Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > August > 31 > Entry
Saying boo to ‘Halloween’
Watching Rob Zombie’s Halloween felt like watching Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho - except it was the bad part of Psycho.
That otherwise brilliant 1960 classic concluded with a clumsy, labored scene in which a psychologist tries to explain the demented mind of Norman Bates. Crossing every t and dotting every i, the dialogue diminished the mystery of Bates by explaining him in dull, explicit detail that even the dimmest member of the audience could understand.
Zombie’s version of John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 chiller makes the same mistake, only at an even grosser level, in every sense of the word. But it’s not the added graphic violence that sinks the new film, as I had feared.
What made Michael Myers so effective in Carpenter’s movie was that he was this unknowable, unstoppable force. We knew very little about his character except that he was a ruthless, silent killing machine that had this unnerving tendency not to stay down for the count. Information about his past was kept at a minimum, and wisely so. That made him terrifying.
Zombie, who also wrote the screenplay, keeps the basic structure of the 1978 movie but spends an inordinate amount of time trying to show what made Michael Myers such a loony. I neither wanted nor needed to know what made him tick.
But no, we get to find out his mama was a stripper, his older sister was a whore, and his stepdaddy was a southern hick drunk with a pickup truck. Well, OK, maybe there was no pickup truck, but you get the idea. Michael Myers’ life suddenly became like a bad country song, with a dash of speed metal thrown in.
When the adult Michael goes on his killing spree, the film becomes a mixed bag. I liked Malcolm McDowell’s slightly unhinged intensity as Dr. Loomis, the only person who truly understands the depth of Michael’s evil. Unfortunately, Michael’s new target Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) is cute but spineless and dull - a far cry from Jamie Lee Curtis.
To give Zombie due credit, as a director, he is technically skilled. I had worried he would undermine the strength of the original film, eschewing Carpenter’s masterful suspense for a lot of blood and guts. However, many of the murders, especially toward the end, are well staged and intense. Even the extra gore didn’t bother me.
Unfortunately, by the time Michael started killing everything that moves, I had lost interest because of the ham-handed origin story. Even people unfortunate enough never to have seen the 1978 film might find the new movie’s backstory to be over the top.
In this Halloween, Michael Myers suffers a new indignity. He is reduced from being the boogeyman to a dime-a-dozen psychopath worthy of an E! True Hollywood Story. That’s not scary. That’s just sad.
GRADE: C-
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Reviews
Comments
By Allie D.
August 31, 2007 5:56 PM | Link to this
I also wanted to comment on what SRC said… It reminds me of what they did when they re-released The Exorcist with that extra bit tacked on at the end. It was, to say the least, anti-climactic. I need to break out my copy of Psycho. I haven’t seen it for several years, and I for some reason don’t recall a psychiatrist speaking. Only Norman’s internal “mother” monologue. “They’ll look at me and think ‘oh she wouldn’t even hurt a fly.’” I thought that part was effectiveBy Allie D.
August 31, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
Eric — it appears we have written basically the same review. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. I just went a letter grade lower. The technical skill was not enough to salvage my offense at the screwed up storyline. lol And the thing is, I understand that he was trying to make his “own” version of this character, but WHY? He didn’t even keep the same timeline. This kid was older when he started killing. The boy who murdered his sister in the ‘78 film was six years old and by all appearances had a normal family. This made him even more terrifying. How typical and unoriginal can you get when you make it that he came from an abusive family, not to mention a stereotypically abusive one? Jeez…By SRCputt
August 31, 2007 10:37 AM | Link to this
The problem in Psycho isn’t the content of the explanation, it is the length of the explanation. It isn’t dramatic, and after all of the drama of the rest of the brilliant film, it is a letdown.By Sir Critic
August 31, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Oh, make no mistake, D. Greene, “Psycho” is indisputably great, and I’ve noticed the change in the face before. However, I still think Simon Oakland’s monologue is thuddingly obvious to the point of distraction. The scene sticks out like a sore thumb. If Hitch or writer Joe Stefano were making a commentary, it wasn’t very well stated. Cutting from Bates’ capture, with a brief transitional explanation, to the final speech by mother would have been more effective.By D. Greene
August 31, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
Aside from the absurd premise, why do you have to be hatin on Psycho? I always have felt that the psychiatrist’s explanation only scratched the surface of Norman Bates. Certainly, Hitchcock was very interested in psychology, but I always saw that scene as something of a commentary on science’s limited understanding of the human psyche. I mean just watch the ending (let’s try not in English so you don’t have to worry about your visceral reaction). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iAa4Ayyl-Q The scene is brilliant. I’m sure you’ve seen this, but at about 1:07 into that clip, look at Bates’ face carefully. The visuals contradict the commentary of the psychiatrist.