So. The infamous Halloween III: Season of the Witch, AKA "The one without Michael Myers." Yes, I was aware of what H3 was, but I decided to watch it anyway. Over the years, I've heard a lot of things about this movie, with the most optimistic being, "It's not one of the worst movies ever made. If you know the story behind it, it won't make you all that mad." Quite the endorsement. The story behind Halloween III, just in case you were not in the know, explains why it makes the jaw-dropping-in-retrospect choice to omit the main character of the series from an entire film. I've read a few different explanations for this, but it boils down to John Carpenter and Debra Hill (co-creators of the franchise) being tired of Michael, and the idea of continuing his story felt like it would be too ridiculous to take seriously, as the future sequels would prove. But the studio wanted to make more Halloweens, so Carpenter and Hill said that they would be involved in the project, but only if Halloween was transformed into an anthology title, where every film would have a different subject. It's actually a pretty amazing idea, if they had gotten the talent to back it up. Can you imagine a successful Halloween anthology franchise, where up-and-coming horror directors could go nuts and get widespread exposure? Too bad they didn't go that route, eh?
Halloween III: Season of the Witch begins exactly as you think it would: with computerized graphics and a title screen that must have taken literally seconds to produce.
Looks like the entire budget was spent wow-ing the audience with the opening credits
Dr. Dan (Tom Atkins) goes to pick up his kids for the weekend from his nagging ex-wife, and he brought them a present: Halloween masks! Because children love being told by their parent what they're going to be for Halloween. It doesn't matter, though; mom had already gotten them the cool masks, proving once again that Dr. Dan is a terrible parent. Dr. Dan represses the instinct to punch everyone in the house and instead responds to a call from work. Apparently, Dr. Dan is the only doctor that works in his hospital, because he was brought in on a case of exhaustion. Some bum passed out while clutching a Halloween mask and muttering something about people out to get him. Shockingly, the paranoid guy was right. Somebody was after him, and once they killed him, they committed suicide.
The suicidal man, showcasing the average emotional range of these actors
How could a guy who "looks like a businessman" do such a thing? After all, people wearing suits are incapable of violence or evil. Dr. Dan decides to investigate, and sexually harasses/flirts with the assistant coroner until she will help him. What do we find out from the coroner lady? The suicidal businessman must have been pretty strong, since he tore his victim's skull apart. Meanwhile, Dr. Dan spends time drinking and watching the same Halloween commercial over and over again.
I'll be completely honest with you: that is what you take from this movie, more than anything else. I hate that song SO MUCH right now. Anyway. Luckily, Dr. Dan is saved from the torture of spending time with his awful chidren and nagging ex-wife when he runs into the murder victim's daughter, Ellie (Stacey Nelkin). She also thinks there is something strange about her father's death and is determined to get to the bottom of things. Together, they leave town and go to Ellie's dad's failing toy store. There, Ellie finds her dad's appointment book and determines that his troubles began when he went to the Silver Shamrock factory, which makes these stupid Halloween masks that all the kids are wearing. Meanwhile, Dr. Dan is acting kind of pervy and creepy toward Ellie.
"Do you think your father would mind if I took that 'Free Mustache Rides' shirt?"
When they arrive at the factory, they take advantage of a very convenient case of mistaken identity to get a tour of the factory from the owner, Mr. Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). Why would the owner of a company run a brief and detail-free tour? How can a mask company be tied into a murder plot? And how do killer robots and witchcraft come into play? And what does "Season of the Witch" refer to, anyway? Some of those questions --- but certainly not all --- will be answered (poorly) if you choose to watch Halloween III: Season of the Witch!
Still not convinced? I don't blame you
What can I say about the acting in Halloween III: Season of the Witch? Well, Dr. Dan probably says it best in the film's final scene: "STOP IT!!!"
Tom Atkins was pretty horrible in the lead role, taking a role that needed sympathy and heroism and filling it with creepiness and a complete lack of motivation. Dan O'Herlihy was a little better as the closest thing this movie has to a titular witch, but looking mediocre next to the rest of this cast is no big deal. Stacey Nelkin was also halfway decent, if you like vacant stares and 80s hair.
...and/or random lingerie appearances
Her part was pretty horribly written, but there was one scene that I just can't let go of. So, Ellie and Dr. Dan have finally succumbed to the complete lack of sexual tension between them, and had themselves some sexy time. In a post-coital embrace, Dr. Dan asks, "Wait. How old are you?" Her response is, "Relax. I'm older than I look." Just so everyone is clear, our hero had a sudden pang of conscience and worried that he had just committed statutory rape (very hero-like), and her response does absolutely nothing to clear the matter up. If Nelkin had delivered the line with an eyeroll or a rib-jab, I would have taken that to mean that she is over eighteen. Saying it in a breathy voice, however, makes her sound like a child prostitute: "As young as you want me to be." Gross.
