Halloween II - My Thoughts

My stepfather says that my blog is lacking in the area of film, and that he most certainly is entitled to a press pass for advanced screenings more so than I because of the amount of cinema information he has on his blog. That being said, although I wrote this a few weeks back, here is a review of the film and a rebuttal to someone's response pulled from the Halloween II imdb.com message boards. I hope this beefs up the movie section of my blog just a little.

Please feel free to look me up at imdb.com if you'd like to see the post in its originality and the responses of others to my thoughts - my ID on the site is Fuzznubb. Note - Steer clear of my thoughts about the MGS movie!

(Notice my attempt to use big words and sound intelligent, except for when I spell Lauri's name "Lori", or when I use the word "confliction")


Review

"Rob Zombie succeeded with this film, case closed.

You may be asking "why"? I'll tell you.

He knew going into this project that he'd be getting a lot of flak. He made a movie (Halloween - 2007) that wasn't entirely based on original ideas, but ran with it. He gave us a new perspective to Michael Myers with which we could understand more so why he acted the way he did when he got older. He even gave us a film that technically shouldn't have spawned a sequel. This is where the flak comes in.

Not whatsoever did Rob Zombie ever pull the wool over our eyes. He knew that a sequel was illogical, yet he did it, and he did it well. Aside from the beginning where we got the Hospital sequence, H2 is entirely made up of something out of Michael Myers' element. It wasn't about just wearing a mask and having moments where we're startled by Myers appearing somewhere unexpected. He went above and beyond what was expected from Michael Myers. We expected a killer, what we got was emotion.

I know, I know. What do I mean by "emotion"? I'll tell you.

Myers was scorned. The man was hurt. All his life he was the victim. Hell, even when he was victimizing others he was the victim. Granted, being a victim doesn't always give exception to murder, but still... All he wanted was his family back, and he got a gunshot to the head instead. Yes, I'll admit that he went about getting his sister back in all the wrong ways, but you have to keep in mind that he's dealing with the mindset of a ten year old. I'm also sure he had some prepubescent angst built up as well.

Zombie gave us a massive look at the "Myers that cares". He showed us just how far someone would go to be a family man. He gave us insight to the man behind the Shatner mask. Just because he wields a butcher's knife and dresses in a jumpsuit doesn't mean he can't love and feel compassion..... Or anger for betrayal. Wouldn't you want to run someone through for taking you away from your family?

Further, Zombie gave us a dark vision than what was ever expected. The tone, the setting, the brutality, it was all enveloped in a grim veil. The deaths, although raw, were real (as real as Hollywood can get without actual death). Myers had a linear thought process and he used his one-dimensional thinking to turn all of his victims into bloody, sinewy pulps. Screw hanging people in front of a staircase with a pumpkin on their head, he just unleashed himself in a flurry of violent confliction.

As for the "White Horse", although it was cheesy at moments, it did help advance the plot in a more analytical way. To me, it made you ponder the intentions of both Myers and Lori at times. It offered a thought process along the lines of "Is Lori just acting like that or is something more dubious about to happen?" It at least gives me an interesting outlook about things.

Concluding, I can see why people disliked this for what it was, but I think everyone should at least give it another chance from a different perspective, especially when the unrated version comes out. Anyways, that's my two cents about this film. Hope you enjoyed it."

Rebuttal


"I was reading my post and the responses of others, and I feel like I should reiterate a few things or offer a better explanation.

First and foremost, I didn't mean that Myers was in any way a victim we should feel bad for. I meant he was just put into the position where he was the victim starting out. Hell, look how he was raised. His "stepfather" was a complete douche to him, his mother was a stripper (praise be to Sheri Moon Zombie!) for whom he got crap for from the kids at school, and no one really treated him like an individual. He was scorned at life and that's when he decided to take matters (and a knife) into his own hands. At this point, it was no longer about making the pricks pay or being the victim, it was about a blood bath. My sympathies ended for him there.

Secondly, I do have to correct myself. There was a point in which Myers did string someone up and I appreciate the person who pointed that out. However, the hanging in this film was more to the point than the last one. He stomped the dude's face in and didn't want to leave the evidence behind in the alley. Although he's still screwed up in the head, I'm fairly certain he used what thinking power he had in order to create a diversionary tactic (much like he did in the first one at times) inside the strip club. The only thing he left lacking here was indeed the pumpkin head. To me, that shows that although he was killing everyone in the first movie, he may have still had some sort of demented sense of humor, unlike in this movie where he was just straight to the point with everything. More so, if you pay attention to the first film, there'll actually be a moment where he stops and just looks at the pumpkin, maybe appreciating what he did or laughing on the inside. That's just my hypothesis though.

Lastly, I thought this film was a very needed breath of fresh air, but they did label it incorrectly. I don't really think this version of Halloween could be considered a horror film. If you look at all the elements it has more to do with being a psychological thriller than anything else. Yes, it has the intense sequences of violence and gore, but I'd say it belongs in the category more so of Silence of the Lambs or something like that. I would like to point out though, that the only reason I enjoyed the film was because it wasn't what everyone expected. To me, everyone expected a slasher film. What everyone got was a film where you had to think outside of the box, and that's what I look for today. Too many films fail to explore outside of a linear thought process, and I think this film got past that. The only major concern I can see is that everyone just wanted the "expected" version or no version at all. The only thing I can say to that is as long as there's a Hollywood, there'll always be films we hate or enjoy. Well, that's just my two-cents anyways."

