147 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I will say that the appearance of the Myers character that we see in the picture above wouldn't be my first choice as to how the character looks (I wish the mask was brighter in color to keep in line with the rest of the masks), but the appearance of the mask does make a great deal of sense considering how the remake ended.

I know that there's a lot of debate as to the merit of the direction Zombie is taking the franchise, and I'll admit that, even though I think that the teaser trailer looks quite good, that I've got some concerns over where things are headed. But, with that said, I'm just glad to see that someone's shaking the franchise up in a big way, and actually taking some chances with the way the story is told rather than having it be another "Michael stalks Laurie, appears to meet his demise, and then amazingly pops up again for another sequel" storyline.

[tdalton]

The final poster for HALLOWEEN II (as it's now, unfortunately, officially titled) has been released.

Final Poster for Rob Zombie's Halloween II

While I think that the film itself looks like it will be good, this poster (just like the poster for the remake) is terrible.

[Loomis]

I actually think HALLOWEEN II is the best title for this film (although it's rather bizarre to consider that, after August, if someone asks you whether you've seen HALLOWEEN II you'll have to reply "Which one?"). Way better than the poncey, irritatingly meaningless and trendy H2.

[tdalton]

I actually think HALLOWEEN II is the best title for this film (although it's rather bizarre to consider that, after August, if someone asks you whether you've seen HALLOWEEN II you'll have to reply "Which one?"). Way better than the poncey, irritatingly meaningless and trendy H2.

I was hoping that they would have chosen Zombie's preferred title "HALLOWEEN: THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US" or just "THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US". Either of those is a better title than re-using HALLOWEEN II. I will agree, however, that HALLOWEEN II is better than H2. Or, they could have named it ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN II, which is what I would guess most people refer to it as anyway, just as the remake was widely known as ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN.

Also, the final trailer for the film has been released. It definitely looks as though this film is going to be completely different from anything we've seen before in the franchise. While looking at the trailer, I could understand why a great number of people would be turned off by it (and I'm even a bit curious about how it's going to turn out, as I see it being absolutely brilliant or an absolute disaster), one thing that can be said for it is that it's not going to be another cookie-cutter remake/sequel or even just another cookie-cutter horror film that virtually every other new horror film in the last ten years or so has been.

[tdalton]

Well, apparently the beating that HALLOWEEN II took at the box office by the 3D film THE FINAL DESTINATION has prompted The Weinstein Company to already declare that the next installment of the HALLOWEEN franchise will be in 3D.

Halloween 3D Coming in Summer 2010



Just when they finally got things turned around for this franchise with the remake of the first film (I haven't yet seen HALLOWEEN II, so I can't comment on whether things are still on track or not, but anyway), they have to go and do this. Why not just let the franchise fade into movie history as opposed to dragging it into the realm of 3D.

Also, according to the article, Rob Zombie is not returning for the third film.

[DamnCoffee]

I haven't yet seen HALLOWEEN II, so I can't comment on whether things are still on track or not...

It's been leaked online. It's horrible, really. Probably one of the worst horror movies I have EVER seen in my life. I watched around 20 minutes of it and turned it straight off.

As for the Halloween 3D, I won't even bother!

[Safari Suit]

I'm kind of surprised they're planning on a "third" (i.e. eleventh) Halloween film now at all to be honest. I've heard Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 is actually pretty close to Rick Rosenthal's Halloween II, so do you reckon Halloween 3-D will actually be a 3-D version of Season of the Witch? Unlikely, but that might be fun.

[tdalton]

I haven't yet seen HALLOWEEN II, so I can't comment on whether things are still on track or not...

It's been leaked online. It's horrible, really. Probably one of the worst horror movies I have EVER seen in my life. I watched around 20 minutes of it and turned it straight off.

As for the Halloween 3D, I won't even bother!

I'm still planning on making it one of my two theatrical outings this year (I still regret not seeing the remake in theaters), but I will be skipping this 3D film.

I've heard Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 is actually pretty close to Rick Rosenthal's Halloween II

Just curious, but in what way is it similar to the first HALLOWEEN II? From what I've seen of it, it looks radically different from that film (supposedly the hospital sequences featured in the teaser trailer for the film are fairly minimal and only make up a very short period of time at the beginning of the film).