The less said about Tommy Lee Wallace's direction and co-writing, the better. Let's just call it annoying and incompetent, and leave it at that. Well, I guess that's where we can leave the direction. The writing is pretty terrible. I'll have to come back to that.
"Ah, yes, the joy on a child's face when he sees the same damn thing over and over again..."
How gruesome can a movie about Halloween masks and seasons be? Actually, there are quite a few death scenes in Halloween III: Season of the Witch. I would argue that there are more kills in this film than in any other Halloween, if you count the killer robots as victims. Speaking of killer robots, did you know that normal humans can punch right through them? It's true. Hell, you can even decapitate them with little effort, provided the robot has the form of an elderly woman. Halloween III also has some fairly unusual deaths in it. My favorite, by far, is the laser-to-the-mouth kill. There are no lasers anywhere else in this film, but poking the wrong thing with a paperclip takes you from bored and frumpy...
Luke Skywalker has had enough of her crap
...to herpes-tacular in a matter of seconds!
Cold sores are disgusting
Halloween III is also one of the few horror movies I have seen where child murder is a large part of the story. I'm not talking about a Mystic River type of story, I'm talking about a movie where the villain's stated purpose is child murder on a large scale. What makes the child murder even more unusual is the form it takes. The masks that are so prominent in the film kill the kids. They go from having a headache...
...to spontaneously shooting out bugs and snakes out of their skull remnants.
Tommy needs a bath
On the one hand, holy crap that kid just died and his head turned into bugs and worms and shit! On the other hand, this is a movie that kills children? That's surprisingly dark, given the Silver Shamrock's 8-bit oompah soundtrack. Judge for yourself:
Oddly enough, Halloween III: Season of the Witch is not remembered for being oddly gruesome or having a darker tone than most other horror movies. It is remembered for being spectacularly bad. Why? Maybe because this horrible, wretched song is replayed at least fifteen times in the damn film. Maybe it's the lack of Michael Myers. Or possibly the shitty acting. Or maybe because the public reacted poorly to child murder.
Nah. These punks are asking for it.
I'm going to place the blame squarely on the writing. Well, the writing, and the Silver Shamrock song. How bad is the writing? The entire premise of this film is based on the idea that all children want to wear the same nasty-ass, petroleum-smelling Halloween masks. Remember that time in elementary school where you decided to dress up as exactly the same thing as your best friend? No? That's because it doesn't happen. The Jack-O-Lantern mask is the last refuge of the poor kid in class that doesn't take baths. In that video above, most of the kids aren't even dressing in costume for Halloween --- they're just wearing their masks. I love the fact that some of the pumpkin mask owners have added snazzy flair, like a witch hat or a Revolutionary War-era hat. Of course, this plot also ignores logic. I'm not going to bother dismissing the Stonehenge angle, because that was handled in such a matter of fact manner that I nearly wet myself. I'm not going to touch upon the magic phone number that a civilian can dial to get multiple TV channels to not air a specific commercial. No, I'm talking about the notion that a company that specializes in cheap seasonal masks would A) have television commercials B) have television commercials on nearly every channel C) update their commercials on a daily basis and D) hire vans with speakers to drive around neighborhoods, telling kids to go watch TV on Halloween. Any one of those ideas at the core of a horror movie would make the film laughable, but when you combine them into one movie, the stupidity reaches such giant proportions that your brain starts to shut down.
Oh, I get it. TV rots your brain.
And that's the worst thing about Halloween III: Season of the Witch. There is simply too much stupidity in this film, so your brain becomes numb in an effort to keep from oozing out of your ears. If the film was halfway competent, this would be howlingly funny, but it's just too much of a bad thing.
Oh, suck it up. YOU read the script. YOU know.
But does Halloween III: Season of the Witch truly deserve its place among the worst movies of all time? I don't think so. It's definitely bad, but there are worse movies, and there are movies in this franchise that I've hated more. I think the notoriety surrounding this film is due entirely to it being the sole Michael Myers-less entry in this franchise. If it was just called "Season of the Witch," it would be a bad movie, perhaps even a forgotten movie, but it wouldn't be notorious. There are actually some elements here that I genuinely like. I really liked the villain's motive, and I liked that he scoffed at needing a reason to do terrible things. I liked that this movie took on the (fairly) taboo task of killing children in the story, and I was impressed with the implications of the ending. Yes, it's a pretty amateurish effort and deserves to be mocked by all that see it, but there are some core elements here that could ("could" being the operative word) make for a truly frightening horror movie. As a legit film, Halloween III receives a fairly generous:
However, for the truly bold and sarcastic, Halloween III: Season of the Witch has enough pleasure and pain to make Pinhead happy. I recommend jaded friends, Rifftrax, and/or a large bottle of rum. Because scotch should be enjoyed. Lefty Gold score of...
