Silent Night (2012): Deck the Halls with Blood and Gory

It's Christmas Eve in a small Midwestern town, but all is not calm nor is there anything bright about this long, wintry night, because there's a killer on the loose; a killer dressed up as Santa Claus. As this Santa Psycho goes about slaying all who dare to be naughty, it's up to the local police to try to stop the killer and put an end to a nightmare that has haunted the town for far longer than just this one night.

Directed by Steven C. Miller, Silent Night is, on paper, a remake of the 1984 Santa Slashterpiece, Silent Night, Deadly Night, though, outside of a few nods and the fact that it's a Christmas Slasher film featuring a killer dressed up as Santa, the film has almost nothing in common with its predecessor. Silent Night very well could have been titled Santa's Slaughter or Naughty, Not Nice, and no one would have batted a lash, let alone cried about there being "another remake?!"

As the tagline "He Knows Who's Been Naughty" suggests, Santa (Rick Skene) seemingly has the 411 on every scum bag this town has to offer, and he makes it a point to pay each and every one of them a personal visit. The film proudly presents a handful of less than respectable characters for the audience to root against almost to the point of folly. Some of these characters/victims include a couple participating in adultery, pornographers, a selfish little girl with the mouth of a sailor, a perverted priest who likes to dip into the collection jar, and, well, you probably get the picture. The fashion in which these characters are presented was concerning at first, as I don't need to be goaded into rooting for characters to die when, well, it's why I'm watching the film. Thankfully, however, the near irritation I felt with how these characters were handled subsided before it became a real problem, and soon enough I got on board with the over-the-top fashion in which they were presented.

The anchor of Silent Night is Aubrey (Jaime King), a police woman dealing with some issues from her past that are affecting her confidence as an officer of the law. King stands out with a good performance for a film that some might not believe calls for it. She has a way of emoting without feeling phony, and she's able to bring the character to life in a way that commands a dash of sympathy. Malcolm McDowell also appears in the film as Sheriff Cooper, a cocky know-it-all who somehow goes from being an asshole to being an asshole that you kind of love. McDowell gleefully chews up nearly every scene he's in a way that is difficult not to enjoy. 

There is clearly a common theme in Silent Night, and that's how awful and cruel this world can be sometimes, something that, for certain people, is greatly enhanced during the holiday season. "Christmas can really mess people up" is a phrase uttered by more than one character, specifically characters who are trying to make a few bucks during the holidays by playing Santa. Dressed up as the physical incarnation of their own misery, or the physical incarnation of where their misery is being projected, which is almost poetic if not for the fact that the message is a tad heavy-handed. I appreciate the thought, though.     

The film is nicely put together in a way that seems to be almost the standard for some of the better modern day horror films of similar notoriety. There are a few visual moments that stand out in an impressive way, and there was clearly a lot of thought and care put into certain details that slightly elevate the movie from being just a simple, modern-day Holiday themed Slasher flick. With that said, some of the most notable moments, thankfully, belonging to the kills, as Silent Night serves up some gruesomely fun and satisfying death scenes. From start to finish, the limbs are flying and the blood is spurting, but there is one specific scene involving a wood chipper that is not only THE highlight of Silent Night, it's certainly a candidate for best death scene of 2012.

Silent Night surprised me in two ways: One being that it is a very solid, well made and completely entertaining Slasher film. The other is the fact that the film is directed by Steven C. Miller, who is the director behind the low-budget zombie film, Automaton Transfusion, a movie I absolutely hated. And I mean HATED. Hated in a way where I would have never expected the director to do anything even remotely good, so I suppose I should tip my proverbial cap to Miller for stepping up his game and giving me a good reason to keep an eye on his future projects. 