[DamnCoffee]

The hospital sequence was alright. But...

Spoiler

It's a dream.

I still regret not seeing the remake in theaters

Oh, we're in exactly the same boat. I caught the remake on SKY MOVIES over at Mrs Mharkin's, I loved it, well... right up until the ending. They made the girl out to be utterly stupid! I still to this day cannot believe that she ran BACK into the house, where there was a clear path from the front door, to the police. Michael was busy poking the eyes out of the english dude, she doesn't bother running to safety, instead she runs DEEPER into the house.

[tdalton]

I still to this day cannot believe that she ran BACK into the house, where there was a clear path from the front door, to the police men. Michael was busy poking the eyes out of the english dude, she looks at him then runs DEEPER into the house!

I wasn't too bothered by it. I just chalked it up to her being scared to the point that running in the complete opposite direction of Myers seemed like a good idea. I also don't think that the actual police were anywhere near the scene at the time (Loomis drove a squad car there, but he was the only one on the scene if I remember correctly), so there really wasn't anyone there to help her if she took off down the street.

Either way, though, I don't think that it's the worst move ever made by a character in a horror film.

[Safari Suit]

I haven't seen Halloween II.2 so I had to look it up. It seems that the people who claimed it was following the plot of the original were mistaken, and were confused by the red herring Mharkin indentified above. I think H2 shares the fraternal theme with the original but it seems as if that is about it. Still these new films seem to be constructing a vaguely similar chain of events to the original series.

[tdalton]

Still these new films seem to be constructing a vaguely similar chain of events to the original series.

Agreed, although I'd say that it's more of the studio's doing rather than anyone actually creatively involved with the new films. Obviously the first film would be following the same chain of events, being a remake and all, but with the second film, I truly take Rob Zombie at his word when he said that his Halloween story concludes in HALLOWEEN II (a horrible, horrible title for the film, but anyway). With that in mind, it does appear (minus the unrelated third film) that they're following a similar chain of events, seeing as how we're probably going to be treated to Myers making some nonsensical return to life after whatever transpires at the end of this new film, much like his nonsensical return after being engulfed in flames at the end of the original HALLOWEEN II.

[DamnCoffee]

Well, I finally got the courage to pick up where I left off and watched the rest of the movie. Horrible. I'd even go as far to say, the first 20 minutes are the best. That isn't saying much.

The ending completely rips off Psycho!

Spoiler

After Brackett stabs Myers several times in the chest, supposedly killing him. (Oh, how I HATE these invincible serial killers), she walks out of the house, actually wearing Myers' mask. She kneels down on the floor and takes it off. The scene fades, Annie Brackett is now in a mental institution, it's a really long white room, nothing but a bed and two cabinets (I think), she's battered and bruised. THEN she looks up at the camera, completely ripping off the end shot in Psycho. THEN the camera shows Deborah Myers walking towards her with a HORSE of all things! We cut back to the Psycho rip-off-shot and the scene fades out and the credits roll.

Insulting movie.

[Safari Suit]

That was probably intended as a "homage".

[DamnCoffee]

Well it was a bloody obvious homage.

Seriously though, a good homage for me is something subtle. For example, Brosnan stealing a grape in Die Another Day is clearly an homage to Thunderball, but not obvious.

In this however, it's the exact same shot, same facial expression, everything.

[tdalton]

Maybe there's some good news on the HALLOWEEN 3D front. MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D director Patrick Lussier is in talks to direct the next Halloween film.


Patrick Lussier in Talks for Halloween 3D


I thoroughly enjoyed MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D, so perhaps he can make HALLOWEEN 3D into a worthwhile venture as well.

[Loomis]

So I watched Zombie's HALLOWEEN II - the theatrical version as opposed to the director's cut (which I don't think is available in Britain). I understand that the director's cut is very different, and I suspect it's also rather better.

HALLOWEEN II is a strange, messy movie - messy both figuratively and literally. For the most part, it plays like an attempt at drama rather than horror - it's a pretty talky affair with relatively little carnage. Make no mistake, though - the gore, when it comes, is very OTT and often genuinely nasty. I mean, I like me my Michael Myers, but HALLOWEEN II's opening scenes dwell on blood and pain and suffering to an extent that made me feel sick and almost caused me to switch the thing off. I have an extremely high tolerance for explicit violence in cinema, so this is a very rare reaction for me. Not so long ago, the British Board of Film Classification would have banned HALLOWEEN II outright. However, a curious sense of fanboy duty trumped my queasiness and kept me watching.