I didn't grow up a Michael Myers fan. I'm more of a Jason guy, because I like my slasher films ridiculously stupid. I have always liked the original Halloween (1978), though. I've been slowly getting around to the rest of the Halloween series over the past few trick-or-treat seasons, and this year I watched Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007); it had its moments, certainly, but I thought it was an interesting failure instead of the bad-ass re-imagining that I was hoping for. I had heard that Zombie went off on his own for the sequel, though, which sounded like something that would play to his strengths more. Does it?
Halloween II (2009) picks up right where the last film left off. The police have arrived at the scene, and they are packing everybody up in ambulances. Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) is a hot mess of blood and tears, but she is alive and she has shot Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) in the goddamned face. And chest. And she's stabbed him a bunch. Laurie is sent to the hospital to recover and Michael is sent off to the morgue. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue --- the car crashes into a cow! And, as the legends foretold, yonder bovine sacrifice will once again raise up he that is eeeveeel!!! Or, in English, Michael wakes up and heads to the hospital to share a little stabby-stabby with Laurie and whoever else wants to share.
Okay, now it's your turn to stab someone. Yay, sharing!
And boy, does he share! Security guards, doctors, nurses...Michael puts on a bit of a laceration seminar for the staff and just when he's about to do the same for Laurie, she wakes up. That's right, we had ourselves an old-fashioned "it was only a dream" moment. It turns out that Laurie did, indeed survive her encounter with Michael Myers one or two years ago. Since her family was brutally murdered, she now lives with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and his daughter/her friend, Annie (Danielle Harris), who somehow survived the fact that she looked awfully dead in the last film. The trauma hasn't been easy for anyone, but Laurie is on a nightmare-a-night diet and has turned into a (justifiably) angry young woman with finger-quotes rebellious new friends.
Whoa! Those rebels got to pose for a picture with the lead singer of Soul Asylum?
While Laurie's been bitching and moaning about surviving what appears (to her) to be a motiveless crime, Michael Myers has also been recuperating. Apparently, that whole cow revival bit actually happened, too. Michael's been living in fields and in wooded areas, healing his wounds and growing a pretty enormous beard.
THIS is why homeless people are frightening
Michael has been having dreams, too, although they might just be hallucinations. He sees his late mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and his younger self (Chase Wright Vanek), often accompanied by a white horse and snow globe effects, and they tell Michael that it's time to bring Laurie home. And by "home," they of course mean...well, that's not exactly clear. "Murder," perhaps? And why is this a pressing need after all this time? Don't ask, because nobody else will. Once again, on Halloween, Michael Myers returns to Haddonfield to murder anyone he meets on his way to finding Laurie. And, once again, Laurie doesn't get why all this is happening. But she's been having these crazy visions of a lady in white, with a blonde son and a white horse...
The acting in Halloween II isn't as good as the last film. A big part of that is because Chase Wright Vanek replaced Daeg Faerch as Lil' Michael; replacing your best actor with a better-looking but less menacing one is not a winning choice. I'm sure the change was made because Faerch literally outgrew his role, but that was still disappointing. Vanek was okay, I guess, but his character's presence in this movie was waaay overplayed and nowhere near as clever as the script believed. I was impressed by the more emotive performance from Tyler Mane, though; his furious grunts definitely disturbed me. Sheri Moon Zombie was very...ethereal, I guess. Her character didn't require much acting, and she didn't throw in any extra.
Kill, darling. And shake the snow globe.
Taylor Scout-Compton had a lot juicier role in Halloween II than she had last time, and I really regret that. She wasn't bad --- she did what I imagine the script asked of her quite well --- but she was annoying as all hell and I wanted her to die. I was impressed by Danielle Harris' supporting role; Harris once again played a victim extremely well, but she also showed off some solid dramatic chops. Malcolm McDowell's character had an abrupt shift from concerned doctor to complete prick, and it wasn't much fun to watch. I liked seeing more of Brad Dourif in this film, even if he is far more capable than his role hints at. He is the closest I have seen to a normal person in a Rob Zombie movie, and that was refreshing.
Just look at that handlebar and tell me he can't handle more!
