If Zombie had done something like "High Tension" and made Laurie the killer all along in the sequel I think I would've liked it better. And her shadow shelf takes on the guise of Michael. I think that would've been a worthy sequel. Back to the first film, I liked the attempts to humanize Michael. I think they showed he came from an abusive home-at least verbally abusive, and he anger issues, and took out his frustration or rage on animals, which could be some indicators of possible antisocial personality disorder. I think there was more behind his killing his family than boredom. They seemed to be holding him back, restraining him, insulting him, abusing him, and he just got tired of that. He let go, and he did it in a very violent way. I think his violence was about taking control, trying to assert power over his own life, and other the lives of others. I think he wanted people to fear him. For me, I just never got the indestructible, evil incarnate Michael from the old films. At least with the other icons of that era, Freddie, Chucky, Pinhead, and Jason, there was some supernatural explanation to explain why they kept coming back again and again. But with Michael? He's just too evil to die? That didn't work for me. Though I did enjoy Donald Pleasance's pontificating about it. He really knew how to build up to an epic confrontation, something McDowell's Loomis unfortunately didn't do.
No sense at all. She'd have to imagine she was Michael imagining his mother, whom she's never met. She doesn't even find out she's his sister until the last third of the movie. But speaking of the end, in that last shot of Laurie grinning at the camera, do you think Zombie was paying homage to Psycho, or just plain ripping it off? I'd like to think it was the former, but it's a weird choice to pay homage to another movie with your final shot.
I instantly thought of Pyscho. I thought it was a not-too-subtle homage, especially since Laurie outright smiled, whereas Norman Bates smiled in a more subtle way (in my opinion). Why was the room so long? I gathered it was in Laurie's head, as was the apparition of Myers' mom and the horse, but that's my main problem with Halloween II: Zombie paints the first film and this one, dream sequences aside, as a very realistic, gritty horror film. The inclusion of the dream sequences -- which somehow Laurie can see by the end of the film -- ruin that. I was confused a lot during the film as to what was suppose to be real or dreamt up, and not in a good way.
Well, it looks like Patrick Lussier's been confirmed as the director of Halloween 3D. It says they're planning to begin filming in November for a summer release. Doesn't that seem a bit too soon? As reviled as this movie was, and with its disappointing box office take, you'd think they'd want to let it lie for a couple of years before trying again. It's also reported that Todd Farmer will be writing the movie. I enjoyed My Bloody Valentine 3D on a pure "it knows what it is" level, though the ending was dopey. But his other credits include the lackluster The Messengers, The Messengers 2: The Scarecrow and, uh, Jason X. Well, here's hoping.
Hmm. I guess I need to see My Bloody Valentine now. It does seem a bit soon. Why summer? Wasn't My Bloody Valentine released in the spring? The Final Destination was released in August. I miss when horror films came out around, y'know, Halloween. That's excluding those Saw films, of course. At least I have Trick 'R Treat to look forward to.
The news about Halloween 3D doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. I'm not sure if Lussier will be a better or worse choice for the series than Zombie was. I still haven't seen this one yet... don't know if I will, especially after everything I've read about it. Eh, we'll see. In most cases, one would think so, but considering Halloween II's rather low budget ($15 million), it's apparently done well enough to be labeled "profitable". I think you'll enjoy that one -- it's good fun. I saw a screening of it in Toronto last month; writer/director Michael Dougherty was on hand to introduce the film and participate in a Q & A afterward. It's a damn shame about how Warner Bros. has treated the film -- it should've come out two years ago, and at the very least been given a limited theatrical release. I just really don't get studio decisions sometimes.