Paranormal Activity (2007/2009): One of the Scariest Movie Experiences Ever

Firstly, you need to know that this review is ABSOLUTELY SPOILER FREE. I didn’t even watch the newly-released trailer for this film and I am glad I did not. The best way to watch it is without knowing the details. Secondly, I am probably not supposed to be posting this, but not very many people read this blog anyway and it’s a rave review so it won’t hurt anything.  Thirdly, I watched the original version of the film that was screened at Screamfest and purchased by Paramount. Apparently, there has been some re-editing of the film and the addition of a couple shots.

Now that the disclaimers are done, I can tell you what I thought of the film. Paranormal Activity is a found footage film, where the material is shot through a camera that a couple set up in their home after experiencing some abnormal occurrences at night. Hoping to document the activity, things get worse and worse.  I watched Paranormal Activity with about 30 others, which made for a fun experience, but I also wonder what it would have been like to watch it alone…in my own home…at night. Viewing  it in that way could possibly be an unbearably tense event, as the movie is sure to be one of the creepiest things that will unfold before your eyes. The audience reactions in the trailer for this film are not an exaggeration. People were literally calling out, covering their eyes, jumping around in their seats, and begging for the tension to be released. And I watched this with a crowd of film students and filmmakers—not 13-year-old girls that jump whenever the phone rings. Every time the lights go out and the couple goes to sleep, the entire room grew cold with white-knuckled hands and distraught faces.

Every time you see this camera setup, you will instantly get nervous.

Shot for $11,000 in a single week, Paranormal Activity does not rely on gimmicks and elaborate scenarios to frighten moviegoers. Instead, it utilizes simple, effective occurrences that make you believe this is really happening. In fact, a lot of what works is not what you see, but what you don’t. Like every good horror film, Paranormal Activity shows patience through slowly accelerating the intensity of the nightly experiences. Sound plays a large role in the creepiness of the movie, as we often hear noises and are left to imagine what might be the cause of the sounds.

The found footage aspect of the film works remarkably well. By including a lot of shots of the happy couple goofing around for the camera, doing mundane things, and performing dialogue that feels mostly unscripted, the film plays off more believably. There is a perfect mixture of amateur camerawork, as well as shots that are composed with precision.  One of the greatest challenges of a found footage movie is obtaining near-perfect performances. What passes in a standard cinematic experience does not pass through the lens of a shaky camcorder as easily. There are a few moments here and there when I do not buy the actors, but when it matters, I am 100% in the moment and completely enthralled by the events on screen.

They look like normal people, which is refreshing.

The movie I watched was 99 minutes and I’m guessing that at least five minutes will be shaved off through Paramount’s re-edit. Although it was fantastic, it does feel long because it is so tense. In fact, one woman said that she felt like she had just given birth because it was so draining to watch. She was right. It isn’t until the film is over that you feel like you can breathe again. And 99 minutes is a long time to go without air. I’m curious to see what other changes will be made to the film. I’m guessing some trimming, the addition of CG-enhanced shots, and some audio dubbing. I just hope they don’t dress this up too much because it is the simplicity, both in terms of aesthetics and scary events, that make Paranormal Activity such a brilliant movie.

You may look like this the whole time.

I will definitely be going to the cinemas when this comes out. It will be opening September 25^th in select theatres, but will most likely expand to more cities if the positive buzz continues to swarm. If you can’t make it to the theatres, don’t worry. In some ways, I wish I could have experienced this film for the first time at home so that it would be most impactful. Regardless of how you watch it, this movie is guaranteed to creep you out.  

Sorority Row (2009): "It's time to say farewell to the b****es of Theta Pi"

Wait for video. Or, wait a decade and return to it as a classic of 2000's horror.