Silent Night succeeds as a remake by shedding the skin of the film that would influence its creation, while delivering the classic Slasher goods to near perfection. You aren't getting anything groundbreaking with this one, which should be apparent, one would assume, but that's not the goal when it comes to making a good, or at least moderately fun, Slasher film. Keep it simple, follow the basics and deliver the goods, and all will go to sleep with a smile on their face. Well, unless they've been naughty, that is. In which case, maybe their night might be a little more silent than expected…

Night of the Demons 2010: Party Foul

Adam Gierasch's 2010 remake of Night of the Demons takes the basis for what was done in the original film and applies it to the end destination, with a few minor tweaks added to the journey. Instead of following a small group of teens to an intimate party where everything literally goes to hell, this incarnation populates its shindig with a full staff of party animals. Once again, Angela is throwing the dopest Halloween party in town and everyone is E-vited. As the party rages on and the drugs finally show up (thanks to a tubby Eddie Furlong playing the role that would define his personal life), the cops come in and shut it down. Shortly after the house is cleared out and everyone has left, a handful of stragglers straggle their way back onto the property, only to somehow get locked in. As far as major problems go, being stuck in a house with a handful of good-looking people, tons of alcohol and plenty of music, one really cannot complain. However, toss in a few demons and, well, I suppose the word demon kind of says it all.

I generally don't like to compare remakes to their influences; however, there are a select few that garner the comparison, and I think Night of the Demons is one of those films. One of the things that this new version does that I enjoy is the main idea is in place, but the situations unfold very differently for the characters. You get something new without losing the basis for what make Night of the Demons Night of the Demons. Though, it's not to say that what's new is refreshing cinematically, just new from what has been seen previously.

In fact, I think it's safe to say that Night of the Demons lacks even the slightest hint of originality, and that comes from all aspects of the film. The characters are masterfully stereotypical, the unnecessary backstory added to the movie is as pointless as it is uncreative, and it would be impossible not to know exactly where the film will go next. On a technical level, well, it's not too bad overall, but there are some serious issues strewn throughout. Specifically, the super sped up camerawork that makes its way through the film's opening party setting, only to slow down and focus on something in a motion much slower than normal (like a sexy girl dancing or someone puking). And of course, this is accompanied by a ridiculous swooooosh sound that's supposed to convey… actually, I don't even know what it's supposed to convey. Awesome party, maybe?

Bobbie Sue (Dead Box) Luther in a role that perfectly plays to her natural talents

Another issue that this remake suffers from is the fact that the Angela character (this time around played by Shannon Elizabeth) has very little to her in terms of generating any sort of interest. She's completely one-dimensional and more of a coincidental character, wherein the original she was, in a way, the star, or at least a major aspect of the movie. Here Angela plays back-up singer to the character of Maddie (Monica Keena, who looks somewhat less malformed than normal), who is clearly the heroin when the viewer is introduced to her wicked hot friends, both of whom have massive tits and wear skimpy Halloween costumes.

Now, I may sound like I am hitting Night of the Demons with a lot of negativity so far and I sort of am, but that really doesn't reflect my actual enjoyment of the film as a whole. In fact, I actually quite enjoyed it - for what it is. Let's face it, as much love as I have for Kevin Tenney's film, it sure is far from perfect, and I think it would be safe to say that it has almost as many problems, collectively, as the 2010 remake. 

The '88 film starts off awfully slow, and the only thing that it has going for it in the first 45 minutes to an hour is Linnea Quigley's introduction (which makes for a great cameo in the remake, it should be said) and some of the laughable performances and hysterical characters. It's entertaining in a very cheesy way, but that's about all until the film finally takes off in the final 30 or so minutes. The remake does a better job of moving things along at a faster pace, however, it does cause for some latter moments where things do begin to drag on.

As for the demon action itself, the original still takes the funfetti over the remake. Regardless, I do like the look of the demons as well as how they interact with each other (demonic orgies are h-o-t HOT!). The approach of the demons, as well as the film itself, is a little more tongue in cheek than the original. Gierasch and co. certainly had a specific vision for Night of the Demons, and that was to make a fun film that can play for a modern audience, while being mostly faithful in spirit to the original. And I believe they were successful, for the most part.

The movie is a fun watch, plain and simple. It's even almost as fun as the 1988 Night of the Demons; however, it isn't quite as memorable. Of course, Tenney's film has the unfair advantage of nostalgia going for it, but it also has a better presence with how the horror is effectively delivered. Now, the '88 Night of the Demons isn't the most frightening film ever made, but it does have a genuinely spooky atmosphere about it as well as a few creepy moments. Specific scenes that come immediately to mind are the Quigley lipstick trick and Angela's Stigmata Martyr dance.

As strange as the lipstick in the tit scene is, there is something about how Quigley does it, something about the dead serious and completely crazed look on her face that has always stuck with me. The scene is recreated (with a slight twist) in the remake in a way that is certainly entertaining, but it doesn't have nearly the same effect. What is even less effective though, is Angela's dance sequence in the remake. What was truly a frightfully seductive and hypnotic highlight in the 1988 Night of the Demons is not even remotely worth mentioning in the remake. In fact, it's kind of pathetic in comparison.

I have my criticisms of the film (and they are definitely warranted) but as I said, I found myself enjoying Night of the Demons 2010. It's certainly no classic, and it's debatable as to whether or not it's even any good, but it does capture the essence of the original film without being an exact replica of it. Despite suffering from some typical, modern-day cinema shortcomings, it feels as if it fits in with the world of Night of the Demons, and, most importantly, I had a good time watching it. Quite frankly, that is really all one should expect. 

Black Christmas 2006: Just Like the One I Used to Know?

I won't bother going into the boring details of my personal thoughts on remakes as that always seems to be so much of the focus when actually sitting down to review one. It's almost as if you need to explain your stance beforehand. It's as simple as I enjoy them so long as they are good, which is the case with any film I watch, essentially. Last Death-cember brought about a review of Bob Clark's Black Christmas, a film that I simply adore for a number of reasons, many of which you can learn about by reading that review. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to read it…back already? Okay, so It's a year later now, and I figured it would be kind of fun (heavy focus on kind of) to watch and review the 2006 remake of, Black Christmas. So that's what I did, obviously. I mean, I am writing a review for it, aren't I?

Moving on, the film has a basic set-up with a group of sorority sisters getting knocked off one-by-one on Christmas Eve. Easy enough, right? Well, not so much as things take a complicated turn when it is revealed as to why someone is killing them. As opposed to the original film, there is no actual mystery as to who is behind the murders. *SPOLIERS!* In fact, it's all simply laid out on the table in what is a number of lengthy and obnoxiously overbearing flashbacks, detailing a story about some creep ball named Billy, whom was locked in the attic for many years after he witnessed his abusive mother and her new boy toy murder his father.

Now, Billy's ma dukes is, well, to put it simply, cock hungry and one night when her man is too drunk to fuck, she decides that it's time make up for all the years of abuse she put him through by going up in the attic and banging him. Naturally, this one time encounter results in Billy's mom becoming pregnant with her own son's child. I know, gross. Oh, and if that wasn't strange enough, I should probably mention that Billy is yellow? Like, for whatever reason, dude has yellow skin and that is partially why his mother hated him, even though she would eventually bone him. Yellow. Multivitamin colored urine, yellow. All of this whacky nonsense results in a murder spree thanks to a recently escaped from a mental asylum Billy and his inbred daughter, who looks a lot like Nicole Bass, come to think of it. *END SPOILERS!*

Black Christmas - or, Black X-Mas as it was sometimes marketed as when trying to capture the attention of those kids and their skateboards – is a remake of a film that is considered to be very influential on the Slasher and horror genre. It's looked at as a classic of sorts. This time around, you have a film that is influenced by the success of remakes and in return is lumped in with an era of unoriginality. It would seem to have the exact opposite reputation of its influence, and essentially does little to discern itself from the pack, despite its incredibly odd backstory. 

Even though I somewhat appreciate the bold (and bonkers) story choices that were made in a Hollywood driven remake, it all feels so cheap. Like, if you really need to spend more than 25 minutes explaining backstory, you are doing no service to the characters at hand. You know, the ones we are supposed to care about in the present day. Not that they're the types of horror characters that one can actually feel for as they are about as interesting as a mouth full of yellow starburst and all that blame can be placed solely on the writing. This is a group of female characters that are as uninspired and uninteresting as it gets, which is very unfortunate with a cast that is actually very solid.

The mostly all female cast consist of a slew of familiar faces, many of which I actually really enjoy watching on screen. Of course, I may be biased as I find most of the actresses to be more than easy on the eyes, and this is certainly a great looking cast for sure, but I do appreciate them for their acting as much as their physical appeal. I mean, casting Lacey Chabert and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is certainly a positive mark for me, but to give them no meat to chew on (yowza!) with their bland characters, then they are nothing more than good actresses that are being used simply as objects of visual stimulation. The actresses aren't challenged with characters that have depth nor are they interesting in any way, shape or form. Pretty girls in a film that seems to be a little too much about veneer, which doesn't end with the cast.

I'm sure many would be quick to piss on it, but in my opinion, Black Christmas is actually a pretty solid film on a technical level. It's not comparable to the original, at all, but there are a fair share of standout shots to be found in the film. In addition, what is possibly the only thing that writer/director Glen Morgan semi-successfully carried over from the '74 film is a nice looking Christmas aesthetic. To be fair, there is no way someone could recreate the awesome holiday look of the original without making a movie set in the 70s (and I would LOVE to see Ti West take a shot), but I would say that this is close to as good as can be done for a modern day set holiday tale. I simply love Christmas decorations, and right from the first shot of the film, with a great looking house covered in fat Christmas light bulbs, I actually became incredibly pumped for the movie. What can I say, I'm easily memorized by pretty lights and colors. And women.

In the end, there are just barely enough positives that keep Black Christmas from being a complete lump of coal. There are a good amount of kills, most of which are decent but they are also very repetitive. It seems the only way someone can die in this movie is to be stabbed in the eye(s) with a bag over their head. As far as modern day Slasher films go, Black Christmas is sub par, but not a complete loss. The wild Billy backstory, the pretty Christmas lights, the attractive cast and a scene where Billy eats flesh made Christmas cookies makes Black Christmas worth at least a viewing. It's the type of holiday Slasher film that will be nice to pop in every few years when something different is needed outside of the usual suspects.

My 13 Favorite Remakes!

Whoa, that sounds like some heavy stuff right there and it is. See, if you remember last year during this time, our good friend and master of the universe, T.L. Bugg of The Lightning Bug's Lair, had put together his second annual Halloween Top 13, with the subject being that of his favorite sequels. And now, one year later, the Bugg is back and this time around his Halloween Top 13 focus is on the ever controversial horror remake!

As with last year, Bugg made a call to arms and asked that people participate with their own list of remakes that they love, and I of course once again grabbed my battle axe, mounted my stead and met that call to arms full on with a list of my own. It's an epic read to say the least, and I really put some serious work into it as if I were writing it for CNAMB. So, I ask of you to take a few minutes, or more, and check out my list, T.L. Bugg's fantastic daily picks, and all of the other people that made contributions to this event of incredible proportions. Bugg has poured a ton of work into all of this, so for that he deserves a huge thanks and a pat on the butt, err, I mean back, so get over there and start patting.

Click-click-click to see my picks!