Wow, I use the term "linear thought process" and "that's just my two cents" too much. I should be slapped.

Twilight

Let me start by saying that I'm an avid fan of the horror genre, vampires especially. The seduction of supernatural abilities and an eternal life have all but made me want to hop on board the blood-sucking bandwagon! Yes, there is that pesky allergic reaction to the sun, but we all have our issues, right? Spontaneous combustion may be a risk, but given the appropriate circumstances I'm sure the hindrance could be mild. With that said, let's move on....

When I first heard about "Twilight", I didn't know what to expect. To me, it just sounded like a money-making scheme, a way to make a quick buck off of the teenage heart-throb community (which by the way, if you weren't paying attention, it worked).

My introduction into the "Twilight" phenomenon was originally caused by my girlfriend (correction: former girlfriend). She had been working at a movie theater at the time of the film's release and was curious about it (this by the way, is where I point out that "curiosity killed the cat"). And my girlfriend, being the impatient type, saw the movie almost immediately upon her curiosity being peaked. Needless to say, being that she's a female and falls into the "heart-throb community", she went and saw it six more times after her original encounter. Sadly, this is what lead to MY curiosity being peaked (I know, kitty-cat + curiosity = death by semi-truck).

I came home early one day from work and thought that a nice afternoon out with my gal would be an appropriate way to spend the day. More so, I thought a film was in order. With that, we went to the movies, or as Dane Cook would say, we went on a "cinematic adventure"! We arrived at the theater, got our soda, our popcorn, made our rounds to the bathroom right before everything started, and so on. Finally, the lights went dim and the trailers rolled. This is where I entered the "zero hour", as I'd like to call it.

Now I have to admit that I'm a person who enjoys a good story, especially when told right. However, the first ten minutes of this film told me exactly what sort of debacle I had gotten myself into. The story I've pieced together from the film itself, from various people who have told me about the book and from Wikipedia.org, is somewhat tolerable. The story presented at face value in the movie though, is quite a disappointment. Its pacing is off, there's no real scene that screams for attention and it all just seems a little uninspired. Further, I had found forty-five minutes into the film that spending quality time with my girlfriend was not worth the ocular rape I was surely receiving.

And of course I know that I'm too far back from the time now to even touch the subject of the glittering vampire conundrum. I praise the idea for trying to be original, but I can't give it major kudos for having its heart in the right place when it makes me want to plunge a rusty railroad spike through my eye and into the depths of my brain so I can end the mental enema I was given. But I digress....

In rare instances, a film the gives the audience a dull story to work with can be saved with outstanding acting abilities. In these instances though, it does help if the cast actually has "acting abilities". "Twilight" had the same issue that "Star Wars: Episode I" suffered from; it seemed like a read-through of the script, nothing more. The talent in this film were all lacking in the same respect; no enthusiasm or believability. Bella constantly seemed like she was in sort of a half-baked daze, while Edward looked like a mix between a ten year old boy that received his first erection during the middle of class and like he was thoroughly constipated (not a flattering combination). The support characters all seemed like they were being held against their will by some sort of unknown entity that would extinguish their lives if they stopped partaking in the events of the film. More to the point, I've seen sock puppets with better acting quality.

As the film ended, I was hit with a mixture of emotions. First and foremost, relief rushed to the surface of my inner being because the two hour voluntary torture sequence I was privy to had finally ended. Secondly, I was disappointed at the fact that I would never get those two hours back. Lastly, I left the theater feeling stupider. Yes, that's right, stupider. My brain had been so warped due to the display of a genre being destroyed that I walked out of that place feeling so stupid that "stupider" would be the only way to describe just how dumb I felt. To this day I wish there was some voodoo ceremony that would allow me to reclaim the braincells I lost watching that movie.

Furthermore, I understand that everyone has their own tastes, their own interests. Hell, that's what makes us human. What I can't understand is how so many people are blind to the fact that there are so many better vampiric movies out there that they shouldn't risk their intelligence on a film that has a rejected Harry Potter actor as a lead. I implore all who find this film fascinating to turn their attention to a film like "30 Days of Night", a movie about the raw, visceral power that a vampire should have. Or if teenage vampirism is your cup of tea, check out "The Lost Boys". It's not the greatest movie in the world, but it explores vampires in a more original light than most films, plus its vampires don't sparkle.

In closing, I understand that a sequel for "Twilight" has been made, a film that goes by the name of "New Moon". I'm even told that werewolves will be making an appearance within the next movie or so. Although a decent addition to a horror film, doesn't the whole vampire-werewolf situation sound a little familiar? It may not have been explored well in "Underworld", but that doesn't change the fact that it's been done. If this is the avenue of which will be explored, let's face facts and call the "Twilight" movies what they should be called, "Underworld: The Teenage Angst Years". I think you'll find that this title works better with marketing anyways.....