Sorority Row is a great film to watch if you are/were in the greek system or if you hate sororites and fraternities. If you like constant jabs at Greeks, watching brothers and sisters die, and a plot line that is basically centered around why people who join these cultish things have their life sucked away, then you might enjoy Sorority Row more than you think. And if you are totally into the sorority/fraternity thing, then you'll probably still like it because you're too busy comparing all the onscreen keggers to your own fuzzy memories from your alma matter to realize that the movie is making fun of you.

The bitches of Theta Pi.

I'm going to be honest about my feelings towards the Greek system. In general, I think it's a big sham that allows lemmings to feel important about themselves. I know there are some legitimate greek organizations that do charity work and I had plenty of decent friends in college that were Greeks. However, about 75% of the stereotypes regarding sororities and fraternities are completely true. And this movie doesn't shy away from even the most repugnant preconceived notions. Indeed, the sorority sisters hardly pause when they talk of providing ruffies to a man that will slip them in one of their sister's drinks. Classy stuff girls. And don't worry, there's plenty of elaborate partying that tops Oscar after-parties I'm sure. Only these are full of belching idiots and attractive yet desperate women. Alcohol definitely flows more than blood in this ode to the lowest common denominator of the collegiate sphere. The good news is you have a cast of characters that you want to see die. There's no one to root for here.

A great, moody shot for a not-so-great scene.

You all know the setup. Prank goes wrong on the first day of senior year. On graduation day, someone starts killing them off one by one. Blah, blah, blah. It's an elementary slasher movie through and through, so you shouldn't set your expectations too high. You'll only wind up disappointed. You're better off going into this film knowing that ten or twenty years from now, a new set of bloggers will be calling this "one of those classic 2000's horror movies" much like the way we revel in 80's slasher cheeze. In that regard, Sorority Row succeeds in being it's own flavor of an exhausted premise. It has it's share of wit, sleaze, and interesting deaths. The whole "we killed somone, now we should cover up the body to protect ourselves" scenario is still full of cliches, but it's given a lot more consideration than usual. It seems to take them a while to reach a decision, while our Final Girl refuses until they all turn their backs on her, wrapping her bloody coat around the body and claiming that they will all blame the death on her if she goes to the police. At least they gave the main character a good reason to go along with the secret this time.

I like you, even though I shouldn't.

The "bitch" character from the original House on Sorority Row is somehow even more bitchy. Heinous sarcasm never alludes her, even in the most intense moments when she is in peril. She always finds a way to degrade human begins around her. A personal favorite is upon the discovery of a sister's corpse, she responds: "Ugh... she looks terrible." She is the most interesting character to watch, which probably isn't a good thing. Mean-spiritedness is way more fun, especially when it's soaking in bitterness towards sororities and fraternities. The other unique character that we get is Chugs. Yup, that's what they call her. Can you guess how she got that? Although she's pretty unlikeable, it was nice to see her character type in a film. It's not often that we see it. She's the nasty girl that will say anything, do anything, and drink anything. We all know girls like this--the one's that spout the F-word even when it doesn't make sense, the one's that will claim all sorts of sexual deviance for attention, the one's that always find the alcohol at any party. Let's just say that her death suits her and is one of the best in the film.

The Bird Cane Returns...with bubbles!

The usual stalk-and-kill unfolds during the middle, with a decent amount of actual stalking and build up. Recently, there haven't been too many horror films that make an attempt at creating suspense; instead they have been focused on surprise. Alfred Hitchock used to illustrate the difference between suspense and suprise by describing a dinner scene in which there is a bomb under the table. Suspense is showing the audience the bomb, letting them sweat it out in anticipation of the explosion. Will the characters find out? Will it actually go off? Surprise is not showing the audience the bomb. It just explodes. Two different ways to tell the same story. There is a place for both surprise and suspense in horror. However, shock has been used more frequently than stalk. So it was nice to see things drawn out, even if it's as silly as looking for vodka in the dark basement for five minutes. It was also nice to see another slasher staple return to the screen: the unique murder weapon! It's been a while since I've seen a modern horror film actually try to get creative with the killer's tool of dispatchment. In this case, it's a "pimped out" version of a tire iron. That is actually the way one of the sisters describes it and it's a great example of the easy-going nature of the whole movie.

