This film and it's sequel, have created some of the most bombastic arguments I've ever seen. You'd think that someone had taken religion and politics, threw them in a blender, and then made each person drink their worst nightmare. You've got the lovers and the haters and not much in between. When Jeff approached us with the idea of taking two of the 'Halloween' franchise films and writing a retrospective type piece on them, it was a no brainer as to which two I would choose. Kind of like there's no secret that I love Rob Zombie and his body of work. When remakes began to become a buzz word in the Hollywood lexicon, I was not on board with the idea. However, this was not a new thing. Hollywood and every other creative format, had been using some form of remake or reboot or whatever you choose to call it, for decades. For some reason though, this time it felt different and everyone kind of lost their collective minds. Over the years I've come to change my thoughts on the subject. While I still feel that shot for shot remakes don't really offer much to the movie going public, the ones that do something a little different or make it their own, I've come to enjoy. So by the time I heard that Rob Zombie was taking on the original John Carpenter classic, 'Halloween', I was on board. I was very curious to see what he would bring to the table and how he would twist this tale into his own terrifying take. What that all boils down to is that I was there, in the theater, to see this one unfold on the big screen as soon as it came out. It made the character scary again. It also made me feel pretty dirty to watch, as this was not the clean cut, no blood story that we originally got. This was a no holds barred cage match to the death and when I left, I was exhausted.
Now, let's back things up a bit, to a time where Mr. Zombie was on the same page as me. He spoke out very loudly about how remakes were terrible and he would never do one. Over time, he softened on the topic. He and I began to line up in our ways of looking at them. Kind of like a popular song that gets remade over and over, there's no reason that you can't apply that same approach to film making, right? Not too mention, I can only imagine that when he got the offer to take this one on, he couldn't pass up the chance. I mean, he even went so far as to get John Carpenter's blessing first. If that doesn't make you feel like you're safe to rewrite history, I don't know what would? Besides, Rob wanted to turn this into a version that only he could create. He also wanted to 'fix' some things about the original that always had plagued him as a youth. Not saying that he didn't love 'Halloween', just that it wouldn't be the same as the one we grew up with. That brings us to the film itself. A nearly two hour symphony in two acts. The first, telling us about a young Michael and his journey into madness and the second, showing us where his madness would end up. It put a face inside the mask, but didn't make the character of Michael Myers any less terrifying in my opinion, despite what many people have gone on to say. While he may not be 'The Shape' anymore, he's still a boogeyman for the modern day. In fact, no matter how much story was divulged in the beginning, it didn't really elude to a true motive. It seemed as though he was damaged from day one. It's just that he was waiting for the right moment to snap. He had a rather heartless father figure, a broken mother who loved him, a big sister who couldn't care less and a baby sister he adored. While he lived in a lower class environment, it wasn't like he was surrounded by violent role models or actions. He came to those conclusions on his own. One of my favorite scenes before he starts his killing spree, is where he's standing by the window in his Halloween costume and watching the kids outside Trick or Treating. It's like he's either disconnected from the joy they're experiencing or that he's kind of witnessing the end of his youth. Aside from that moment, there's never really a section you can pinpoint that shows where he snaps, only that he just makes a decision that it's time to begin. End of story.... or the beginning.
Once he's completed his night's work, we begin his treatment at the hands of Dr. Samuel Loomis (played by the iconic Malcolm McDowell). The audience is still shown that Micheal is a child that may not fully understand what's he's doing and goes so far as to point out that he has no memory of it. Almost as though he's possessed or taken over by the evil inside him. I don't think that was Rob's intention, but none the less, it almost plays out that way. Now Dr. Loomis is another point of contention for people. He has a rather sharp character arc, unlike Donald Pleasance's take on the role. He goes from loving caretaker and almost guardian, to becoming a hardened man to all he's seen. Deciding to cash in on his life's work and thus eventually turning him into a different kind of monster. He eventually realizes that Michael can't be helped and decides to move on with his life. This seems to almost be a motivation for Michael to want to break out and begin again. Once out of the sanitarium, he goes back to Haddonfield and begins a killing spree. While it's never explained why he singles out Laurie, all of his victims center around her and her family. Rob still uses the angle that they're related, but since Michael was locked up this entire time, he had no way of knowing who or where she was. It's never really explained, but we'll chalk that one up to movie logic. Before long, he's killed everyone in her immediate radius and then comes after her. It's a showdown until one of them finally brings an end to his reign of terror.
