The ‘Underrated’ of Cinema [Halloween II (2009)]

From http://www.film1.nl/images/portrait/original/56435.jpg

Dir. Rob Zombie

USA

Film #7 of The ‘Worst’ of Cinema

From http://www.gorestruly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/halloween2.jpg

At what point do I veer towards being a mere contrarian or are critically lambasted films like Halloween II far more subjective in your reaction to them than what a critical consensus says overall? A single phrase – ‘personal opinion’ – colours any judgement of a film, and the only reason it wouldn’t, even if you agree with the generally held opinion of most film critics on it, is because you’ve yet to see the film. I had no interest in Rob Zombie’s Halloween (2007) – having not liked House of 1000 Corpses (2003) or The Devil’s Rejects (2003) at all – but Halloween II sounded like something much more interesting. Stuck with a sequel he did not want to do, Zombie rebelled and also, despite his love for John Carpenter’s original film, purposely made a sequel that did not stick to the conventions of the series and slasher films, thus enraging horror fans. My love and admiration for Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) has been documented in a review on this blog – [HERE] – but I find the slasher sub-genre that grew out of its influence to be one of the most tedious. I will watch ones I have not seen in hope of finding good films, but my hostility is not a unwillingness to see them but disappointment in how almost most of them are vapid even as genre films. Good ones exist, and even the repetition of plot structures and characters could be used to the sub-genre’s advantage, but most of the time they are the worst offenders of reducing a film into bland dialogue and scenes that merely pulls you along arbitrarily, with only gore and maybe a naked breast or two as a reward rather than anything else, to an ending you (ie. I) don’t care about. They are the colouring book to the blank page of an Italian giallo; the latter, because they are usually murder mysteries, are allow to go in any direction they desire, depending on the quality of each film itself, while slashers, unless they break the conventions or are very well made, are suffocated by the plot structures and rules of the sub-genre, like lines in a colouring book you are forced to stay in. Rob Zombie’s Halloween II while flawed changes this, by being everything that is the opposite of what is loved about slasher films, managing to escape from the sub-genre and making itself something worthwhile.

From https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeySSyjX1w7HLEchkoscNTABjy_lb9QaF8Zaz9tMxb5kY_UirFyBZS9RXNiAXt01zDknqSUwYPIPu-7FIWa7SUz_NheuzUirro5858RKgiO9GsONxIDtSR2UaORuuuZUKOO2rxx_7jM3h1/s1600/Halloween+II+2009+9.jpg

Viewing it without seeing Zombie’s first Halloween film, it can be seen as an alternative reality of Carpenter’s original, drastically changed by time period and Americana used but,  within a film series which became convoluted and has the awful Halloween 4 (1988), Halloween 5 (1989) and Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) within it, almost comes off as an attempt to bury it all and convey a far more interesting portrait of the characters. Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) in Halloween II is far from the version Jamie Lee Curtis played, but could be seen as a logical conclusion of the potential psychological damage caused by Michael Myers’ attempt to kill her, leaving her a psychologically damage person suffering from constant nightmares and on medication. It surprises me – having grown up with girls who acted like this even if they weren’t this extreme – that many critics and viewers find this Laurie Strode obnoxious and completely unlikable. Despite her continuous swearing and hostile persona, there are plenty of times, especially around the characters Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif) where she is clearly a lovable, kind person whose outgoing attitude and persona – the swearing, the Alice Cooper posters etc. – are both the combination of how any of us as young adults sometimes rebel against authority figures through this kind of behaviour, and Zombie, sparing us another slasher sequel, bravely tackling post trauma damage on a person’s mind in a genre film’s tone. The only time where Laurie becomes obnoxious in how I perceive that attitude to be is after a major plot twist that leaves her in even more despair and believing that only drinking herself mindless at a Halloween party is the way to drown the pain away. It is probably a generational gap issue, as a much younger person, but I wonder, even if there is no sexism or misogyny involved, whether male fans are afraid of women, through this female character, who have human flaws and act in ways unexpected and confrontation to them. Fans are accepting of a virginal, mousy girl like Jamie Lee Curtis’s Laurie, whose portrayal is a great one nonetheless, but are taken aback by one who is angry, is psychologically troubled and dressed and acts as she does in Halloween II. Even if a male viewer does not like the final girl stereotype of slasher films, there is a potential danger for any of us men to still have a biased portrait of these types of young women – that they are only obnoxious and have no further levels in personality to them, that they are only empty headed and are not merely naive, or that, to use a horrible word I apologise for writing, they are merely sluts with piercings and ‘tramp stamp’ tattoos. Laurie and her friends, at moments in this film, come off as misguided, unbearable, annoying and childish, but not only are they young adults that, like all of us at some time, have still a lot to learn about the worlds and ourselves, but that, even in a genre film like this, Rob Zombie is willing to write characters, of any gender, who are as complicated and as flawed as people are in real life.