The end of the movie includes people walking away from a fire in slow motion. That's always unnecessary but simutaneously enjoyable in my book. It somehow suits this film and summarizes it's tone; it seems to welcome the cheesiness of it all. It's ok to laugh in this one. It's not like they made a joke of a film or anything, it's just that it understands what it is. The acting is decent (some girls better than others), the cinematography has a nice style (but there are way too many out of focus shots), the editing could have been more effective (trim this sucker down another five minutes), and the production design was fun (outrageous parties are always cool to look at). There are a few nods to the original film, even though it strays far enough from it to not even be a remake, including the iconic (ok, recognizable) bird cane. It would have been nice if the film was more exciting, more unique, and had more interesting characters, but I'm not complaining because I knew what I was getting myself into. And I guess I understand why none of my friends would brave this with me in theatres, but that's what spouses are for.

This review is a little scattered because I am writing at 3 AM. Nothing like providing a summary of your swirling thoughts on a mediocre horror film when you can't sleep.

Motel Hell (1980): It takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent's fritters.

A short review of a movie for which my only regret is not seeing it sooner.

What an awesome little gem of a film this is. If you're in the mood for something quirky and demented, Motel Hell is the perfect choice. Farmer Vincent, owner of Motel Hello (and it just so happens that the neon sign's "o" is out) and famous meat smoker, has got a fantastic business going for himself. Anyone want to guess what the secret ingredient is for Vincent's delicious meats? You guessed correctly. He kidnaps hotel guests and nearby travellers in order to harvest them for his recipe. Meat's meat and a man's gotta' eat, right?

I don't even know where to begin with this film because it is just so offbeat in all the right ways. It's surprsingly well-made and easy to watch, with just enough oddities to keep you on your toes. I was expecting a grainy, 4X3 transfer from VHS, but alas, it looked pretty good in it's 16x9 glory. All of the technical elements are doing their job, which is more than I can say about a lot of the 80's gold I watch. The writing and acting are also up to par. Although there are the occassional line deliveries that could make you cringe (particularly from the Sheriff), the dialogue and performances match the tone of the film perfectly and play off pretty well. Farmer Vincent is superb as a man who sincerely believes in his work and he's actually pretty likeable. Ida, Vincent's sister, is also enjoyable as the corpulent, pig-tailed, overall-wearing accomplice. The Sheriff's sporadic bad lines become treasures for you to relish, reminding you that you are watching a movie called Motel Hell after all.

After Vincent blows the tires off a motorcylce on a desolate road, the pretty Terry survives while her male companion does not. Vincent takes her in as a daughter (or at least, that's what we think at first) and having no where to go without her significant other, Terry amazingly agrees to stay on the motel/farm, not knowing the real cause of the accident. She takes a liking to the country life, all the while Vincent and Ida are participating in some rauncy farming during the night. As this film goes on, it just gets weirder and weirder. Terry tries to have sex with Vincent, but he refuses until they marry (Whoa there!). And so then he proposes and she accepts (Whaaa?). Ida has this strange jealousy of their relationship, even though she's his sister (uh-oh). You got a couple arriving at the hotel interested in performing bizarre sexual acts with Vincent and Ida (ewwww). You get the Sheriff, who is Vincent's brother and in love with Terry, claiming that Vincent has syphillis of the brain and a prune where is manhood should be (ughhh). Needless to say, there's some deviant stuff going on and it only endeared this movie to me even more.

And the conclusion of this film does not disappoint. Vengeful victims attacking Ida and Vincent like herds of angry cattle. People wearing severed pig heads. A freaking chainsaw duel!!!! If you haven't seen Motel Hell, you need to. It's cooky. It's funny. It's creepy. It's twisted. What more could you ask for?

Beck’s Favorite EFX: Great Work in Special Effects Makeup

In the horror genre, special effects makeup often becomes the star of the movie and the artists behind these macabre creations are just as much (probably more) of a celebrity as the actors. As a novice EFX makeup artist myself, I can appreciate just how difficult it is to make even the most simple bruise or gash realistic. Not only do these effects need to look real in person, the artist must know how they will be photographed and how to showcase the gruesomeness in the best way possible on camera. Many films were made iconic on their practical effects alone. Here are some of my personal favorites.

SPOILERS: I guess there are a few spoilers for DotD, The Thing, and Friday, but I would hope most of you have already seen them.

Laid to Rest (2008): Erik Porn, Christian Quarantillo, Scott Simpson, and Crystal Soveroski

When Robert Hall, the mastermind behind Almost Human EFX, decided to jump in the directing chair, the only thing we knew for certain was that the gore would be top notch. And it was. Featuring some of the most realistic decapitations I’ve ever seen and flawless stab wounds through the head, Laid to Rest has some of the best onscreen makeup effects ever seen.

Day of the Dead (1985): Tom Savini, Greg Nicotero, Howard Berger, Everett Burrell, David Kindlon, Mike Trcic, John Vulich

While I was tempted to choose Dawn on nostalgia factor, the gore and practical effects in Day of the Dead are superior. The scene when Captain Rhodes is ripped apart by vicious zombies is one of the best moments in horror. You can’t say you weren’t rooting for the zombies, as Rhodes watched his own intestines spill out before him. Additionally, the makeup of Bub is character-defining. The sad, pallid face with sunken eyes draws immediate sympathy—the absolute best in character makeup.

Scream (1996): Howard Berger, Robert Kurtzman, Gregory Nicotero, Kamar Bitar

You may not associate Scream with great gore work, but the simplicity of the EFX makeup in Scream is one of the film’s strongest selling points. We do get a great disembowelment and a tremendous body cast of Drew Barrymore, but my favorite makeup moments are less extravagant. The basic stab wounds of Scream are brutal and impactful. The cuts just feel deep. The application of blood is subtle and realistic. For whatever reason, I’ll always remember the way the blood rubbed off of Sidney’s hair and on to her cheek, leaving the most distinctive pattern.

Friday the 13th (1980): Tom Savini

Tom Savini’s ingenuity is running on all cylinders. He provided low budget practical effects that delivered some of the most memorable death scenes in horror history. Who doesn’t gleefully recall the arrowhead through the neck of Kevin Bacon? And who could forget the first onscreen decapitation? These effects are still as effective today and Savini’s work will continue to be timeless for future generations.

Evil Dead II (1984): Mark Shostrom, Gregory Nicotero, Howard Berger, Robert Kurzman, Mike Trcic, Shannon Shea, Aaron Sims, Bryant Tausek

The real catalyst for KNB. And for good reason. The insanity of Evil Dead II is largely dependent on the bizarre makeup effects. Realism is not necessarily the most important aspect here; what is more important is throwing things at the audience that have never been seen before. Eyeball action, talking moose heads, the evil hand, the disgusting Henrietta, and some intense zombie/demon faces make Evil Dead II a horror classic that is best played at midnight with lots of friends.

The Thing (1982): Rob Bottin, Robert E. Worthington, Stan Winston, Ken Diaz, and way too many others (see imdb)

What a fantastic film that will never age because of the brilliant EFX work. One of the most shocking moments in this film (and perhaps horror) is all about the special effects. When the Doc’s hands go through the stomach, who wasn’t completely surprised? It blew me away, along with some of the craziest animatronics in film history. Watching the special features on The Thing, you will gain so much respect for the effects crew as they were constantly forced to think on their feet and get creative with limited resources.