I admire Zombie's HALLOWEEN, but II fails to match it, despite an enjoyable Malcolm McDowell performance and the occasional flash of visual flair. Bizarrely, Zombie has eschewed the 2.35:1 aspect ratio for this sequel (as well as - until the closing credits, at least - Carpenter's iconic theme music), so it's not even of a piece with its predecessor in terms of look and feel.

Like I say, Zombie seems to have been mostly going for drama here. With zero - and I do mean zero - scares, and precious little suspense, HALLOWEEN II fails utterly as horror (gory slasher antics alone do not a horror flick make). Zombie appears to have intended this movie as the story of Laurie Strode's psychological degradation (and, if you like, a sort of bridging film between his or Carpenter's HALLOWEEN and HALLOWEEN H20), with a subplot about Loomis' journey of redemption from sellout to saviour. The chief problem, though, is that Laurie is as crazy as a loon from the get-go - while she was presumably intended to have a character arc, the film as is basically shows her journey from A to A.

Moreover, Scout Taylor-Compton has acting ability and a certain amount of charm but has little to work with - her Laurie (here unrecognisable as the same role played by Jamie Lee Curtis) does nothing apart from scream and spew the "f" word. An engaging heroine she is not. As usual, McDowell is fun to watch, but we simply don't give a damn about Loomis until the final five minutes, at which point it's all too little too late and in any case all we get is the same old completely unsurprising HALLOWEEN sequel ending. Are they ever going to end any of these pictures in any other way?

All of which said, HALLOWEEN II does have its moments, but then I say that as a fan of the franchise. Us HALLOWEEN fans will, have and do put up with any old crap in the name of The Shape. Don't ask us why.

Although I think I know why. In most of the HALLOWEEN sequels, one can detect at least the attempt at something new and interesting. Granted, the attempt is usually buried under a whole heap of hooey, but, still, it's there. HALLOWEEN fans tend to savour those glimmers, those little moments. Zombie's HALLOWEEN II is, I think, the new CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS. It's basically dire, but, still, there's the sense of - well, something - going on underneath all the dross.

[DamnCoffee]

I agree with you. Halloween 2 is terrible. I'm really interested to see the directors cut, just if it's an improvement. Let's hope it gets a relase in England.

[tdalton]

One thing that I will say is that, having viewed the theatrical ending, that the Director's Cut ending is vastly superior. We're talking a completely different outcome, and one that is much, much better, and it's obvious that the ending of the theatrical cut came about from the studio wanting to set up some form of sequel. I think that the endings also change the overall quality of the film as well. With the ending of the Director's Cut, the quality of the film is greatly improved, mainly due to it being a near perfect ending for the story from both films, as well as the amount of dramatic weight that it carries in terms of one particular actor's performance (who I won't name to keep from giving anything away).


Not having seen the entirety of the theatrical cut, I can't comment on it, but I thought that the Director's Cut was quite good. Flawed yes, and rather heavily so, but easily one of the better Halloween films.

[Loomis]

I agree with you. Halloween 2 is terrible. I'm really interested to see the directors cut, just if it's an improvement. Let's hope it gets a relase in England.

I'm not sure we agree entirely on HALLOWEEN II, insofar as - while I'd certainly concede that it is indeed terrible (objectively speaking) - I did enjoy the film. It held my attention, and believe me few films do. I don't see it as a guilty pleasure so much as an interesting failure.

Another big problem with HALLOWEEN II is that Michael simply isn't scary. In fact, he almost comes across as the victim of the piece. Thanks to Zombie's questionable but undeniably ballsy device of injecting a much stronger supernatural element than usual for the series (or maybe they're just supposed to be Michael's demented visions), he actually has to suffer his mother following him around for the whole of the movie, telling him what to do! Not only that, but Loomis is taking the shirt off his back with his moneygrubbing bestseller. Old Mikey just can't catch a break in this one. He can't even cross a field in the middle of nowhere in the dead of night without being harassed by a bunch of rednecks. You feel sorry for the poor sod. Although, again, I guess all this makes an interesting change from the norm.

I'd like to see the director's cut.

[tdalton]

Thanks to Zombie's questionable but undeniably ballsy device of injecting a much stronger supernatural element than usual for the series (or maybe they're just supposed to be Michael's demented visions), he actually has to suffer his mother following him around for the whole of the movie, telling him what to do!

I think that they're just meant to be his visions. That's what I took from it from watching the Director's Cut, but maybe things were different in the Theatrical Cut.

I think that if you got any enjoyment out of the Theatrical Cut at all, which you seem to have, then you'll like the Director's Cut much more. Unlike Zombie's cut of HALLOWEEN, this Director's Cut is a vast improvement.

[Loomis]

Thanks to Zombie's questionable but undeniably ballsy device of injecting a much stronger supernatural element than usual for the series (or maybe they're just supposed to be Michael's demented visions), he actually has to suffer his mother following him around for the whole of the movie, telling him what to do!

I think that they're just meant to be his visions.

Well, don't forget that Laurie sees them too. Or perhaps it's some kind of sibling telepathy thing going on. In any case, you could certainly argue that the HALLOWEEN series is fundamentally supernatural (I mean, Michael can never die), so I guess it's all good.

Wasn't sure who those weird creatures at the dinner table were supposed to be, though, but they were creepy all right.

[tdalton]

Thanks to Zombie's questionable but undeniably ballsy device of injecting a much stronger supernatural element than usual for the series (or maybe they're just supposed to be Michael's demented visions), he actually has to suffer his mother following him around for the whole of the movie, telling him what to do!

I think that they're just meant to be his visions.

Well, don't forget that Laurie sees them too. Or perhaps it's some kind of sibling telepathy thing going on. In any case, you could certainly argue that the HALLOWEEN series is fundamentally supernatural (I mean, Michael can never die), so I guess it's all good.

Wasn't sure who those weird creatures at the dinner table were supposed to be, though, but they were creepy all right.

I think that it's partly a "telepathy" type thing (although I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to use "telepathy" as a word), although I'd tend to side more on the side that they both share a similar mental illness, seeing as they're related, and the visions are a part of that. Obviously, in Michael's case, the illness manifests itself much more violently and much more visibly than it does with Laurie, but it's there for both of them.

I think the creatures at the dinner table were just kind of a hallucination/vision that Laurie was having as she began to descend into madness. As you said a few posts ago, she was pretty much gone mentally for the entire film, but that's about the time that things really started to go bad for her.

I will say, though, that I'm not entirely sure if these things are presented the same way in the theatrical and director's cuts, so it could be that they were presented in entirely different ways. These are just my views on it based on the director's cut of the film.

[Safari Suit]

I also just saw Halloween II.2, also in its theatrical cut which seems to be the only one in the UK at the moment, and I was pleasantly surprised. Not that I think it's entirely successful, but I felt it failed somewhat on one level but succeeded on a more important if not particularly impressive level.

As a demonstration of what marketing deemed "Rob Zombie's extreme vision" it isn't particularly convincing. He seems to think tedious routines about necrophilia are still shocking enough to merit an "aren't you appalled?" zoom-in on a paramedic's mouth, but everyone knows you're going to get something like that with a Zombie movie by now. It would actually be more shocking if they were talking about their collection of teddy bears or something. His range of tropes proves tiresomely small elsewhere; he's obviously very keen on turning teenage girls into version of himself who constantly say stuff like "are we in ready -suckers?" and ritualistically listen to MC5 and keep posters of Charles Manson on their wall even though their parents were killed by a serial killer less than a year ago. Maybe I was imagining it, but it also seemed to me that he was making Taylor-Compton up to look like him at times too. Creepy. He also still seems unable to light night-time scenes to satisfaction, and has a habit of cutting away at misjudged points. I also groaned (mentally) at the scene which cut between some Myers carnage and nightclub dancing; most directors leave that kind of stuff behind after film school.

