locale even tangentially related to the Myers family or Laurie specifically; she is the linchpin of the story and too often is placed in the background of what is happening.
I had a tough time coming up for a rating for this film, which is why the delay between posts has been so long, even though this review has been finished for a few days now. My initial thought after the film finished was "Good, not great"; then I started thinking about the elements that didn't work (I hate the strip club murder scene, as well as the gratuitous gore of the opening sequence, and [like the first film] I wanted to press the "Mute" button when Laurie was hanging out with her friends, though I love the scenes with her and Annie)... and then I started thinking of all the elements that did work. The music, the cinematography, the acting (every major and supporting actor did a great job, especially Brad Dourif and Scout Taylor-Compton), the editing, so many brave directorial choices - the film stays with you, there's simply no denying it. So I went with 3.5/5, which to me is the "really good, but somewhat problematic" rating.
In the end, I admire and respect the film more than I like it. I like what Rob Zombie tried to do, especially with the Laurie character, I love the decision to use 16mm (gives the film a much grittier look), and he achieves genuine greatness with some sequences; and I love the challenge he put to the audience by making a thoughtful film about violence and its effects rather than a bloodier retread... but... basically I wish we didn't have to cut away to Michael's latest grisly killing every few scenes. My favorite scenes with Michael don't even involve violence: (1) There's a shot of him sitting in the wilderness, looking up at the moon. I love that shot. It's so simple, and so enigmatic; I just kept wondering what was going through his mind. To me that was far more effective than the hyperstylized surreality of his mother. (2) There's a brief scene with him and a young trick-or-treater (an obvious throwback to Frankenstein) that works really well. The boy just has such sweetness, such innocence - I love the contrast of characters, as well as the mental comparison despite Michael being so different physically. Other than that, I feel he should have been even more of a background presence. The more peripheral, violent scenes would have been time better spent observing and understanding what Laurie is going through. Listening to the commentary track, it seems Zombie himself mentally disregards the killing scenes, focusing instead on what his characters are going through. The ambition for greatness is there, it's just covered in too much fake blood.
WELL... let's see here. Spoilers contained within.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assessment of Laurie's arc. What's sad is that we are in the minority. Most reviews screamed about her "crippling" lack of likability. Apparently, being the victim of a hideous trauma and being portrayed realistically isn't good enough. This is where it irks me when people review a film with a genre expectations checklist. This ISN'T a traditional slasher film, and cannot be critiqued like one. The one point of contention I have is with your assesment of Laurie's friends. I thought they were good friends, especially Mya.
The key scene in Laurie's plot is right away when she is brought to the hospital. Where most horror films would gloss this over, here you get realist footage of her getting her brutal injuries treated. That flat out tells you this will be a warts and all story of what happens really happens tho "survivors" of a slasher film.
Annie and Mr. Brackett are also very well done. Annie has become the mother of the house, while the Sheriff seems to be unraveling trying to keep his two girls safe (Boy do I feel sorry for him).
The most important scene as far as these characters are concerned is Annie's death. When Laurie finds her, how does she react? In a manner almost unheard of in slasher films: realistically. Think of how many times in a horror film you see someone show real grief at the loss of a loved one. And when Mr. Brackett gets home and finds his daughter's dead body, it occurred to me why this film was getting panned. People came expecting another Halloween film, and here people are painfully showing their grief over the murder of a loved one. This is DEPRESSING! I hate it!
You didn't mention Loomis at all. I thought his plot was inspired. I loved the scene towards the end when he watches himself on TV and realizes what an asshole he is.
I agree with you about Michael's visions. I think it was an ambitious choice to try and actually portrait how Michael sees the world, but the surreal visions just don't work completely.
I actually disagree with you about the violence though. I thought the rage with which the violence was committed actually made it effective. I appreciate that horrible violence was being shown as just that. Unlike most slashers, you aren't being told to laugh at the violence or find it cool. I thought the way he killed actually told us quite a bit about him.
I also have to admit my bias towards films that apply ambitious goals to genre films. Even if they don't quite reach their goals, I almost treat them as if they do. The fact of the matter is there are scenes of rage, grief and loss in this film that have stuck with me on a level much deeper then I expected from a film called Halloween 2. For that, I actually gave it a 4.5/5
There's definitely a disconnect between the expectation and the delivery. Whatever criticism may exist about Rob Zombie, you certainly have to admit that he is thoughtful and makes character-driven horror films. Now, someone people don't LIKE what he's thinking about or just plain don't LIKE his characters, but the effort is there, and that's why I respect him so much.
ReplyDeleteI loved Brad Dourif's work in this movie. And it's funny - I actually had a couple graphs on Malcolm McDowell, but I took them out because the review as a whole just flowed better. I unintentionally ignored him. He did great work, and I thought his character had very nice, believable development - some great bits of wicked humor but also real pathos. This is why I love comments - we get to touch on all aspects of the film, and even stupid decisions I made trying to talk about it.
Some of the "Michael cam" stuff looked really cool, so it was interesting in that regard, I just think this little series works better (at least in my mind) when thinking of the first film as Michael's story and the second film as Laurie's... as such, I would have loved more of Laurie and less of Michael.
As for the violence... some scenes just really turned me off. It was realistic, certainly, but I think there's a way to be realistic and brutal while still showing some sign of restraint. Basically the two scenes that didn't work for me at all were the car crash/beheading and the murder of the strip club owner. The other scenes worked fine for the most part, though a few blended together and just became monotonous (I'm thinking of the two at the party and the rednecks in the field mostly); I still hold that the best use of violence was Annie's murder. It adds so much to the impact that it's so understated, choosing instead to juxtapose the quietness of the house and the girls looking around with the noise and carnage of those beats where Michael tears through after her.
It's a really good movie. And honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like it, so who knows? Maybe this time next year, the rating will be even better. Thanks for the recommendation.
Still working on getting around to The Vanishing.
My least favorite scene is the whole part with the drivers of the coroner's van in the beginning. The dialogue about fucking corpses I was rather put off by, as well the beheading. I think since that scene happened so early in the movie, and it got much better right away, it is easy for me to forget.
ReplyDeleteI can completely understand someone not liking this film, even without the violence, it is very unpleasant. They still have to dislike the film for what it is. To hate it because it isn't scary like the original Halloween is to completely miss the point of the film.
3.5/5 is probably what I would have given the theatrical cut, which came off more as ambitious failure to me. The big differences are: Laurie spends less time with her therapist, ALL of the fight scenes between Laurie and Annie are gone and the ending is completely different (Laurie stabs Michael to dead and ends up in an asylum). The footage at the very end is the same, with her in that surreal looking asylum, except it is to be interpreted literally as opposed to a last vision before dying.
Both endings work, and the theatrical ending uses Laurie's theme from the original Halloween to great effect, but I think the directors cut ending is more in tone with the film's air of tragedy.
I agree this film would have been better if they cut back on Michael a bit. The comment I made on your review of Halloween about making it three films instead of two fits here. Make a prequel dealing with how Michael came to snap and kill his family in its first half, and have the second half focus on his mother trying to hold onto him. The film would end with her suicide. Have the middle film be a remake, but take the visions and Michael POV from Halloween 2 and use it here. The third on would be what the second one is right now, but with more on Laurie and less Michael until the end.