Rob Zombie's Halloween films
(This was written based off the Directors cut editions and contains spoilers)
Rob Zombie’s Halloween films are anything but controversial. The original 1978 film is rightfully an iconic classic that has ascended to become one of the most popular horror films of all time; so taking such a beloved film and taking such a radical approach to it was always going to stir some people the wrong way. When viewing these films you have to both be prepared for a very different take on the Myers story and also have an enjoyment for Zombie’s often brutal and grimy exploitation style. Luckily, I have both of those things and these Halloween films have become some of my favourite horror films - especially the sequel - of the last few decades. There were many remakes that came out in the 2000s; Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, The Hills Have Eyes etc. But none of them attempted to create anything more than a general rehash, whereas Rob Zombie’s Halloween felt like a genuine deconstruction of a franchise that was often considered to be vastly past its sell by date.
Many horror fans rebuke the idea of giving Michael Myers a backstory; or a reasoning for his bloodlust, however, I enjoyed this concept more than the original. I never really bought into the whole motiveless, supernatural entity that one day just switched into a killer. It felt sort of half-baked and many of the scenes in the original (i.e. Judith’s grave placed on the bed, Myer’s spying on the school, etc.) felt like they had glimmers of an underbelly that was just never explained - perhaps due to budget issues, or they just didn’t make it into the script. Regardless of Carpenter and Hill’s original intentions, their concept works for a single film, but for a whole franchise it can get a bit tiresome. Part of this is why I really didn’t like the latest instalment in David Gordon Green’s trilogy (but that is a totally different beast to tackle).
In Zombie’s Halloween, Michael’s origin story isn’t anything out of the ordinary and is a fairly standard tale of a child from a broken home, who is constantly dehumanised by everyone around him - except his mother. Not everything is explained though, for example, there is ambiguity around what happened to his real father and to what extent his mother’s current boyfriend is abusing him and his family. These are questions that do not need answers as Zombie gives us enough to chew on, but definitely lingered on my mind when rewatching.
Rob Zombie’s Halloween films are anything but controversial. The original 1978 film is rightfully an iconic classic that has ascended to become one of the most popular horror films of all time; so taking such a beloved film and taking such a radical approach to it was always going to stir some people the wrong way. When viewing these films you have to both be prepared for a very different take on the Myers story and also have an enjoyment for Zombie’s often brutal and grimy exploitation style. Luckily, I have both of those things and these Halloween films have become some of my favourite horror films - especially the sequel - of the last few decades. There were many remakes that came out in the 2000s; Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, The Hills Have Eyes etc. But none of them attempted to create anything more than a general rehash, whereas Rob Zombie’s Halloween felt like a genuine deconstruction of a franchise that was often considered to be vastly past its sell by date.
Many horror fans rebuke the idea of giving Michael Myers a backstory; or a reasoning for his bloodlust, however, I enjoyed this concept more than the original. I never really bought into the whole motiveless, supernatural entity that one day just switched into a killer. It felt sort of half-baked and many of the scenes in the original (i.e. Judith’s grave placed on the bed, Myer’s spying on the school, etc.) felt like they had glimmers of an underbelly that was just never explained - perhaps due to budget issues, or they just didn’t make it into the script. Regardless of Carpenter and Hill’s original intentions, their concept works for a single film, but for a whole franchise it can get a bit tiresome. Part of this is why I really didn’t like the latest instalment in David Gordon Green’s trilogy (but that is a totally different beast to tackle).
In Zombie’s Halloween, Michael’s origin story isn’t anything out of the ordinary and is a fairly standard tale of a child from a broken home, who is constantly dehumanised by everyone around him - except his mother. Not everything is explained though, for example, there is ambiguity around what happened to his real father and to what extent his mother’s current boyfriend is abusing him and his family. These are questions that do not need answers as Zombie gives us enough to chew on, but definitely lingered on my mind when rewatching.
Surprising to noone is how Rob Zombie’s version of Halloween is less focused on the slow, dread-building atmosphere of the original (although that isn’t to say it isn’t very creepy at times). What we get instead is an incredible scale of viscerality. The sound design in both of these films is absolutely incredible. I am not sure if it is partly because of Zombie’s background as a musician, but every sound effect in the film hits like an absolute ton of bricks. Combined with the shaky, guerrilla style handheld footage, the film has such a chaotic weight to it. Every time Myers smashes through a door, or pounds somebody into a wall or when he is smashing the ceiling looking for Laurie, you feel all of it right down into your bones. Bloodcurdling screams of Annie and Laurie as they try to escape the ultimate doom bringer can send literally shivers down your spine.
Visually, the first film looks beautiful, but part two is simply stunning. Transitioning Haddonfield from an idyllic, nice town into a bleak and drab shell reflects the characters' mental states who still reside in the town. The grainy 16mm elevates the sad atmosphere and the shots of Michael roaming the wild feel like they have just come out of some deranged John Ford film. One thing I really love is the use of moonlight in this film, the way it illuminates Michael as he kills or Laurie as she runs through the woods is tragically beautiful.
What is particularly noticeable in these two films is just how downbeat and sombre they both are. Tyler Mane is able to use only his eyes to portray a deep, deep sadness in Michael that I am not sure has ever been as present. Watching Michael linger around Haddonfield or cross the countryside feels so lonely and the shots of him staring into the distance, or at a billboard, or a potential victim all have this sharp feeling of sorrow. Zombie brings these feelings to every death across the two films. Never has a horror film felt this emotionally impactful.
Often in slasher films, including all of the Halloween sequels, the kills are designed for popcorn thrills. Things that are supposed to be fun or enjoyable and at the very most, a bit gross. Not in this film. Every single kill is absolutely brutal. Not only due to the graphic content but the way that Michael stares into the souls of his victims; the way that Zombie frames the bodies, the limbs that flail. He rarely cuts away from the horrendous images on screen which is something rare to see these days.
Zombie creates a dichotomy in which you feel deep empathy for the victims but also in some ways for Michael too; as we have seen how he was nurtured into becoming such a way. Not that the film ever tries to justify or sympathise with murder, it is just that everything that happens in these films feel like a terrible tragedy. These kills can become somewhat overwhelming at times, culminating in the death of Annie in part two, which is truly one of the most heartbreaking moments in any horror film, ever. The cross cutting between Laurie finding her and the murder taking place is so well done and Brad Douriff (easily one of the most underrated actors ever) gives an unbelievably raw performance that just makes your stomach drop every time.
Another thing that Zombie changed in these films is Loomis. He paints Loomis, not as the bad guy, but as a force working against Michael’s rehabilitation. Someone who isn’t even that good at his job - he keeps saying he failed Michael and that he doesn’t understand him, but how much did he actually try? And how much of it was material needed for his books?
There is a terrifically composed shot where Loomis is giving a speech about Michael and his face is on the screen behind him, enlarged. Highlighting the power that Michael has over Loomis, even when they are not bonded by patient/psychologist relations. This villainous persona is heightened when he releases another book in part two, that looks to further profit of the tragic events of the first film.
What is fascinating is how the characters around Loomis react to his greed and infamy. The scene where he is signing the books is great on two levels: one is the father reacting so violently to Loomis shows how traumatised these people are (something that Halloween Kills could never achieve) but also the person who proclaims that Myers is greater than Dahmer, Bundy, etc., feels like a small look into how people view horror legends as mythical figure.
In many ways both of these films feel like Zombie is tearing apart not only the Halloween franchise, but slashers in general. However, this is most noticeable in part two. A film that right from the get-go has our characters barely recovering from the first one. Most average horror sequels have their protagonists powering through seemingly unscathed, ready to fight whatever comes next. Zombie takes a radically different approach, deconstructing the typical “final girl” stereotype into something far more realistic and natural. Laurie is seeing a therapist, she has horrible nightmares, she lashes out uncontrollably. All things that would obviously happen to any 18 (or around that) year-old girl who has suffered such traumatic events that she did. Scout-Taylor Compton excels at portraying a totally broken Laurie Strode who is only slipping further and further into darkness.
Zombie gets to flex his abstract weirdness in part two; chucking in hallucinogenic visuals, dream sequences and visions of dead family members. It feels borderline Lynchian at times (many people have compared this to Fire Walk With Me and I would totally agree with that). While the first film focuses on nature vs nurture and takes a dive into how an innocent child can become such a broken and inhumane killer, the second one focuses much more on the grief and trauma that comes out of tragic events. Also the second one looks closer at the meaning of family (the tag line is literally ‘Family is forever’) and the concept of evil being passed down through hereditary means. In the end of the director's cut of the film, Laurie picks up Michael’s knife and goes to stab Loomis, perhaps signifying the transition of being a killer from Michael to her. There is a very deep ambiguity to everything we see; especially due to how much studio meddling there was.
With how many horror films are using the idea of trauma and grief to form the basis of their plots in modern times, it is surprising that Rob Zombie’s Halloween 2 hasn’t been held as a golden standard. It is cynical of me to say but if the dialogue were a little different and A24 released this, I think it would be considered a great film by a much wider audience. In both films Rob Zombie doubled down on portraying his own version of The Shape, Haddonfield, Laurie Strode and the rest of the characters. Not wavering to hate cast by dedicated fans. Basically saying, “This is my Halloween and if you don’t like, fuck off”. Hopefully one day, these films - along with the rest of his filmography - get a reappraisal and he becomes known as the master horror director that he really is.