From http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/hallo2ween14433.jpg

The desire to preserve the original Carpenter film from this ‘imitation’ or ‘betrayal’ is pointless; the immortality of Halloween (1978) is cemented as is its great influence, while this film should be allowed to break from the rules and do what it desires with the material if it works. The portrayal of Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) in this should not be viewed as blasphemous and it would show shallowness in a person if they said this for not being able to distance themselves from an reinterpretation they don’t like; in fact the Loomis shown in this could be seen as an alternative version of him if the events of the first Halloween night had destroyed the morals that were strengthened in Donald Pleasance’s interpretation. It is arguable that the character isn’t given a lot to do, part of the film’s issue of needing to have been a lot longer and fleshed out, but the drastic change in him adds a new perspective that would be a godsend in any slasher than the usual dirge. The same applies with the interpretation of Michael Myers; I find the original ‘shape’, which appears from the shadows, to be a frightening creation, but to repeat it with the mentality of a photocopy of a photocopy, until the quality becomes less and less good, is destructive to the original material. Why should this version wear the mask all the time? Why can’t he talk? Why does he have to use the same knife all the time? Why do these differences not make him a version of Michael Myers? This pedantic tone, while sometimes justifiable, feels childish against a film which is purposely breaking the series’ conventions on purpose rather than as a result of bad executive decisions.  Quite frankly this pedantic nature of horror fan culture is also probably why most of the films made now are unbearable or tedious for me, the colouring book mentality causing mistakes and bad ideas to slip into films and ruing their virtues. Something like Halloween II, while immensely flawed, is far more interesting and better for relinquishing itself from this mentality.

From http://lookpic.com/i/284/mqCBn0RV.png

The film is erratic in structure, needing the added time to pace itself I mentioned earlier. Only the dream sequences don’t work within the film as a specific flaw; some are striking, but they feel like the ‘prettified’ nightmares usually depicted in mainstream cinema and feel disconnected from the rest of the film and its subject. The violence also veers dangerously close to being sadism for the sake of sadism, like I felt with The Devil’s Rejects, but it thankfully avoids this, as horrifying and appropriately upsetting for a film with this dark of tone. The only concern I have is that, while it was clearly on purpose by Zombie and succeeds, the film is violently depressing by its ending, making it unadvisable to view as a visceral horror film but something you need to be in the mood for. It does give hope however that Rob Zombie could be on the way to being a great director and reminded me that good horror films of worth are still being made. That this one was merely dismissed in some circles is disappointing, yet may prove to be a virtue in its favour. The most memorable films in horror are usually hated on their release – and Halloween II has its supporters – and for the genre, the films should confuse, upset and anger people. Horror cinema should not be a mass act of self congratulation for a fan community, but to make films that are divisive and undermine the conventions from before even if enrages someone. It should not be safe, something a ‘subversive’ slasher film like Scream (1996) is actually not, its smugness worsened by it still perpetrating the same clichés it is mocking. Halloween II, an uncomfortable, messy creation feels far more honest and alive in its divisive nature and is something I can keep closer to heart than an ironic horror film.

From http://justinsmithonmovies.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/halloween-2-2009.jpg