Packed with big budget sequels and pointless remakes, American cinema has been somewhat unoriginal in recent years. And Rob Zombie's take on Halloween is by no means a patch on the original - but then, few films can be. Nevertheless, it was better than all the Halloween sequels I've seen (including H20), and most remakes and indeed mainstream horror films of recent years.
On the plus side, Michael's childhood scenes, though they seemed to go on forever, were handled well (except for the highly misjudged first scene imho - though that may have been there to lull the audience into thinking they're watching another swear-cuss-no-plot Zombie film), and the child playing young Michael was excellent - as was, surprisingly, Sherri-Moon Zombie. However, spending so much time on his motives, his troubled upbringing and attempts to understand him detracted from the notion of Meyers as a pure manifestation of evil, which was a major factor in the character as originally seen. Zombie's alternative was far more realistic, but the fantastical flair of the original was lost as a result.
On the plus side, Michael's childhood scenes, though they seemed to go on forever, were handled well (except for the highly misjudged first scene imho - though that may have been there to lull the audience into thinking they're watching another swear-cuss-no-plot Zombie film), and the child playing young Michael was excellent - as was, surprisingly, Sherri-Moon Zombie. However, spending so much time on his motives, his troubled upbringing and attempts to understand him detracted from the notion of Meyers as a pure manifestation of evil, which was a major factor in the character as originally seen. Zombie's alternative was far more realistic, but the fantastical flair of the original was lost as a result.
I wouldn't say thats necessarily a bad thing - if he had made a direct remake, it would most likely have failed miserably - in fact, I'd suggest he be commended for his attempts at taking the basic template and trying something different. The knowing winks to the original, and factoring in plot elements from the later sequels not only reveal that Zombie is a man who knows his subject, but actively worships it, and his representation works on a level that most other horror remakes don't - the closest comparison I can make is Savini's take on "Night Of The Living Dead", which also stayed very close to the original, but twisted and turned in different ways to keep knowing audiences on their toes and still provide the same thrills and spills for those who haven't seen the first film.
And here, its possible to feel pity on Michael at times... you can understand why Danny Trejo's character feels a connection to him, even if he is ultimately betrayed by Meyers brutal urges. It also allows Zombie to explore scenes the original could not - most notably the seemingly peaceful confrontation between Meyers and Laurie Strode. Sadly, it has to be said, Scout Taylor-Compton is no match for the equally double barreled Jamie Lee-Curtis, and one can't help but wonder how she would've handled this material back in 1978. And Taylor-Compton's relative obscurity may have played a factor in reducing Laurie's role to that of a supporting character, which is a decision I'm not sure is a good one - the audience is barely given time to get to know her and her friends before the killings start, and for a film that takes so long getting to the main events, suddenly rushing through them only makes proceedings feel highly uneven.
And here, its possible to feel pity on Michael at times... you can understand why Danny Trejo's character feels a connection to him, even if he is ultimately betrayed by Meyers brutal urges. It also allows Zombie to explore scenes the original could not - most notably the seemingly peaceful confrontation between Meyers and Laurie Strode. Sadly, it has to be said, Scout Taylor-Compton is no match for the equally double barreled Jamie Lee-Curtis, and one can't help but wonder how she would've handled this material back in 1978. And Taylor-Compton's relative obscurity may have played a factor in reducing Laurie's role to that of a supporting character, which is a decision I'm not sure is a good one - the audience is barely given time to get to know her and her friends before the killings start, and for a film that takes so long getting to the main events, suddenly rushing through them only makes proceedings feel highly uneven.
But the biggest change is one which is perhaps entirely down to the period in which both films were made, yet can't help but reduce the new film down to the levels of a generic slasher - that is, the choice of victims. The original film is effectively a morality tale - the victims are all people who drink, smoke and have sex - and only the virginal Laurie Strode, the wholesome Dr Loomis, and the young children Laurie is babysitting can survive Meyers attacks. This element was admittedly present in most slasher films of the age, though Halloween was most certainly the inspiration for the vast majority, its origins go back even further - to Carpenter's main inspiration, Psycho.
In Zombie's film, this element is almost lost, yet still lingers on in dialogue. He keeps references to Laurie needing a boyfriend, and her friends getting up to no good, even so far as to pay an almost direct homage to the original post coital demise of Annie and her boyfriend... and the film's first human death is also dished out to someone who Zombie goes to great lengths to portray as wicked... yet with the deaths of the prison guards, Laurie's 'parents' and even Dr Loomis, he's effectively discarding the notion of Meyers as a gruesome moralistic boogeyman and turning him into a pure blooded psychopath. Indeed, the sequence prior to the childhood killing of his family features the young Meyers almost ritualistically playing with his trick or treat candy before casually preparing his instruments of murder.
In Zombie's film, this element is almost lost, yet still lingers on in dialogue. He keeps references to Laurie needing a boyfriend, and her friends getting up to no good, even so far as to pay an almost direct homage to the original post coital demise of Annie and her boyfriend... and the film's first human death is also dished out to someone who Zombie goes to great lengths to portray as wicked... yet with the deaths of the prison guards, Laurie's 'parents' and even Dr Loomis, he's effectively discarding the notion of Meyers as a gruesome moralistic boogeyman and turning him into a pure blooded psychopath. Indeed, the sequence prior to the childhood killing of his family features the young Meyers almost ritualistically playing with his trick or treat candy before casually preparing his instruments of murder.
It's almost as if Zombie felt compelled to make a new film that took the basic setting and the iconic villain, and made both look completely different, up to date and more realistic than they ever did before - yet at the same time felt the need to please the existing fanbase and pay homage to the original a tad too often. As a diehard horror movie buff, he knows his subject expertly, and the knowing cameos from Ken Foree, Bill Mosely, Udo Keir and Brad Dourif, plus the entire casting of Malcolm McDowell seem to be there entirely to please both himself and his fellow horror aficionados as much as the odd line or shot that knowingly reference Carpenter, or the use of the original score (which lets face it, few could ever topple)... but the need to appeal to mainstream audiences, and to provide a new take on things ultimately clashes with the fanboy urge, and the film never quite lives up to the sum of its parts as a result, though the sudden ending works far better than any genuine resolution ever could, and like the best horrors, leaves you with one last scare before the credits roll. Perhaps it would've been better to show Michael leaping back to life only to be suddenly dispatched in the same manner he eventually is, or even disappearing into the ether as with the original... but somehow Zombie's ending feels more "real" than either could ever do.
On the whole, it was an enjoyable piece of horror hokum - and audiences who have never seen Jamie Lee Curtis hiding in the closet armed only with a coathanger will adore it. Those going into it expecting to hate every second will find its flaws and rip it to shreds, and those who love the original and expect a carbon copy will also be disappointed. Yet, I can't help but think those who go into it with an open mind and no expectations whatsoever will reap its rewards in spite of its mistakes... and get to see a half decent horror thats vastly superior to the majority of recent remakes in the genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment