It's Not Zombie's Fault

I just watched Rob Zombie's Halloween last night for the second time. The first time I saw it was in the theaters last August, and last night I watched the "Unrated Director's Cut". There were a few differences and for the most part they're good ones. I hated the movie the first time I watched it. Upon my second viewing it got better.

One of the characteristics of this production that I latched onto was the cinematography. You might not think it's a big deal, but the way Zombie makes his films look is one of his best talents. The Devil's Rejects has a great atmosphere that's conveyed simply with the colors and tone of the film itself. RZ's Halloween cements this style and I really liked it. The blood is almost black, but you still know it's blood. The colors of Haddonfield really feel like Fall and the holiday of Halloween. The yellows and oranges and browns are a little muted and the contrast is increased. Everything looks a little grittier and dirtier, but without actually smudging props and people with grime. The action has a crisp look too.

Rob Zombie allows us to see what's happening...all the time...for better or for worse. Usually I don't think it's for worse, though. Michael Bay cuts his action set-pieces within inches of their lives, but Zombie, though he cuts plenty of times, lets you really get a feeling for the action that is occurring onscreen. You might not want to see what he's showing you, but it's there and he follows the rules so you don't get too disoriented.

I think the directing style Zombie employs is a powerful one. I think he's come a long way from House of 1,000 Corpses, (which I detested). I look forward to Tyrannosaurus Rex because Zombie's aesthetic is one that I enjoy seeing. He casts actors very well, (although at times I feel he's a bit indulgent on Sheri Moon Zombie). They aren't always pretty, but everyone in his movies has character just from existing. The casts in RZ's Halloween and Rejects are perfect. They exist in hellish worlds and it shows in their visage. But they are also good actors. I don't feel that any Rob Zombie movies ever suffered from hack acting.

The beginning of RZ's Halloween is good. I enjoyed it. I liked it a lot more the second time around - apart from the whole "Love Hurts" montage - and I felt that the atmosphere of Michael's childhood was perfectly/horrifically portrayed. Rob Zombie has a vision for the type of redneck civilization that exists within the walls of white trash homes, and he put it directly onscreen with brilliant aplomb. (That may sound like undeserved praise, but try to forget that he was simply remaking one of the greatest horror movies of all time and you'll see some quality film making in there!) The second half of the film becomes rote and it's almost as if Zombie thought that he was doing the first half as a short of prequel, and the latter half as homage to make up for it. It comes off as a faster-paced version of the original. Sure there's added blood and breasts, but there's no real touch of originality like in the first half. I usually am the first to say that more blood and more breasts make bad horror movies watchable, but in this case, if I could've traded blood and boobs for a better third act, I would've.

There's really not much to say about the second half of the movie. It plays just like a sped-up version of the original until the final confrontation between Laurie and Michael, which, I've gotta say, I didn't enjoy that much. There's no suspense. The Devil's Rejects scared me. This movie isn't scary. As soon as Michael dons the mask as an adult, I was done being scared. At least there's some element of the unknown in the scenes inside the asylum. Which brings me to what I enjoyed most about this Unrated version: the changes from the theatrical release.

The altered scenes consist of some added faux 8mm film of Michael's early years in the asylum and a different version of Michael's escape from the asylum. The 8mm stuff I could've done without. I didn't need more of Loomis' musings on why Michael is such an amoral killer. I much more enjoyed the interactions between him and the young Michael during the tape-recorded sessions. I didn't think that even more analysis added much. It certainly didn't make me fear the character of Michael Meyers any more.

The changed escape from the asylum was a move in the right direction...if you can call the addition of a brutal rape a positive thing. In the theatrical version, Michael escapes by killing a couple guards while being moved to a different location. In the Director's Cut version, Michael escapes because a couple of security guards decide to rape a new female inmate in Michael's cell. The rape itself is brutal and graphic. It reminded me of the graphic way the rapes in Day of the Woman were shown. I appreciate that reluctance to shy away from shows of brutality. Anyway, Michael finally becomes perturbed by the presence of the guards because they play with some of his masks while raping the woman and that sets Michael off.

I have to say that my time was not wasted in watching this movie again. I'm still not completely convinced that it needs to exist, but it's got its moments of greatness, and it leaves me wanting some more original material from Rob Zombie. This movie isn't Zombie's fault because I think he just felt hemmed in by the source material. A couple more movies like The Devil's Rejects, and I can completely forget that Halloween or House of 1,000 Corpses ever existed. So give Zombie a chance next August when Tyrannosaurus Rex comes out. He apparently works best with his own material, and he's got the directing chops to make great movies.