Dead Alive (1992): Steven Ingram, Richard Taylor, Bob McCarron, Marjory Hamlin, Debra East

The makeup team gets props on endurance alone. We’ve all heard the infamous trivia on this one: more buckets of blood used than any other film. And from my horror experience, this must be correct because I have never seen so much gooey red stuff in a single sitting. The little baby and the gigantic Mum are some of the most hideous things to be captured on film. And that mess with the blender…oh boy! Limbs, zombies, blood, guts, and all sorts of perversions can be found in Peter Jackson’s splatstick film. Plus, the official MPAA description of the R-rated versions is "an abundance of outrageous gore." I don't think they intended for that to sound as appealing as it does.

Terminator 2 (1991): Stan Winston, Jeff Dawn

Although there are lots of non-practical effects in this film, the EFX makeup is also spectacular. From raunchy bullet holes to human/machine fusions, the effects of Terminator 2 still hold up and a large part of that is due to the practical elements combined with computer technology. This movie is a great example of embracing old and new forms of filmmaking to create the best possible end result--not what is cheapest or fastest. Cameron only used computers where hands couldn't do the trick.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925): Lon Chaney

There are so many great horror faces created and performed by Lon Chaney that it's difficult to choose one, but my personal favorite is the Phantom. When the unsuspecting girl removes the mask of the Phantom for the first time, audiences were in for quite the shocker. That haunting grimace is still a grotesque sight. Lon Chaney endured quite a bit of pain, inserting a device into his nostrils and everything, to deliver one of the best reveals in horror. Chaney's talent as an EFX genius and actor unfortunately led to his dismal health and most likely his death, but he will always be remembered for the tragic monsters he brought to life on the silver screen.

What is Good Cinematography?

Now, I don't mean to sound like a snob or anything, but sometimes I wonder how people judge cinematography. This post was inspired after reading several blog reviews regarding Halloween 2. While most reviews have been negative towards the film as a whole, many have singled out the cinematography to be a highlight of the film (even in blogs that don't usually comment on technical elements very often). I found this interesting because I felt that this was one of the worst aspects of H2. 

The movie does indeed have a distinct look, but an edgy, frenetic visual design alone doesn't make good cinematography in my book. There are a couple of ways I judge cinematography--some ways are more objective than others. On the most basic level, cinematography is first and foremost about "getting the shot." That means the action needs to be photographed in such a way that what is intended to be seen can be experienced through proper framing and proper exposure. Artistic liberty aside, I think most people will agree that this is pretty fundamental. Next, lighting and composition are generally set up in such a way that it is aesthetically pleasing. This means using the rule of thirds, being mindful of screen direction, backlighting subjects, and avoiding flat lighting, but of course these are only general rules of thumb. 

I'm sure the acting is brilliant, but I can't really tell for sure...

Not every film must be beautiful. And Rob Zombie's films will probably never be filled with glamour shots. However, breaking basic cinematographic "rules" should be done for a reason. And that reason should always be story. Each film has its own story to tell and each scene within that film has a mini-story. The cinematography should always be finding ways to tell that story for each particular moment. Cinematography should punctuate emotions, get us into the character's head, and capture the message in the most effective way possible. 

What's the point of casting a giant if you hardly every shoot him in wides that emphasize his stature?

So does Halloween 2 do that? Well, it's always difficult to judge such a stylized film because it's honestly tough to tell what is a mistake and what is intentional. Zombie's inclination towards a raw, visceral, handheld approach is one piece of the puzzle and Director of Photography Brandon Trost's execution of it is another. In a rudimentary sort of way, not allowing artistic leeway, Halloween 2's cinematography is a complete failure. Tight framing and underexposure make it very difficult to perceive what is happening throughout much of the film. And of course, there are very few shots that are pleasing to the eye. 

Yes, this is the 21st century, and not all films need to be shot like Citizen Kane (and thankfully they are not). However, getting back to the essentials, does Halloween 2's cinematography actually tell the story with the most impact it could? I would say that it does not. One could argue that the film is so chaotic because Laurie's life has been turned upside down, which is completely valid. But, it's hard to justify that after watching Zombie's first Halloween. It's equally as shaky and unfocused, even when nothing was wrong in Laurie's life. For Zombie, there is no visual progression from a normal conversation to scenes of terror. Almost every scene is photographed the same way (aside from the visions), even when completely different stories are being told. 

