When Rob Zombie's 2007 vision of 'Halloween' ended, I really had no second thoughts that he would make a sequel. Instead, I imagined the studio finding a similar gritty film maker to pick up the mantle and begin a new cycle of Michael Myers madness. That's truly the thought that went through my mind. Then I saw interviews with him where he commented that he'd said all he needed to say and was stepping away in favor of other projects. Little did I know, that he did have more to say. Now, there's some debate as to whether the motive was creative or cash driven, but regardless of what your stance is on the whole topic.... Rob made a slasher film that was different from the original and very different from a lot of the sequels we've ever seen or even any other horror films we've ever seen. This time around, he wasn't going to follow the template that was laid out in the subsequent follow ups to Carpenter's first film. Rob Zombie was out to make a Michael Myers film that was truly all his own. Love it or hate it, this film exists now and you can't deny that it didn't leave a hell of a mark.
This film takes place, literally minutes after the first films ending. Just before that, we get a brief glimpse and a little foreshadowing of events to come, as a young Michael (not played by Daeg, as adolescence had made it impossible) hearing about the white horse. Cut to Laurie wondering down the empty streets, bloodied, bruised, broken and barely breathing. Sheriff Brackett finds her and rushes her off to the hospital, where you truly see the kind of havoc that was caused to her body by the night of terror she had just endured. Right off the bat, you know this is going to be something different. Meanwhile, the 'meat wagon' shows up to get Michael's body and transport him to the morgue. Along the way, the two paramedics (one played by the later cast as Doom Head, Richard Brake) share a little gallows humor before hitting a cow head on and crashing the truck. We quickly find out that Michael isn't dead and he's about to pick up right where he left off. We also see the vision of his mother and the aforementioned large, white horse. This is something that has divided fans across the board and was one reason so many of them felt like this film was not the follow up they were hoping for. It creates a backdrop for what's actually going on inside the mind of a killer. It's a bit of high art that isn't typically seen in your run of the mill cut em' up and for that, I give Rob credit. He took a big risk and for me, it proved to be something that makes this film stand apart. We then see Laurie in the hospital, recovering from the massive trauma she's just sustained, but her respite is short lived as soon Michael shows up and starts murdering everyone in his path back to Laurie. She makes it out of the hospital (note to the reader: the theatrical and unrated version differ pretty largely during this sequence) and to a guard outside. He attempts to calm her down and get her back to her hospital room. What happens next is one of my favorite visual scenes in the film, which is Michael in the rain. He kills, Buddy the guard, and then proceeds to kill Ms. Strode.... or does he?
She wakes up screaming and we come to find out that this was all a nightmare or at least parts of it. It's never clearly defined what actually happened, other than Michael showing up to dispatch her. Now, this is where the film really starts to shine. One of the two main reasons I will defend this film and consider it to be a worthy successor to his first outing is the portrayal of Sheriff Brackett, by Brad Douriff and with the way that we see the true repercussions of a killer on a rampage. We rarely see the collateral damage or what happens to the victim, post attack. About 95% of the time, the 'final girl' becomes a raging bad ass who will take on the killer, head on, in an act of vengeance and anger. While I can certainly appreciate and enjoy the empowerment of women in these scenarios, the reality would truly be something entirely different. Instead, we see a young woman who is fragile and traumatized by the events that transpired. She's not out to take on all the evil of the world, she's just trying to get her life back together. Just that alone deserves some credit. Instead, most of the viewers seemed to see this film as a confusing piece of cinema that didn't ring true for them. Why do we always have to follow the same formula? Horror doesn't have to be a cut and paste mad lib that just adds slightly different elements to create the same final product. If you do this too often, you become stagnant and the genre turns into something that people don't take seriously. Along her journey, we see Laurie in counseling and struggling with PTSD. We see her having difficulty having normal human interactions and trying to move past something that her small town society won't let her do. This is the reality that isn't normally shown. Again, for that, I give Rob all the credit. It's not pretty or what's expected, but it's more of what might be true to life in this horrific situation. Another point of deviation from the original is how Dr. Loomis goes from a loving and caring professional to a straight up media whore. As I said in my previous piece, he, in his own way, becomes a monster. Casing in on the tragedy of those around him for the sake of the almighty dollar. While I know that the initial take on the character from the original films was more of counterpoint to Michaels' mayhem, I like Malcolm McDowell's spin on him and his character arc.
During a scene where Mr. Myers is still roaming the countryside on his way to Haddonfield, we get the sense that perhaps he and Laurie are more than just linked by blood. When he decides to eat a dog that was caged with the three owners of the land he was trespassing on that he dispatches rather abruptly. As he's eating, so is Laurie. It's established that she's a vegetarian and while she's having her meat free pizza, she becomes violently ill, as if what Michael is eating is effecting her. It's never explicitly said, but rather implied throughout the film. After all of this, Michael sets up shop at the Rabbit In red, where his mom used to dance. Brutally slaying the owner, bouncer and dancer in one of the most vicious killings in both films. The murders in and of themselves aren't as gory, but the methods are just insane. I think because in a lot of ways, Michael is taking it out even harder on them because it's personal. They're not just random people. The next morning, Dr. Loomis releases his latest book that reveals that Laurie is in fact, Michael's little sister. This spins her out and while trying to drink away her problems, she spends the evening at a Halloween party with her two best friends. Once again, Michael picks them off one by one, until he ends up at the Brackett's, where he finally finishes what he started with Annie. Once again, there is an implication of more violent acts than what we're shown. It's one big point of contention I do have with this film. If what Rob is implying is what actually happened, it was unnecessary and completely out of character for Michael. I'll leave that up to your own interpretation. Things at this point go into overdrive as all of the world's come crashing together at a small shed where Michael has taken Laurie to be a family again. The standoff comes to an end with Sheriff Brackett, Dr. Loomis and an large fleet of police officers are looking for a chance to take him out. While it's interesting to watch, it doesn't end up holding the same weight as the end of the first installment. That brings us to the last shot of the film and the way the Rob ends it with almost no way for Michael to continue on and with Laurie set to take up the mantle. It's a bold choice and one that doesn't totally feel out of character, based on the events that led up to it's conclusion. In my personal opinion, it bookends nicely with the original film and always leaves me feeling like it was a complete story. With all the other original films, I always felt like there was one more movie yet to come and with the newest chapter being released this year with 'Halloween' (2018), I was right.
Love them or hate them, Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' films are two stand alone pieces in an alternate reality to the one we grew up with. I found them to be gritty masterpieces of modern horror. Telling an entire lifetime of story in a mere (roughly) four hour window of time. There is a beginning, middle and ending that tie up any lose ends and leave me feeling satisfied. His choice of music, set design, actors, costuming, color pallet, right down to the best version of the mask we've seen since the original.... he puts his passion on a plate. I know that I'm in the minority with my feelings on these films and I'm okay with that. As I said at the beginning of my two part retrospective, I'm a Rob Zombie fan, no two ways about it. However, that's not the only reason that I love these films. I love them for what they are. The original films were a tale of a modern day boogeyman that started out with a two part bang, but quickly faded into a rather wimpy shadow of what he once was. These films brought him back to life for a new generation and made him terrifying again. I think we can all agree that John Carpenter's original 1978 film is a masterpiece of horror that did something that was new and unique. I feel that these were a love letter to those first few films, but bravely paved a new path to set itself apart of it's predecessors. That's the legacy that these film will leave behind..... or maybe it's just me?
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