As far as newcomers to the series go, I liked Brea Grant and Angela Trimbur as Laurie's rebel friends. They were pretty easy parts to play, but they came across as young ladies who would have been fun/trouble in college. They also had a pretty sweet set of Rocky Horror Halloween costumes.
Note: it is very difficult to find this when Google Image searching "Halloween II Rocky Horror"
In case you were wondering who the moron in the wolf man costume was, it was Matt Bush taking yet another stab at becoming this generation's Seth Green, and doing a pretty decent job of it. Margot Kidder was this movie's first entry in the WTF casting Olympics, and she was fine as Laurie's therapist. Howard Hesseman played against type *eyeroll* as an aging hippie somehow trapped in a Rob Zombie movie. The other competitors were 'Weird Al' Yankovic and Chris Hardwick, who were fine on their own, but symbolic of a problem I had with the film.
"So...this is a scene from a Rob Zombie movie? Gritty!"
Rob Zombie once again wrote and directed Halloween II (2009), this time without the burden of recreating a classic. He did do a bit of an homage to Halloween II (1981), but that was limited to the dream sequence. In all fairness, it was a pretty brutal and impressive homage, even if it was cheapened by the dream. Zombie's direction is still nasty and grimy, so no real change there. He also wrote almost all of the characters as unsympathetic assholes, but his handling of Sheriff Brackett and his daughter was surprisingly good. Actually, I was impressed by some of the ideas Zombie brought up in this film. This is the first time I have seen realistic fallout from a slasher movie, whether it be physical injuries or mental scars.
This is what happens after the credits? Gross.
Here's the thing: I find the basic fallout from the last film very plausible, and that plausibility is a welcome surprise in a horror sequel. And while I like the concept of Laurie being totally screwed in the head and Michael being more expressive after his frustration in the last film, the end result is just...abrasive. And not in a shocking sense that makes you squirm uncomfortably, abrasive in that elaborately produced way, kind of like the naughty kid who shops for clothes at Hot Topic.
Anyone who spends this much time ruining their bathroom is an interior designer, not a rebel
Zombie also fails to focus in this movie. The side plot with Dr. Loomis was uninteresting and unnecessary to the main story; all it did was take the decently interesting Loomis from the last film and make him completely despicable. Also completely worthless was every single scene showing Lil' Michael and his mom. Cut that crap out and you have a movie that is at least 40% better, 30 minutes shorter, and 100% less pretentious.
The violence was plentiful in Halloween II, so I don't have any complaints about that. There isn't as much gore or uniqueness in the kills as you might expect --- aside from a head-smashing and a dog murder --- but Michael grunted and moaned while he killed in this movie, and that was unsettling. The final scene with Annie was also pretty brutal, and --- I may be mistaken on this --- I think it's implied that Michael raped her to death/after death. His weird "mommy vision" told him to "have fun" and the next time we see Annie is with her blood ALL OVER the room, and minus her panties. I don't know why that disturbs me more than the other seventeen or so murders in this film, but it does.
Where Halloween II falls off the rails is in its portrayal of Michael. It's that fundamental. The emotionless, faceless killer with unknown motivations now has emotions, a face, and explicit motivations. I'm no Halloween purist, but that's just...not Michael Myers. Even if you give Zombie the benefit of the doubt to recreate MM however he sees fit, the things we learn about Michael by seeing things through his eyes are stupid and boring. Do you like vaguely defined dream imagery?
"If I say yes, can it pop up every ten minutes for no goddamned reason?"
What if it was awkward, clumsy, and felt out of place in the movie? Then this is the movie for you, friend! Zombie wasn't far off the mark with his dream sequences, but they were a missed opportunity. Instead of some white horse bullshit, we could have had some weird, twisted Tim Burton-esque dreamscape where Michael's actions actually make sense. Knowing what Michael sees and how far beyond crazy he is would have separated this film from the other Halloweens and still might have been interesting. In the unrated director's cut, the ending was changed to actually have Michael speak. It's not as interesting as it sounds, and Michael's anger seems curiously misplaced. It was not too surprising for a mass murderer, but it was an odd climax to a movie.
There are other weaknesses in the film, too, of course. Rob Zombie's inability to make you care about anyone on the screen is a big one. He doubles down on Michael and Laurie, but the things he adds --- dreams and unexplained shared visions --- are just awful. The complete lack of suspense was another miss. Explaining that Michael is just after Laurie, and yet he makes several pit stops along the way to murder people --- that doesn't make any sense and doesn't fit the character.