What is happening in this picture? 

It's like watching the garage chase scene of the original Prom Night on VHS.

Style aside, I still think the majority of action should be framed and exposed so that I can see what is occurring onscreen. So many scenes in Halloween 2 could have been more effective.  If only Brad Douriff's face was lit so that I can see his brilliant performance, if only I could tell what Michael was doing during all that commotion in the strip club, and if only Laurie's emotions were showcased instead of random objects blocking the foreground. 

Cinematography is at the heart of filmmaking. It's a strange blend of technical ability and creative storytelling. I'm open to a wide range of cinematographic styles. From slow and stationary shots found in John Carpenter movies, the color-oriented wide shots of Argento's films, the hard contrast lighting of Hammer horror, to the fast-paced grittiness of recent French flicks, I am a lover of all the ways to photograph a film. Whatever the movie is, I just hope the director and cinematographer opted for a style that best fit the story and best suited each moment. I don't think that is the case with Halloween 1 or 2. To me, it’s just style over story.

Tell me what you guys think, especially if you did enjoy the cinematography of H2. 

The Final Destination (2009): Death in Yo’ Face!

A fun experience for those who like to see people die in weird ways.

I love the title of this one. Adding the definite article just means that they are setting themselves up for lies. We all know it’s not THE final Final Destination film, especially since it climbed to #1 at the box office over the weekend, standing triumphantly on the head of Zombie’s H2 . But grammar choice aside, this movie delivered the goods in a format that was destined to be utilized for this type of action.

Our heroes...meh..t.he most generic kids ever.

Opening with a fun credit sequence that showcases deaths from the three previous films via X-rays of skeletons, I knew I was in for a good ride. Rock music blaring. Race cars zooming by in 3D. Mildly good-looking teenagers providing not-so-interesting dialogue. Yup, this is exactly what I wanted to enjoy on my Friday night. In many ways, the scenes on the race track provided some of the best 3D experiences of the movie. I actually flinched when a metal object flew at me from the raceway and I’m not usually a jumpy person.

Some of the best "oh shit" faces I've ever seen.

Although the big disaster opening is plagued by lots of CG (as is the rest of the film), I never get tired of watching deaths unfold in bizarre ways. The series began as a fairly contemplative look at the mystery of death with some comical horror moments thrown in, but it has surely evolved into something that left behind philosophy and embraced a morbid guessing game of gruesomeness. What was great about The Final Destination is that it didn’t waste as much time as the earlier sequels did with entangled plotlines about death’s plan and unnecessary exposition. It’s the fourth go at it. And it’s not a complex formula. We get it. So thank you for realizing that we are not complete morons and just letting us get on with mindless death scenes unfolding before our eyes.

Is it wrong that I laughed during this scene? He was a racist, so no.

The death scenes themselves are not necessarily more elaborate than the film’s predecessors. Instead of creating a ridiculously long chain of events that lead to a character’s demise, the film builds up misleading events and focuses on objects that trick us into thinking they will be involved in the death. This is part of what is so fun about these movies. Everything, from a tea kettle to a leaky faucet, become sources of suspense. The gore that unfolds is decent—nothing spectacular, but it’s gonna’ make you laugh because you’re one sick puppy.

Don't worry, this scene is much better than it looks from the trailer.

I find myself short on words when it comes to this movie. I mean, what else can I really say? I’m not going to discuss technical elements, story, or acting. You know what you’re getting yourself into and all I can tell you is that you’ll have a good time. Go see a horror movie that was begging for the third dimension since its inception into the world.  

Halloween 2 (2009): A jumbled mess of every Halloween sequel, mixed in with Rob Zombie’s craziness.

A spoiler-free review (mostly, see warning).