Despite all that, he generally does a solid, occasionally even impressive job. One critic said that this film saw "Zombie discovering beauty"; I think "beauty" is going a bit too far but this is leagues ahead of his other films visually, which all suggested he hadn't seen any films outside of the first Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As pretentious and slightly risible as they are, the "visions" do add a certain diversity to the film's palette that the previous film lacked.

So as a film making a case for Zombie as a genuine horror auteur it isn't entirely successful, but he wasn't hired to prove he was a genius, he was hired to make the ninth film to date "starring" Michael Myers. On that level I found it satisfyingly efficient. Sentimental attachments and stylistic preferences aside, I didn't find this any worse than any of the films that have followed in the wake of Carpenter's 1978 original, and it's notably superior to more than one of them. Of course, to succeed as a non-Carpenter Halloween film isn't the hardest thing in the world, but hey, that is what I rented it for. The novel elements added this time out are pulled off better than, say, the Thorn Cult concept was. Myers himself is intimidating and impressively brutal. The violent scenes are certainly harsh if not actually frightening. The protagonist is more interesting and sympathetic than usual. Loomis is entertaining as usual, if almost unrecognisable from Pleasance's original characterisation and even the character from Zombie's first film. I do think there are some decent suspense scenes, especially Laurie's escape from the hospital early on.

There are some decent black comedy touches. Even though he almost seems guilty of it himself with the Manson poster, there's an amusing criticism of the "cult of serial killers", perhaps even extending to fictional ones like Myers and by extension the film's own viewers. And Weird Al's cameo is actually fairly inspired. It was about time someone acknowledged the Michael/Mike Myers thing.

I preferred this to Zombie's first movie. I suppose that had a better script, but to me it felt like Zombie retreading old ground too much in the (mostly enjoyable) first half, and then almost Van-Santing Carpenter's original in the (fairly dull) second. Both are certainly greatly superior to the dire likes of the Chainsaw and Friday the 13th remakes.

Overall I think this is a worthwhile rental for genre fans, and a good purchase for serious fans of the series. I found it an entertaining timepasser, and I'm sure I would have loved it when I was about 17.

Though I was a bit confused by the bit where

Spoiler

Laurie is shocked to discover she's Michael's sister. Didn't she find that out in Zombie's first? And would Loomis be able to have put all that in his book without her being contacted?

[Loomis]

I didn't care for the fact that all the hospital stuff

Spoiler

turns out to be a dream

. This turns the first twenty minutes into dead weight that could have been dropped entirely.

And - while I have no doubt that it did in fact cost tens of millions - Zombie's second HALLOWEEN looks a far, far cheaper affair than his first. It all looks incredibly dingy and bargain basement.

I'm also curious to know why he ditched the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Not that I mind (indeed, I actually prefer to watch non-"widescreen" films), but it seems a curious decision.

[Safari Suit]

According to IMDB (yes, yes we know) it was cheaper than the "first"; $15million down from $20million. Both are pretty low budget for major releases these days.

[tdalton]

Though I was a bit confused by the bit where

Spoiler

Laurie is shocked to discover she's Michael's sister. Didn't she find that out in Zombie's first? And would Loomis be able to have put all that in his book without her being contacted?

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that enjoyed this film. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one, as everywhere I look it's getting trashed. I will say, though, that if the Director's Cut becomes available, you should check it out. Only taking into account the endings of the two films (I've only seen the Theatrical Ending, not the entire cut), the Director's Cut is much more satisfying with the ending that Zombie originally wanted versus the studio interfered ending of the Theatrical. It really makes the film (or I would imagine, assuming that the rest of the Theatrical Cut survives mostly intact in the Director's Cut) a much more satisfying experience.

I'll put my response in spoiler tags since you put yours in them and I don't want to spoil anything for anyone else.

Spoiler

To the best of my knowledge, she didn't find out in the remake. Loomis and Brackett discuss it in Brackett's office when Loomis first shows up in Haddonfield to help, but outside of that, the closest that Laurie gets to finding out is when Michael hands her the picture of the two of them, but she doesn't know that she's the baby in the picture.

[Safari Suit]

Ah, I see, thanks. I've only seen the previous film once about a year and a half ago so I don't remember it all that vividly.

I will check out the director's cut one day if I get a chance. I liked the film enough to be interested in seeing another version, though not enough to go through all the malarkey (and at this point in time, expense) of importing one.