Dir: Rob Zombie
Zombie hasn't reinvented or revamped the Halloween franchise, he's created an altogether different monster; one that doesn't deserve to walk amongst the greats.
It hardly seems fair to compare John Carpenter's original vision to Zombie's latest effort. They really are very dissimilar. Zombie's Michael Myers is the product of white trash abuse (find another note to hit, Rob. Please), holding more human characteristics and reason for empathy than any other Michael Myers before him. Unfortunately for us, this is where Zombie fails miserably. A huge set up for such a ineffective execution. Zombie has written himself a slasher killer who tries to be more than just a knife wielding shadow - a faceless allegory - he feels - grunts while maiming - he eats - a restorative diet of dog guts - and he even has a face - enveloped by facial hair, yes, but this is still the clearest impression we've ever received. So how does Zombie fail to give us even one connection with such a promising villain?
This latest installation veers so far from its original course (I am speaking of Zombie's own Halloween) that it often confuses itself. Once considerate and perceptive, Laurie is now an unlikable little hellion who has resorted to cursing, raging, and fighting her demons with the only obvious medication -- rock and roll. Dr. Loomis has become even more of a self-centered prick and is starting a tour for, you guessed it, a book based on his encounters with Myers. Both Laurie and Loomis have become such polar opposites of what they originally were that they are now entirely different characters. We might as well call them “that new rocker girl” Bridget and Dr. Spaceman - Loomis’ expertise is questionable when his best effort to save Laurie from Myers is to repeatedly yell, “Stop it.”
A new element in the form of phantasmagoric imagery is present, giving us a nicely saturated bit of eye candy - some images are taken directly from the Joel Peter Witkin handbook - but they don't add dimensionality to any character that envisions them. That’s right, any. We got more than one loon here, people. Each allegoric/metaphoric/symbolic introspection (I use each of these because it is insanely complicated to figure out which one Zombie is really going for) only emphasizes lack of cohesive vision.
Now that we feel completely disconnected from our leads, I suppose we can move on to the unfortunates...
The deaths have now become sporadic and meaningless, only piling more confusion onto the already cluttered mess of a plot. Michael’s motivations behind the killings are non-existent, which would be fine if Zombie didn’t spend an hour and a half giving Michael the drive to “bring the family back together”. If he’s just trying to get his sister back, why is it necessary to relentlessly smash the stripper’s face into the glass? When Zombie finally decides to dispatch a character whose death will have an impact, he destroys the only true moment in the film with a pedestrian editing technique. Hint: Do not cut up your most talented actor's performance during his most despondent breakdown.
Because of so may flaws and lack of cohesion, Halloween II plays like several films in one (or perhaps several music videos in one?). When we are finally committed to whatever film Zombie happens to be telling at that moment, we are ripped away and put into an entirely different one - the first twenty minutes turn out to be a dream. The impetuous cycle continues until we find ourselves at the end with Laurie, surrounded by sterile walls of a bleached chamber. A blank slate. A place where our sins are washed away. We journey forth through the canal to be birthed as the regrettable - and inevitable - Halloween 3.