Laurie doesn't even know most of the victims, so it can't be to get priceless reaction shots like this
Overall, this was just an unpleasant experience with a few moments that gave me hope that something cool would happen. The concept of emotional fallout from the first film was one highlight, and the Rocky Horror costumes were another. I'm very happy that this movie did not try to recreate Halloween II (1981), but the fact of the matter is that the scenes that pay homage to that movie are some of the most brutal and fast-paced in the film. If some of your best scenes come from a fake-out, you have a problem. There is just so much that goes wrong in Halloween II (2009). It wants to be smart, but comes off idiotic. It wants to be disturbing, but instead becomes grating. I think it is supposed to be scary, but without any suspense or characters to care about, that's a tall order. As I watched it, I felt like Halloween II (2009) was trying to punish me for wanting to learn more about Michael Myers. This is a movie that put a lot of effort in to make me hate it. If it wasn't for those few, scattered moments of potential, I would rank this as one of my most hated movies.
What better way to kick off an entire month of horror reviews than with part of a classic franchise? Well, I suppose starting at the beginning of that franchise, but I already did that. Howzabout the reboot? I've actually really wanted to see Rob Zombie's take on Halloween for a while now, but never did because...well, most reboots suck. Hard. Still, of all the horror directors of the last decade, Zombie was probably the best choice to fix Halloween as a property. Because, let's admit it, that shit got broke. Zombie had experience making movies about soulless killers, he clearly respected older horror movies, and his movies aren't torture porn. They're just...stabby. So, yeah, I was excited when I rented Halloween (2007). That excitement was tempered a bit, though, by the biggest Michael Myers fans I know, my cousins-in-laws; I remember asking them how the movie was, and I just got sighs and snorts of disgust. But really, how bad can this reboot be when you compare it to Halloween: Resurrection?
It could be adorable!
Halloween (2007) can be broken into two parts. The first part is the origin of Michael Myers, and the second part takes place about fifteen years later, and is about Laurie Strode. In part one, we meet Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch), a soft-looking chubby kid with hair down to his shoulders. Honestly, he looks like an unattractive girl.
Lil' Michael, with an even less attractive woman
Mike has a history of wearing masks when he's out of school. Not cool masks, like Corey Feldman made in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter --- we're talking little-kid-costume masks, like the ones made of cheap plastic with a rubber band around the back of your head. We get a look at his life and his tendencies; when he eventually decides to put on a mask and murder several people (including his older sister), it's not that big of a shock, because he's obviously messed up.
Rob Zombie obviously wants to remake Killer Klowns From Outer Space next
Most of the hallmarks of serial killers are present in Lil' Mike's life. He tortures and kills small animals. He gets bullied at school. He doesn't have a good family life; his older sister treats him like the plague and his mom's boyfriend is just a generally nasty sumbitch. His mother, Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie), cares about him, but is forced to be a largely absentee parent because she has to support her entire family by stripping.
It's only fair, since Rob Zombie supports Sheri Moon Zombie's acting career by casting her
When the fateful day arrives (SPOILER ALERT: it's in the title) and Michael goes on a prepubescent killing spree, he is apprehended by the police and sent to a mental institution. There, we see Michael under the care of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell); we see and hear snippets of treatment and medical opinions, as Michael spirals further and further away from being a normal child and closer to a full-time psychopath.
Who let Michael listen to Slipknot? And take steroids?
Michael eventually breaks out of the mental ward and returns to his childhood home, where he hid the mask he wore when he went on his adorable murder spree. While there, he catches a glimpse of Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) on her way to school. From that moment forward, Michael seems obsessed with Laurie and is more than willing to share his love of sharp objects with anyone who gets in his way.
Especially dainty brunettes
The acting in Halloween (2007) isn't bad, especially for a horror movie and especially for a horror remake. Daeg Faerch was shockingly good as a young Michael Myers. He looked like a wuss, but things got creepy fast whenever he showed off his "dead-eye" gaze. Sheri Moon Zombie gave her best performance to date as Michael's mother; she was good, but that is also comparing it to her annoying previous roles. I also liked Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis. He isn't as demanding and abrasive as Donald Pleasence was in the original Halloween (1978). Instead, he showed a lot of compassion and emotional investment in Michael's progression, which actually made him feel like a credible doctor. I also liked the raw physicality of Tyler Mane as the adult Michael. The character would have been effective if played by a normal-sized man, but Mane's huge build and body language made the mere sight of him frightening.
Which one would you be scared of?
