Halloween II (2009).

Review #1751: Halloween II (2009)

Cast: 

Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Malcolm McDowell (Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers; with Chase Wright Vanek as Younger version), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), Brea Grant (Mya Rockwell), Howard Hesseman (Uncle Meat), Angela Trimbur (Harley David), Mary Birdsong (Nancy McDonald), Daniel Roebuck (Big Lou), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Howard Boggs and Seymour Coffins), Sylvia Jefferies (Misty Dawn), Bill Fagerbakke (Deputy Webb), Richard Brake (Gary Scott), Dayton Callie (Coroner Hooks), and Margot Kidder (Barbara Collier) Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007) and #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember a film like this. After all, it isn't like there are numerous timelines to consider for a series involving the exploits of a masked killer slowly going around and mowing folks from a little town called Haddonfield (which may or may not involve more than one sibling of the Myers family). Well, sort of. Not only was this the last Halloween film for nine years, it was also the second and final feature in Rob Zombie's interpretation of Michael Myers with his offbeat style of filmmaking, which is covered in plenty of gritty violence (and shots) alongside certain narrative and casting choices (and yes, Weird Al). Honestly, it has probably been too long since I watched Zombie's original attempt at re-inventing the series (six years), but the one point that stuck with me is in how sloppy it ended up being with actually being a meaningful different step from what had been done in the past eight Halloween films in trying to make the character scary again (the cynical answer would have been to not make one for like ten or twenty years in order to make folks forget). Its interpretation of Myers in origins is still ridiculous to ponder, if only because I am reminded that it was essentially an extended segue of what had happened before (which took less than fifteen minutes) that took away the mystique of what was merely just a force of nature, with John Carpenter even saying as much when asked about it years later. Of course, I do wonder if it felt so ridiculously built in overt "edginess" like its sequel ends up being, what with the whole "Charlie Manson on someone's wall" thing. Hell, would it surprise you that each film had an unrated Director's Cut - given the offbeat track record of Dimension Films, who can blame him? 

Zombie apparently wanted to kill everybody off in this film, as if to seal the idea of no third movie (the second movie made $39 million back on a $15 million budget, but an attempt at a "3D" film came and went), with producer Malek Akkad giving Zombie his blessing to try and not follow the rules that he had put for the previous film; in that sense, only Myers in the main trio seems to not be affected in terms of Zombie wanting to go...Zombie (sure, hallucinating seems different, but...no).  Of course, there is one thing to consider: the original Halloween II (1981) wasn't very good (of course, the family angle, thought of by Carpenter and Hill, was later called "foolish" by Carpenter himself), so what do you expect from this film? The movie differs considerably depending on what you see: the Theatrical Cut is 105 minutes long while the Unrated Cut is 119 minutes, which includes alternative footage to go with re-cuts, with the most notable difference being that the Laurie character spirals downward right from the jump (as opposed to being less off the bend in the Theatrical version, which had the setting as one year later as opposed to two)...and of course the ending is altered. You know you are not on a good track when you start with a dream sequence. Regardless if it is there to add suspense, gore, or whatever, it is the easiest moment to generate eyerolls in preposterous-ness. If the first film managed to have plenty of brutality while perhaps being at the cost of suspense, you sure won't see much change here. Being an uncompromising film only works if I actually care about what is going on. The strangest thing is this: it somehow manages to be more interesting than the original remake...but it also is easier to make fun of, one for folks who want to see how much a director can go up their own...you get the idea. If Zombie wanted to make a trashy movie with weird aspects completely different from what was, he surely accomplished it with an assortment of aspects that I'm sure you will all "appreciate", such as weirdos talking about adventures with corpses, Margot Kidder playing a psychiatrist, music at a concert that will make you appreciate listening to Zombie's stuff instead, the aforementioned white horse, and a movie where the only folks to like are either because of camp value (McDowell) or in small amounts (Dourif and Harris). This is the kind of movie that is perfect bait for even the smug to pick at, particularly ones who don't care to look into the psyche of every main focus. The problem is that I fit into the latter category, but I do fit into the category of making fun of terrible movies, so there is that. Besides, the last interesting idea that this series ever had was the climax of Halloween 4...which was two decades ago.