The Last House on the Left 2009: Rebuilt With Different Tools

*Spoiler Warning* If you aren't familiar with the story of The Last House on the Left, then there are spoilers in this review. However, everything I have written here is shown in the trailer, but I feel a warning is still worthy. -Me 

Not all remakes are created equal and while this is a time when remakes are one of the biggest downfalls, complaint inciters and problems with the movie industry, it isn't so much remakes that are the problem, it's the people behind them. Shitty movies are always abound, it's not just remakes of films that we horror fans hold near and dear to our heart that muck up the cinemas. However, they do encapsulate the many issues Hollywood has, namely the lack of creativity and respect for the art of film. Taking what once was great, only to churn out a lesser version for the sake of a quick buck.

As is the case with all cinema, there's the good, there's the bad, and occasionally we are graced with a remake that is done properly. This would be the case with 2009's reboot of the Wes Craven/Sean Cunningham exploitation classic, The Last House on the Left. The story remains similar enough to what was done back in 1972, focusing on two teenage girls, Mari and Paige (Sara Paxton and Martha MacIssac), that are abducted by a demented family of criminals led by an escaped convict named Krug (Garret Dillahunt). After Paige is murdered, and Mari brutally raped, the gang unknowingly take refuge in the summer home belonging to Mari's parents. Woops.

As was the case with the last Last House, this version is simply a modern retelling of The Virgin Spring, putting a set of parents in the position to face the people that would bring harm to the child that they brought into the world. One of the big differences between both this take and the previous versions of the story is that their daughter survives and (barley) makes it home, which is partly how the parents become aware that it was their houseguests that did this to her. While it seems like it may have been a commercially acceptable attempt to take away from the shock of having both girls murdered, it actually works on a different emotional level, as the father knows that one of the men, staying in his home, raped his own daughter.

What works about the film in comparison to the original, is the fact that it is a glossy and well-crafted update. One of the many complaints for a remake of a gritty film from our past is that the new one will be an overly pretty-fied version that will have no chance of capturing what was done in the original. However, that is what actually works for this incarnation. I've already seen a grimy and grungy version of The Last House on the Left, so seeing the story with a different pallet actually gives the film its own identity. To be a successful remake, there needs to be a separation form the source material and to go with a stylistic and well-crafted version is a major departure from 72's Last House.

Another major piece of the successful remake puzzle is being able to somewhat improve upon what was done with the original film. While I love Craven's Last House, and consider it an exploitation classic, it is certainly not without its problems. Two that immediately come to mind are some of the dialogue scenes between the parents as well as everything involving the two police officers. Overall, in this update, the dialogue is solid and mostly natural for all the characters, including the teenage girls, the rents and the gang of psychos. And of course, there is not a cop in sight, but it would be hard to not improve upon the police scenes that were found in the '72 Last House. Even if one of the cops was the leader of the Cobra Kai.

With Last House being a rape revenge film, it is that aspect that works as the film's vengeful drive. While this update is not nearly as brutal as its predecessor, it definitely has its moments and the rape scene itself is a tough watch, as it should be. However, there is an emotional additive that was not found in the Craven film, and after the rape there is an intense and uncomfortable quietness between a few of the characters, namely the female of the group, Sadie (as played by Riki Lindhome), that spoke volumes as to how heinous an act it was, even to a couple of seemingly heartless murderous thugs. No matter how bad of a person she is, Sadie is still a woman, and rape is one of the worst things that can ever happen to one, so this was a nice touch of humanity to see her slight but important reaction to the events.

Now, I'm giving this film a lot of credit, and while it is mostly deserving, it is not without its own faults. While the cast is actually quite impressive all around - with a group of actors that have collectively seen a fair share of genre  work - they all sure are purdy. I'm fine with the parents and teenage girls being attractive – they are the seemingly perfect people  that are having their lives thrown into chaos, so they should fit that mold. But why can't Krug's gang be at least a little bit ugly? Not a one of them is nothing short of attractive, and no amount of creepy facial hair and snarling can take that away from their looks. It truly speaks volumes as to the difference between 70's cinema and the cinema of today. Ugly people were put in film for that reason and David Hess is an ugly dude and so isn't the entire gang in 72's Last House, and they are a whole lot more intimidating than the '09 crew because of it.