Scout Taylor-Compton was decent as Laurie, but playing the Girl Who Lived is rarely a role that makes an actor look good. Her friends, played by Danielle Harris and Kristina Klebe, were fairly inoffensive; Harris did a good job being a victim and Klebe balanced an obnoxious character with full-frontal nudity. The rest of the cast is (not surprisingly, given the popularity of the original film) jam-packed with recognizable actors. William Forsythe was good as a complete bastard of a father figure, Lew Temple was repulsive as a rapist security guard, and there was a small bit of the ol' Sid Haig-special (which is just another way of saying Haig is always gross). As for actors that were not in The Devil's Rejects, Clint Howard and Mickey Dolenz had to be the most bewildering casting choices in the movie. Udo Kier also has a cameo, but at least he seemed a little creepy. Rounding out the cast, Danny Trejo was a kindly guard who may have given Michael the wrong advice, former Spy KidDaryl Sabara was solid as a jerk bully, and Brad Dourif was adequate as the town sheriff. When the film was finished, I was surprised at how competent the acting was. I wasn't impressed by anyone but Daeg Faerch, but I didn't laugh at or hate any of the actors for their work, which is quite a feat in a slasher pic.
Rob Zombie wrote the screenplay for this Halloween remake and directed it. As far as direction goes, I thought Zombie played it pretty safe with his style. If you don't like a grainy look to your slasher movie, then you would have been irritated by the less-than-gorgeous shots and occasionally too-dark-to-see sequences. I didn't really mind, but I know that bothers some folks. Zombie worked well with his cast, getting performances that matched their characters surprisingly well. I genuinely dislike his use of slow-motion and freeze frames, but they were used sparingly here. As far as the script goes, I thought Zombie did a great job turning this movie into something different than just a remake. The focus on Michael's childhood was definitely the most unique and interesting thing this movie had to offer. I liked some of the smaller nods to the original movie (like the thick-rimmed glasses on a boyfriend) and I loved the added value the story gave to Myers' iconic mask.
Yeah, that's the one
The violence in this remake was definitely grislier than in the original Halloween. Part of that has to do with the fact that five people were murdered by a child, sure, but this was not a film that flinched from violence. This isn't a splatter-gore movie, though. It's just intense. The scene with Danielle Harris laying at the bottom of the stairs was particularly gruesome, and her character actually lives! The kills were not particularly creative (this franchise has never made that a priority), but Tyler Mane's strength made the violence seem much more realistic; his portrayal made this the most intimidating Michael Myers since the original film. There were also a lot of dead bodies in this film; I counted nineteen on-screen deaths, with several more implied off-screen. When you crunch the numbers, Halloween (2007) seems like it should be a winner. It has full-frontal nudity, a lot of kills, and solid violence.
This one didn't even happen on-camera, and it still looks good!
And yet, Halloween (2007) isn't a very satisfying movie. Franchise purists probably point to the extensive origin sequence as the biggest flaw, since that is the primary story difference between this and the original. That's not the problem, though. Others may point to how closely the rest of the plot followed that of the original movie, which stripped the film of any suspense. That's not it , either. The rest might complain about the shallow pop psychology stereotypes present in the script, but that's still just a minor issue. There are two problems that handicap this technically impressive effort: 1) awful characters and 2) focus.
Rob Zombie, as a writer, has never written a likable character for the audience to identify with. As a horror fan, I imagine that he (like so many of us) prefers the monster over the victims. The problem with identifying with the killer, though, is that you rarely make frightening movies when you understand and care about the villain; you might be able to make a disturbing film, but that familiarity makes suspense and genuine scares nearly impossible. With Halloween (2007), we meet a wide array of characters and at least a quarter of the dialogue comes from awful, repulsive characters (and keep in mind that adult Michael doesn't speak). Are we supposed to be horrified by the deaths of these terrible people? In several cases, their deaths are at least understandable (William Forsythe, for example) and perhaps even justifiable (Lew Temple's idiot rapist). Granted, the scale of Michael's violence prevents (most of) the audience from truly identifying with him, but the added insights into his childhood makes it clear that he is the most sympathetic character in the story. And that's a problem.
Who am I supposed to be rooting for, again? The quiet one, or the whiny one?
The other problem with Halloween (2007) is the story's focus. It's not enough that the supposedly normal characters are abrasive and cruel ---the origin story makes Michael's evolution almost tragic. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing; the greatest villains are the ones who have understandable motives. That origin story shifts the focus of the movie, though. As I noted in my plot summary, the origin of Michael Myers focuses on young Michael. For the rest of the film, the story is ostensibly about Laurie Strode; we follow her life and see how Michael hunts her down, as well as seemingly anyone she knows. However, the film is still following Michael at this point; we are trying to figure out why it was so important for him to leave the mental home and come back to scenic Haddonfield, Illinois. This shift in focus is the main difference between Halloween (2007) and Halloween (1978). In the original, there is little attention paid to how Michael spends his time and absolutely no explanation for Michael's actions; Laurie doesn't know why she is being hunted, and neither does the audience, which is why it is so scary. In this remake, we have an incomplete understanding of Michael's motives, and that means that we are following him a lot more often and have some clues as to why he is doing what he is doing. Remember the suspense and terror from the original movie? That's been replaced by grim fascination in the remake.