Taylor-Compton does what she can with material that surely must be interesting to consider depending on which version you see: one where she eventually goes nuts, or one that is pretty much nuts from the drop. It just so happens that it isn't as interesting as the movie thinks it is in actually latching on to her perspective, which mostly involves screaming. Strangely enough, Halloween (2018) would try its own angle in the eyes of trauma with Laurie, which I imagine has inspired its own curiosity and detractors. Oh look, a Rob Zombie movie with Sheri Moon Zombie, who would have ever guessed? Hell, she randomly shows up time to time as a hallucination (which when paired with "hobo Michael" is quite the contrast) that results in bemusement more than anything. True, one probably can't imitate Donald Pleasance and his character of Dr. Loomis for very long without seeming pale. So, why not have McDowell play him like he was Dr. Phil? It is amusing in a cynical way, if only because McDowell seems exactly the type to play an odd role in a movie teetering on the edge of mismatched-ness, but his scene-chewing in the name of ego is far more interesting than hearing a plethora of one certain curse word to go along with boring folks in edgy stuff (of course, his turn in the climax is probably a bit too late). What I mean about "edgy" is that there are certain times when the movie seems to be trying to make a point about how an attack affects everyone around them...it just ends up with the resonance of a "uh huh, that's nice dear." Dourif and Harris are experienced enough with these kind of movies, and that is likely why they probably resonate better than most of the folks present here, in that they actually rate well to the generic stuff present without being crushed by it. Well, of course, there is Mane to consider in whatever he is meant to be doing with the whole derelict composure thing with Michael, which is more amusing than anything (in a series full of offbeat scenes with the character to begin with). As a whole, Halloween II is a mess, one made by Zombie with the intent of saying...something...about the dynamic that comes from a killer and his target that seem more alike than at first glance while looking on the shift of all involved since that one terrible night on Halloween. Of course, Halloween (1978) succeeded best not because it tried to explain anything, but because it executed shock in a way that had not been seen by audiences of the time. Halloween II (2009) only accomplishes the notion that having an offbeat flawed interpretation of its main character is still a flawed interpretation, regardless how much curiosity one has for a "different" follow-up when compared to the other features past and present.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars. 

Happy Halloween. I'm sure you folks are having a wonderful time in the holiday season, and I hope you enjoyed seeing 23 reviews in 31 days. Of course, we're not quite done yet with horror, so sit back for Halloween: The Week After Part 3, which will cover horror films as it says on the tin (until November 7th). Who knows what should come up...

Next Time: Halloween Kills.

The Descendants.

Review #1558: The Descendants.

Cast: 

George Clooney (Matthew "Matt" King), Shailene Woodley (Alexandra "Alex" King), Amara Miller (Scottie King), Nick Krause (Sid), Beau Bridges (Hugh King), Judy Greer (Julie Speer), Matthew Lillard (Brian Speer), Robert Forster (Scott Thorson), Patricia Hastie (Elizabeth King), and Mary Birdsong (Kai Mitchell) Directed by Alexander Payne (#635 - Nebraska and #1169 - About Schmidt)

Review: 

I’m deathly afraid of being too sentimental. But a film should be emotional. There is a letter from Chekhov in which a young writer asks him for some feedback, and he’s kind enough to do it. He writes the guy back and says, basically, ‘It’s too damn sentimental. If you want emotional effects, you have to place them against a cold background, so they stand out in relief.’ I think that’s true.”

It's easy to make a film about fulfillment of the self and finding a way through crisis when you have a director ripe for it. Payne was born in Omaha, Nebraska (which to perhaps some surprise has had several notable people come from there, such as Marlon Brando) to parents with Greek descent. He developed an interest with film early as a child from viewings at the theater with his parents (noting several filmmakers that influenced him such as Robert Altman, Akira Kurosawa, and Luis Bunuel), and receiving an old Super 8mm projector from his father as a teenager helped in that regard as well. He made dual studies in college, studying Spanish literature and history at Stanford University before moving on to UCLA Film School that led to a master's degree alongside attention with his thesis film with The Passion of Martin (1990). While a deal with Universal Pictures didn't result in a film with them (the one script they had him write would be made - as About Schmidt, a decade later), he eventually found his way to feature filmmaking with Citizen Ruth (1996) and his breakthrough with Election (1999). Since then, he has made five further films (with a few even set and shot in his hometown) that have made him an interesting auteur filmmaker to follow through with his mix between drama and comedy with a majority of success with audiences.  

The film is an adaptation of the 2007 novel of the same name by Hawaii-native Kaui Hart Hemmings, who described her experiences growing up there as important to understanding ideas she found interest in such as the "complicated issues of land, history, and inheritance," describing the state as like a silent force more than just a simple drama (with this mix of tragedy and dark comedy being apparent as well in the film). As he has done for most of his films, Payne served as a co-writer of the screenplay (although without usual co-writer Jim Taylor, who instead co-produced the film with Payne), doing so with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, both of whom were making their debut as writers with a script that languished for a while in development. In any case, what we have here is a capably human film that hits its mark with flawed people living in a world past our first impressions (whether that involves a happy life or "paradise" living in Hawaii). It benefits from a useful cast that accomplishes most of what it wants to display about a life turning around on decisions to be made and ones made for them and finding a way out of being trapped by monotonous life or wracked in pity. Sure, there are no easy solutions to said problems in life, but it is how one steps into their contradictions and deals with it that makes them find something more than just living on some land day after day - a crisis of marriage, a crisis of family, and a crisis of business for 115 minutes that is just well enough. In that sense, Clooney does well in lining up these dilemmas and work it out with conviction that represents a worthy challenge to bring together for an actor like him, never drawing upon emotional smarminess or anything meant to guide away from the character as a whole. Woodley proves well in motion over time with this film, growing around the edge with well enough emphasis, and her moments with Miller or with Krause lend well to some worthy inspection and chuckles. Others make their mark in parts with touches of breeze or flint with Bridges and Forster, respectively, or folks for the climax with Greer and Lillard that make effort count. On the whole, it works in a majority of its moments in generating capable drama without lounging itself too much in pity or with condensation while leaving the audience to see where the path lies for them in resonating with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.