There are other minor faults (some would state the film's final moment as one, which I somewhat liked in a throwback to outrageous 80's horror sort of way) and this movie is far from perfect, but director Dennis Iliadis made a film (with the help of both Craven and Cunningham) that takes from the original what was necessary and crafted a movie that can stand on its own two feet…even if the house isn't actually the last one on the left or not.

Stepfather Factory

So it's father's day and with that comes the need to do something thematic, as well as the need to put myself through some possible torture at the same time. Sadly, the first thing that came to mind when I thought, "what can I do for father's day?" was to do a review of The Stepfather remake. It's on instant view and chances are it will make for an interesting review. Maybe.

In a way, there isn't all that much to say about The Stepfather narratively. It's a remake that follows the 1987 movie pretty closely, which is basically about a man that only wishes to have the perfect family, but when that systematized delusion is not met, this "stepfather" discards of his family by killing them, then moves on to his next family and the possible chance for unified family bliss. He finds a venerable woman, whom, thanks to a recent divorce, is single with kids and he swoops in with a gallon bucket full of charm, working his way into their lives in the hopes of forming the ideal family.

The Stepfather was directed by Nelson McCormick, a man who has directed a ton of television but is best known to horror fans as the director of Prom Night 2008. I reviewed that film some time ago over at Paracinema, and while I wasn't a big fan, I knew it was not made for my eyes as they are too old for that film. It was made for those youngsters and their skateboards. Still, it was a terrible movie, so what can I expect when McCormick comes back for yet another tween-geared remake of an 80’s horror film? Not much, but it is better than Prom Night at least.

As with Prom Night, The Stepfather is technically adept, but very standard at the same time. There is little to no creativity, but it does work as a functional film. The same can be said for the acting, which is nothing special, but everyone is solid, with Dylan Walsh's performance being well played and creepy enough, while not nearly as memorable as what was done by the ever so intense Terry O'Quinn.

Even if the film is close to competent, it also fails where so many unoriginal horror movies do. There is a so bad it hurts jump scare, with a cat no less, which caused me to punch my own cat in retaliation. There is a moment where a window is broken in the basement using the sound of thunder as cover…because a window being smashed in and thunder sound so much alike. The family that is chosen by the stepfather has three siblings, one that would be the main focus, while oddly enough, the other two are hardly ever around, especially the younger sister who is seen no more than two or three times. Then there's the whole cell phone ringer issue that is just going to cause my blood pressure to rise if I get into it, so I'll leave it at that.

Something that stood out like a sore dick was the obvious product placement. Every character uses a Mac, which is whatever, but the one that had me shaking my head in disbelief was the amount of time the game Burnout Paradise spends on screen. There is a least three moments where the kids are shown playing it, with a close up of the screen no less, but the kicker is the game's case is actually propped up at one point, right in front of the TV in which they are using. I can somewhat give a pass to a character drinking a mountain dew or some shit, but who props up a game case in front of their television? It was painfully lame.

Being better than Prom Night isn't much of a stretch, and I think it's only better due to this version staying on the rails of the original more than Prom Night did. However, that does play into the films lack of originality, and at least Prom Night tried to be its own movie, whether or not it was awful. The Stepfather is completely predictable, and even if it wasn't a remake, it is like so many movies that have come before it, from frame one, you know exactly what will happen in the film's runtime. You know that there are characters that will question the motives of the titular character, and you know he will end their life short to keep his cover and his dream of the perfect family alive. You know that the oldest child will be weary of this new man in his family’s life, and will spend the runtime trying to figure out what this dudes deal really is. It's overly dramatic familiarity.

One thing that is definitely better about this remake compared to Prom Night is the fact that one of the two main characters is an adult. That keeps the teen aspect to a lesser degree, as he is the main focus over the eldest son. While the "teen" aspect is there, complete with shitty pop-punk-commercial-rock music, it was all slightly acceptable due to how the presence of Amber Heard (who is best known to horror fiends as the titular character in All the Boys Love Mandy Lane) is handled.