First things first, I’ll unload my paradigms. The original Halloween (1978) is my favorite film, but I’ve been open-minded towards Zombie’s reimagining of the franchise. I wouldn’t expect Zombie’s films to be all that similar to Carpenter’s vision. If they are the same, then what’s the point? That said, I wasn’t hostile toward the changes he brought to the 2007 Halloween. All in all, I thought the film was “okay.” I didn’t share the hatred that so many fans held, nor the love of others. Going into the sequel, I would like to think that I was neutral, for lack of a better word.

I’m trying to keep this review relatively free of spoilers, so I won’t get into the nitty-gritty details, but I will say that I slowly turned myself away from the film as the runtime progressed. Oddly enough, my frustration came to a climax at the film’s conclusion. It’s almost as if any goodwill towards the movie was put on a constant fade, as I was enjoying the beginning of the film and simply enduring the last moments.

One of the most annoying features of the film was the characters. Laurie has turned into an anarchist punk (that’s still a good girl) over the course of a rough year. During the film, I jokingly mentioned to my husband that Scout Taylor Compton turned into Rob Zombie (that hair!). This new attitude that Laurie adopts is painfully cliché and laughable at times. She actually has an anarchy symbol and “666” spray-painted on her bathroom door (which isn’t really her bathroom either). What kind of ankle-biter does that (especially in someone else’s house that she is lucky enough to be staying in)? Unfortunately, she’s annoying as a punk rock chick (chirping with her punk friends in that high-pitched voice) and as a broken-up survivor (screaming in that high-pitched voice). Annie and Sherriff Brackett, who have basically adopted Laurie, are the film’s highlights and they are not in it enough. Instead, we get a lot of useless scenes with Dr. Sam Loomis, who has turned into a complete asshole (and you thought he was mean in Halloween 5). As other reviewers have mentioned, why was he in the film at all? He could have just died in the first Halloween, as it appeared in the theatrical cut.

She's sooo punk.

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH MAY CONTAIN VAGUE SPOILERS, BUT I DON’T REALLY CONSIDER THEM SPOILERS SO READ AT YOUR OWN RISK:

Why do I say it’s a mess of other Halloween sequels (excluding H3 of course), even though it’s an entirely different type of film for the franchise? Well, let’s just look at the film on a basic, superficial level: You got the hospital action from H2 (which had a very similar feel in the way the stalking scenes played out), the weird ending like H4, the psycho-connection nonsense from H5, the overall strange feeling of H6 (which also turned the series in a bizarre direction), the brother-sister connection that plays out in the end of H20, and the psychological breakdown of Laurie as seen in the beginning of Resurrection. My main problem with the film is that I couldn’t buy the fantastical elements because they were anticlimactic, trite, unnecessary, and completely inconsistent with Zombie’s first run at Halloween. I’m all for doing new things, but for whatever reason, I found the new style/sub-plot to be unrewarding.

YOU’RE SAFE NOW.

Why is the film totally different from these movies? Well, because it’s Rob Zombie. He brings the handheld camera, long lenses, and 16mm grit from The Devil’s Rejects and the weirdness of House of 1000 Corpses into Halloween 2. I can’t say that I’m always a fan of his style. It sometimes feels as if shots are composed with out-of-focus foreground elements as an afterthought, because they end up being distracting despite any apparent visual symbolism they might have. Sometimes I just wish the camera would back off for a minute, slow down, allow us to really see what’s going on. When the editor does cut to relatively stable wides, especially when it’s of Michael Myers, it’s pretty effective. In tandem, the editing and cinematography, were not working for me.

I’ll conclude this review by saying some things I did like about the film:

-Danielle Harris and Brad Dourif
-The Hospital Sequence (aside from it’s disappointing…ummm…conclusion?)
-The sparse wide shots during action scenes that played up Michael’s brutality
-The score has improved since the first film, with less unintentionally comical music cues
-Some good moments of gore (when it’s onscreen)
-A scarier Michael Myers than in 2007