Although this picture is, admittedly, pretty fascinating
Individually, the shift in focus and the unsympathetic characters would not sink a slasher movie. When you combine the two, though, they create a vortex of audience indifference and boredom, and that makes for a sucky experience. It's too bad, really. There are some great moments in this movie, but the tone was all wrong for the story being told. When Rob Zombie was focusing on the new elements that he created, the movie had promise, but when he conformed to the plot of the original film, this remake became almost a grind to get through. Would it have been better for Zombie to depart from the original even further than he had? Probably, although the story is what makes the original such a classic. Zombie should have just scrapped the whole "reboot" idea and just made this into a study of an all-new psychopathic killer. Halloween (2007) isn't an awful movie, but it is definitely disappointing because it has the potential to be great.
Check out this promotional poster for the movie. It highlights the best parts of the movie, which in turn shows how for the focus has shifted from that of the original. Still, it's a pretty sweet poster.
Onceagain, I am planning to review nothing but horror movies this October, with a goal of reaching 31 reviews in 31 days. Given my output over the last few months, that may be optimistic. Thankfully, I'm a man with a plan and have actually mapped out some of the movies I want to see this year, instead of just randomly selecting things on Netflix.
*sigh*
If there are any must-see horror flicks that I need to review, drop me a comment. I'll keep an updated list of what I've reviewed this month and have planned below.
[EDITED 11/2/12]
Well...that didn't work out exactly as I had planned. I was aiming for 31 reviews in 31 days, but fell behind almost immediately. Shockingly, it wasn't just with the reviews, but with the movie watching. Out of all the intended (but not reviewed) movies I selected, only CHUD and The Innkeepers ever made it to the viewing stage. I could blame it on a finger injury that hindered the tip of my middle finger, or maybe the head cold that sucked the life out of me for almost two weeks. But no, I'll accept my failure. Next year, I will have to prepare in advance and actually write some reviews (gasp!) before October to make this (and real life) work.
In the works Failed to Review:
Children of the Corn
Creature From the Black Lagoon
C.H.U.D.
The Fog
The Innkeepers
Psycho
Slither
Part of my month-long goal of watching/reviewing nothing but horror movies was to delve a little deeper into the Halloween series. I love the first film (who doesn't?) and thought the second was not-quite mediocre. I opted to skip the next four in the series, partly because I preferred seeing the direct sequels to Halloween II and partly because Netflix was streaming Halloween H20 and Halloween: Resurrection, the seventh and eighth in the franchise, respectively. I watched these two movies back-to-back, and while I found a lot of stupidity in H20, I was still entertained. Will that trend continue with Resurrection?
It depends. Is Michael singing along to "Hip-Hop Hooray"?
Three years after the events in H20, we catch up with Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). The past few years have not been kind to Laurie. It seems that the person she decapitated at the end of the last film was not, in fact, Michael Myers. Apparently, Michael managed to find an EMT worker with a similar build, crushed his larynx, swapped clothes (and mask) with the worker, and scampered off into the night, leaving poor innocent EMT guy to get his head chopped off by Laurie. Aside from going against twenty years of Michael Myers logic --- this is the Timex of slasher villains, the man who won't stop ticking --- and having Michael resort to trickery, like any normal wuss, this also means that Laurie has been committed to a psychiatric institute, which may or may not be for the criminally insane.
Well, she has the "crazy eyes" part down pat
I'm not exactly sure, since Laurie has resorted to faking a comatose state to avoid medication and treatment, but it sure seems like she's there against her will. Oh, and there's a patient who is celebrating Halloween by wearing a clown mask (a la John Wayne Gacy) and reciting his favorite serial killer statistics. Side note: Gacy, Dahmer, and Myers all came from the greater Chicago area...do losing sports teams contribute to serial killing? Anyway, Laurie is faking the degree of her craziness because she knows Michael will come for her someday. And he does. This time, he kills her when she stops to do something absolutely, ludicrously stupid. They could have stretched this into an entire movie (Halloween II, anyone?), but the filmmakers opted to squeeze all that into the first fifteen minutes or so.