I can see where those boys are coming from after seeing The Stepfather. While this kept me interested way more than much of the film, it is oddly gratuitous and exploitative in a movie that other wise remains cookie cutter and almost safe. She's good in the movie, but her character serves no other reason than to look hot in string bikinis or to have her tits falling out the top of her shirt. And the fact that Mandy Lane has yet to see a release, but The Stepfather has, speaks volumes to the injustice that is life for the horror fan.

Poor product placement, an unoriginal and predictable premise, good looking-half naked teens, catchy pop music, easily digestible…in the end, The Stepfather is nothing short of Hollywood exploitation by way of a PG-13 rating.

Halloween Pooh

My original Destination on Friday night was meant to be a Final one, but due to an error, my buddy picked up tickets to the 2-D showing of The Final Destination as opposed to the "in yo face" version of the film. So with time constraints lingering over our heads, we opted to check out Rob Zombie's second incarnation of his rebooted Halloween series. I am one of the few that didn't completely hate the first Halloween remake, I thought the theatrical version had some solid moments, but the film mostly suffered from too much being crammed into one uneven story. The DVD release on the other hand, was different enough from the theatrical release to almost make the film unbearable, but I would rather not spend time on remake past, so I'll just get into my thoughts on Halloween II already.

I'm not planning on spending too much time on this film, because it is clearly not worth spending too much time on, and I would gather that most that have seen the film would agree with me, though I haven't seeked out any one else's thoughts on the film to really know what other horror fans think. I actually liked the first 35 minutes of Halloween II; it was going along at a good pace as it took off right where the first film had ended. There are some grotesque little touches that were satisfying to the sadistic horror fan in me, and the way everything is shot and presented is quite impressive. Halloween II's first act, if you will, works as a pretty solid Slasher film, a Slasher that is very mean spirited with some harsh moments strewn about, but then, the 35 minute mark hits.

If you have, or if you will see Halloween II, you will know what happens at the 35 minute mark that made me think to myself "Are you fucking kidding me right now?!" And things just went downhill from that moment and just continuously got worse the longer the movie went on. Story wise, Halloween II is basically Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) coming back to life, where he then proceeds to spend almost the entire film, making his way back to Haddonfield so he can have a sort of "family reunion" with his kid sister, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton). With her parents murdered in the first Halloween, Laurie is now living with Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif aka CHUCKY!) and his daughter/Laurie's best bud, Annie (Danielle Harris) who survived a brutal attack via Myers, but lived so she could serve the plot of the very film we are discussing here.

The other main character from the first Halloween making a return is Dr Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), who amazingly still has eyeballs after what seemed to be his demise in the first film. To me, Loomis seems to have absolutely no point in this film except to serve as the catalyst for Laurie finding out that Myers and she are siblings (via his new book). Other than that, he serves no other real purpose except to be a separate story line that is just meant as filler material for when Myers wasn't eating dogs, or when Laurie wasn't hanging out in crusty bathrooms covered in graffiti and draped in bad florescent lighting.

Another recurring character is Misses Voorhees err...I mean, Misses Myers as played by Sheri Moon Zombie. I personally have no problem at all with Rob Zombie using his wife in his films, she's not a great actress, but at times she is serviceable, plus I think she's pretty hot, though she unfortunately refrains from showing her butt crack in this movie. Butt...her character in this film is that of a ghostly apparition, and how her ghostly appearance serves the plot is just plain terrible, on top of her showing up five times too many - with a horse to lame it up a bit. I won't go into detail as to what purpose Mama Myers serves, but it is one of the bigger issues with Halloween II's story line.

