Dude wrote:dsheinem wrote:Halloween (2007) – This, on the other hand, is a decent Rob Zombie flick and one of the better remakes I’ve seen . Zombie’s strengths have always been on portraying the disturbing and twisted more than the gory and suspenseful, and the first half of this film delivers in spades. Not only is Myers’ back story one that holds up to repeat viewings, but the actor who plays him as a kid is perfectly off-kilter. The second half is also good, with some nice homages to Carpenter’s classic and plenty of well realized scares and brutal deaths. Malcom McDowell is also a show stealer, and though Zombie’s direction is solid throughout, it is the drama between Loomis and Myers that really carries the second half of the film.
Grade: 3.5/5
Halloween II (2009) – Unfortunately, it seems that like in the original series, any sequels to Halloween are necessarily lacking. When you have a killer who can’t be killed, you lose much of the suspense that marks the first entry. Here the strength of the film is in the action scenes, with much of the backstory and plot lacking either coherence, intrigue, or both. It was nice to see so much of the cast from the first film reprise their roles, but the acting is much weaker here – even by McDowell. I’ve certainly seen worse slasher films, but this is far from Zombie’s best effort.
Grade: 2/5
I think the main problem with the first remake is the second half of the film feels like production politics entered into the mix by being a carbon copy of the original.
http://allmovie.com/work/halloween-351975/review
(excerpt)
Given all of this, is there a silver lining to this production? One compliment that's been thrown out there is that at least it's Zombie's vision all the way -- or is it? When rumors of the reshoots popped up promising more deaths and an extended ending, the filmmaker scoffed at the idea, sizing it up to Internet lunacy. The official response was that Bob Weinstein offered more money to help juice up the production any way that Rob wanted, so the timeline of the film was played with, opening things up for a few more cameos along the way (including key members of the Rejects alumni -- Sid Haig and Bill Moseley). Additionally, the director has said that the ending was reworked to give Laurie a more satisfying arc, but if that's true, then he missed the point even more the second time around, studio interference or not. Either way, one thing no one counted on was a workprint copy leaking onto the Internet the week of release, not only raising the piracy flag in Tinseltown, but allowing an interesting peek at what the picture looked like before the notorious Weinstein Company waved more money around. Reportedly gone is the Texas Chainsaw-tinged ending, as well as the absurd chain-breaking escape from the hospital. In their place, grounded character work that allows for a richer Halloween experience than the cut-and-paste one that made its way onto the big screen. Sadly, it seems that audiences lost out again, making this yet another Halloween sequel that's been tampered with before its theatrical release. What's even worse is that this looks to be a monumental step back creatively for Rob Zombie, who for whatever reason, has delivered what many outside his loyal following would consider to be a colossal waste of time.
As for the second I find it worse but cannot pinpoint why except to say that what triggers Myers' rage (his mother, images of himself as a child, a unicorn - though I do not scoff at the last one like some do) has too many characters floating around in the background. Zombie never consistently uses his lens to give enough impact for his rage (for instance when his mother I believe is behind the door signaling him to kill is effective).
While I agree with the hate for studio politics (see Lionsgate and how they toss good films like Midnight Meat Train and REPO! The Genetic Opera onto DVD and then fork over gobs of cash for crap like Disaster Movie), I have to clear a few things up about Halloween 2.
First off, it was a white horse, not a unicorn.
Secondly, it's a connection to his mother. At the beginning of the film, we see Michael being told a story involving a white horse, and that it ultimately ties with Michael and his family going "home". Here, "home" means the hereafter. As for why Laurie sees her birth mom and the white horse, it's inherited mental faults from her mother. I mean, Mrs. Myers was far from a decent mother. I mean, she was a stripper and dated a long line of losers. I can forgive the stripping because it pays well, but Ronnie (her boyfriend from the first film) was an abusive SOB, and how did she deal with it? She didn't. Michael slashed the alcoholic fucker's throat.
Third, it's all about Michael and his mother, the only person he truly cares about and who truly loves him.