I somehow got off on a bit of a tangent there about retelling the plot. Of all of Rob Zombie's films, this is actually one of my favorites. I've seen it so many times, that I can quote it as I watch. Actually, on Halloween night, I always watch this and its sequel as a double billing. This may make some of you think I'm crazy, but there's just something about these versions of the film that hit all my high points. So much so, that I own multiple versions/copies. For the first film, I own seven copies and for the second, I own 5 copies. These include DVD, Blu-ray, theatrical, unrated, multi disc special editions and even a work print copy. Why so many? Well, each version of the film is just a little different or has different things attached to it. For example, the theatrical and unrated versions of the film, while very little is changed, are drastically different. The same with the work print version. I much prefer the theatrical ones, as we don't hear Michael speak ever and there's the deletion of the scene with Lew Temple getting a bit too handsy with one of the inmates at Smiths Grove. Along with the copies of the film, I had a plush Michael Myers from part 2 and I have an action figure from the original film. It's just a piece of horror cinema that fascinates me. Some of the things that were drastically changed for this take on the tale were the incredible increase in the amount of blood. In the original film (but not its sequels) there is basically no blood at all. This is what I was referring to earlier, when I called the movie 'clean cut'. Rob also makes excellent use of the shaky cam technique of cinematography. It's used as a way to indicate the fear, uneasiness, power and just plain chaos that takes place in some of the more intense sequences. While this particular technique seems to almost be overused these days, in this world it makes sense. It was also nice to see some of the familiar faces of Mr. Zombie's cavalcade of stars. At some points in the film, he pays homage to the original, as well as some other classics of the genre. Such as when Michael grabs Annie and drags her into the house and slams the door. It feels very similar to the scene in the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Finally, the ending. I cannot say enough good things about how he wrapped up the first film. It's become one of, if not, my favorite ending in a horror film of all time. There's just something about when Laurie is on top of Michael trying desperately to shoot him, but there seem to be no bullets left. He finally grabs her arm and she pulls the trigger one final time, thus shooting him in the face with the last remaining bullet. As she's covered in blood, she screams a blood curdling scream that gives me chills. Every. Single. Time. I. See. It.
Final thoughts, I think this film gets a bad rap. I fully understand that not everyone likes remakes or thinks that they're valid forms of film making. I also get those who completely love the original and feel that this is some kind of sacrilege. You are welcome to your opinions. However, just looking at this from a film making standpoint and as a stand alone horror film, it's above average. We live in a world of a lot of carbon copy, cookie cutter movies that are being put out. This felt like something different, as all of his films do. They exist in a world he created and I like that world. I also felt that his decision to cast Tyler Mane as Michael was inspired. It actually put fear back into me, with the character. He's so incredibly large and menacing, that you can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed. Just think about it from Laurie's perspective. You essentially have a giant shark coming after you, with one goal in mind. He's stronger than you are. He's got no morals or boundaries. Not too mention that he won't stop until he gets you. It's a horrifying thought. Just my two cents and at the end of the day, horror is subjective. We're not all going to love the same things and that's the beauty of our genre. There is always going to be something for everyone. Just please try and be kind and respectful of the things you dislike. We're already in a minority, as horror fans, we need to stick together. Blood is thicker than water, kids.
We continue to look back in retrospect at the Halloween franchise films that we have loved, or at least found entertaining, before they cease to exist with the release of the new Halloween II on October 19th.
No comments:
Post a Comment