Another big problem with the story is situations are created for the soul purpose of having someone to kill for Michael Myers. This happens in plenty of Slasher films, sure, but it seems like it happened more in Halloween II, than in your average film of the genre. I did get a kick out of the kills for the most part, they are very mean spirited, and there isn't anything silly, or unrealistic about them - every murder is very harsh and simple, but still disturbingly satisfying. I was honestly kinda shocked at how much violence got by the MPAA, and for them to garner Halloween II an R rating is a big surprise. While I did like these kills, I think many horror fans will find them off putting, especially in the context of a Halloween movie. I don't mean Zombie's Halloween, but the original series. It may offend some of those fans, but this isn't the original series, so I'm fine with it.

Michael Myers look is something that should certainly get a shit load of classic Halloween fans all riled up. I think it's funny to be honest, so many complain about the essence of the original Michael Myers being completely disregarded, and how it's a travesty and an embarrassment to the original Boogeyman character from Halloween past to handle Michael Myers the way that Zombie does. However, if Zombie had made his films in the same vein as the original series, and stuck to those characteristics of Michael Myers, we would have something like Gus Van Sant's Psycho all over again...how did that one go over? I appreciate that Zombie has tried to make the character different, and his own; going a different direction gives us something new to watch, instead of treading the same shallow water that has been gone over numerous times in the original series. On top of that, in the sequels, Michael Myers usually looked pretty shitty in comparison to the '78 Carpenter film, so I would prefer a drastic change to the characters look over a moronic over sized mask like the ones found in the middle of the original franchise.

Personally, I thought the new, revamped, Myers looked very badass and it was nice to see a realistic take on the character. There are three different versions of Myers to be found in this movie - the first would be the classic look, the second would be the homeless Myers, and thirdly, a hybrid of the two styles. As I said, I like the realistic aspects of the character, and when you see Myers walking around in the woods without his mask, but rocking a seriously dope beard, it may be a little strange for some. But why would Myers be wearing a mask when he isn't killing people and no one is around? In addition, having a beard is much more plausible than having him shave - out in the woods - with no bathroom - let alone a mirror or a place to keep his Mach 3 and shaving gel (his skin is very sensitive).

As for how the movie is actually made, on a technical level, Halloween II has some seriously impressive scenes, with a style all Zombies own. This dude has real talent, and people who say other wise are being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious. There are moments where his grimy white trash look shines through in fantastic ways, but there is this other side of him that drops the ball completely. It's almost like Zombie has two styles: One being the very pleasing to the eyes, subdued, gloomy, trashy look that shows his strength as a filmmaker. On the other hand, he has a repugnant side that is an overblown version of his trashy style of movie making. This is the style that was very prevalent in the utterly terrible House of a 1,000 Corpses. These are the scenes when everything becomes orange and the camera gets all wacky and wild! so distracting, and unbecoming of what is done in the rest of the film.

These loathsome techniques are mainly found in the strip club scene...yes, Zombie has once again found a way to fit in a strip club scene. But he really didn't find a way to fit it in, as it has nothing to do with the story line of the movie. Then there's the party scene. Ugh...I was so all done by time the party scene came to be - what part of Haddonfield would I look to find a place with hot girls dancing topless on separate stages, while some rockabilly band plays music...that everyone seems to like?! The scene reminded me of the Titty Twister found in From Dusk Till Dawn. However, the Titty Twister was in the deserts of Mexico, not in a fucking suburban area neighborhood!

In the end, I really wish that we had gone to see The Final Destination instead...at least I know what I'm getting out of that movie, and it is something that I usually really enjoy. I am a very forgiving person with my cinema, and can find some good in many movies that I probably shouldn't. With Halloween II, even though I dug some of the kills, Myers' look was appealing to me, and I liked most of Zombie's film style, there just wasn't enough good to offset the bad. I wouldn't say not to see Halloween II though, it may be worth it for some of the positive aspects I mentioned, and maybe you will be more forgiving than I. I'll probably watch it again, and chances are I will like it a little bit more, now that I know it sucks, and my low expectations are completely nonexistent.