Huh. The last film went to great lengths, completely ignoring the continuity of the previous three films, to bring Michael back to his family-hating roots, and Resurrection has him finally kill his little sister in the beginning of the film. What the hell is this film going to be about, then? A reality television-styled webcast, naturally. Freddie (Busta Rhymes, who seriously got top billing in the movie) and his business partner (Tyra Banks) are filming a webcast, because that is how you make money in the 2000s, right? Um, sure. The pair select a group (that happen to mostly know each other) to spend the night in Michael Myers' childhood home in Haddenfield, Illinois. The idea is for Freddie to dress up like Michael and scare the crap out of the group as they discovered "clues," planted by Freddie, that explained Michael's behavior. Think Ghost Hunters, but with a prankster involved. There is only one problem...Michael Myers is actually living in the sewers beneath his old home, and he doesn't like visitors.
Michael, about to kiss a man to death
At this point, I would like to point out that two of Halloween: Resurrection's most famous cast members are African-American. Why does that matter? Really, it doesn't. It just reminded me of Eddie Murphy's classic stand-up:
So, just in case Haunted Mansion hadn't convinced you already, Eddie Murphy is not always right.
The acting in Halloween: Resurrection is fairly shitty, across the board. When Busta Rhymes is the top-billed actor in the film, you know there is a problem. It's not that Busta is terrible (although he is), it's just that he's not good enough to headline a major film. I thought he was alternately ridiculous (like when he laughed like Muttley)...
...and just plain annoying (when he tried to act), but I wasn't expecting a whole lot from him, as an actor or a character. The main girl, Sara (Bianca Kajlich) was practically void of personality, which is usually enough to survive a slasher flick. American Pie alum Thomas Ian Nicholas and Save the Last Dance-r Sean Patrick Thomas were similarly underwhelming. The only supporting cast members that stuck out were Katee Sackhoff (for being a fame whore), Daisy McCrackin (for showing intellectual boobies), and Luke Kirby (for being obnoxious and unrealistic).
Katee Sackhoff, in her best scene
Jamie Lee Curtis was fine, but her character dies before the opening credits, so that's not much of a help. Look, I don't normally care how good the acting is in slasher films, but the quality here is such a huge drop from H20 that it distracted me. Aside from Kajlich's good girl --- who has no motivation to be in this plot --- everyone character was ridiculously one-note. Everything Sean Patrick Thomas said involved food, Katee Sackhoff spent her entire time trying to act like a wannabe actress, and Kirby and McCrackin jettisoned logic as soon as they entered the Myers house. As for Busta...well, he occasionally narrates his thoughts aloud. I would have been fine with stereotypes (they're all going to die, anyhow) but these characters were just obnoxious.
This isn't director Rick Rosenthal's first experience with Michael Myers. He also directed Halloween II; this time, though, John Carpenter wasn't around to ratchet up the effectiveness of the gore. While I am willing to blame the awful acting on Rosenthal (somebody had to tell the actors to keep it up), I do get the distinct impression that his directorial intent was overridden a few times in this film. The first clue comes from the alternate promo poster, which was used for the DVD cover:
Someone took the original poster and photoshopped-in the supporting cast. That's not a crime, of course, but it was done incompetently. Aside from the odd and unnatural position of the knife, Jamie Lee Curtis is shown as she appeared in H20, with short hair. It is also worth noting that the end of the film throws an unexpected twist in; the entire film seems to be building up to having Sara rescued by her internet buddy, but at the last minute somebody else --- who should have died from multiple stab wounds --- comes in and saves the day. That was unexpected and also makes the internet buddy subplot fairly worthless. That is because the theatrical ending wasn't the original one; through terrible editing, Monster Crap has still-frame proof that internet buddy was supposed to save the day, but the ending got changed --- they were just too lazy to completely re-shoot the sequence. So how much of this mess is Rosenthal's doing, and how much was due to the interference of the producers? It's hard to say, but I think both failed to make this movie entertaining, suspenseful, or horrifying.
Case in point: Michael politely waits for their conversation to end
Halloween: Resurrection is not completely without value. Tyra Banks was killed off-camera, so audiences were spared her "acting." There are ten kills and some ridiculously inappropriate nudity. The actions of the characters are frequently idiotic enough to evoke laughter from any thinking person. Michael Myers gets electrocuted in the testicles, an area that I don't think anyone has thought to attack before. Even when you add all that up, there isn't much going for this movie. When you factor in the fact that Michael isn't being creepy, he is just killing trespassers in his own home, it becomes obvious that Resurrection has lost sight of what makes Michael Myers cool. He needs to kill for unknown reasons, and he shouldn't ever resort to trickery. What a mess; no wonder they let Rob Zombie reboot the series after this piece of crap.
The entire time I spent writing this review, I had this song stuck in my head. Mister Busta Rhymes, tell 'em what I did:
