Rue Morgue Podcast
RUE MORGUE PODCAST – SHLOGGS – PART TWO
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
On this episode, the Mighty Shloggs from Shloggs’s Horror Blog returns for a full scale dissection & defense of Rob Zombie’s much lambasted sequel to his 2007 Halloween remake, Halloween II (2009).
But we wanna know what you thought of the movie and if any of our ramblings have given you pause to re-evaluate it. So leave your comments right here on the Rue Morgue Blog.
For more of Shloggs’s horror elucidations, visit his website HERE.
Endure,
:- FDBK
To have one of your letters read on an upcoming edition of the Rue Morgue Podcast, send an email to letters @ ruemorgueradio.com.
To listen to the episode, use the embedded player or click HERE
(or ‘Right Click’ to save to your hard drive).
To subscribe in iTunes, use the following URL:
Well, you guys did your job well. A fair assessment of the film. I went to this movie at the theater w/o any preconceptions hoping to like it. I didn’t. But in hindsight, I think Stewart is right, I could not get past Sherry Moon & that white horse. But then I can’t get behind ANY of Zombie’s film endings. So maybe that was the thread I pulled at that unraveled the rest. I will revisit it (director’s cut this time) as a result of your critique. I think Shloggs (& you) made some interesting points I’d like to give a 2nd chance. Thanks guys!! I hope you do more of these.
One of the problems with the Sherri Moon Horse element is that beyond its inherent absurdity & its manufactured, heavy-handed ‘etherealism,’ Sherri Moon is actually really dreadful in the role – which is impressive considering all that’s asked of her is to stand still and look weird. Even that proved too heavy a task.
But yeah, definitely give the director’s cut a whirl.
Just finished the podcast, and regretfully I have to say I can’t get behind this movie. Granted I haven’t seen it in years, but I did see it twice: Once in theaters, once when it hit DVD. I don’t know if the DVD copy I saw was the unrated director’s cut, but I’m not sure it would matter.
Where to begin . . .
I think for starters, what turned me off in the first movie and continued through the second was the fact that HILLBILLY HORROR was already more than played out when Zombie decided to attach it to the Myers backstory. It was even pretty played out before he made House of 1,000 Corpses, so I think I was turned against him as a filmmaker from the start for that reason.
It’s been time to find a new cliche for years, yet he continues to root all his horror in the boondock trailer park . . . this slimy, low-rent world populated almost exclusively with despicable characters that exists nowhere but in the cache of b-movie lore inside his own head and is therefore completely unrelatable to me on a human level.
That’s where he and Tarantino diverge. I think they both make movies that are almost completely based on other movies . . . but with Tarantino it’s a lot harder to tell.
That being said, I’m really interested to see what he does with Lords of Salem or the just-announced movie he’s directing about the birth of the Philadelphia Flyers. (Yes, it’s true. Or at least Deadline.com says it’s true.) There’s at least a chance he’ll break out of that cycle with these two.
Rob Zombie does have a certain flair, and I agree that the kills were brutal and realistic and extremely well-done. But to what end? For the most part the characters who get killed are stereotypical slasher film machete fodder anyway. So giving emotional and visual heft to their demises is, to quote the great Roddy Piper, like pouring perfume on a pig.
The major exception is, of course, Annie’s death and her dad’s discovery of same. I totally agree that the heart of this movie pretty much lies there.
Brad Dourif and Malcolm McDowell are great in this movie, but that’s to be expected. Although I thought Loomis was drafted a little too one-dimensional and cliched.
There was one Loomis scene that I especially liked and give Zombie credit for that neither of you mentioned: His interaction with Weird Al on the talk show. I thought it really showed how low he’d sunk to have him sitting there being mocked and dismissed by the guy who sang “Eat It”.
The “pop psychology” was another dealbreaker for me. Wasn’t it the lack of all that stuff that made the original Halloween so chilling? All this dime store psychoanalysis was good for some serious eye rolls, but nothing more. And again, it all comes back to “blame his hillbilly upbringing.”
To sum up, I didn’t see Zombie progressing or growing as an overall filmmaker. I think some of his techniques are prettier, but in the overall scheme of things, it didn’t make up for the movie’s failings.
It’s like wearing Chanel to a monster truck rally. You can slather on as much as you want, but you’re still gonna walk outta there smelling like diesel and deep-fried Oreos.
P.S. to Shloggs:
LOVED your line about 25-year-old girls liking “Vanishing Point”. Definitely not one of Tarantino’s high points.
Lots of great points here, Nick.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Although I will recommend taking a look at the Director’s Cut. I know there’s some who hated the theatrical cut but enjoyed the director’s cut.
I’m not saying the director’s version successfully bypasses any of the problems you have with the film but it might amp up the elements that ARE effective about this movie.
Either way, give it a viddy (if you get the chance.)
I still haven’t watched my copy of Ratline starring Jason Christ and Emily Haack yet! Of course I’m hesitant to open and devalue it, since Lance/Eric Stanze signed the wrapper.
To be honestly, it probably has more novelty value fully sealed with the signatures intact – than opening it up and actually watching the flick. If you’re that curious, RENT it! (If that’s possible.)
I am not a fan of Rob Zombie’s films. I’ve been a fan of Zombie’s music for many years so I went to see House of 1000 Corpses on opening night. Much to my disappointment, I found it to be a amateur piece of work which in all honesty bored me after the opening credits. Those credits seemed more appropriate as a Rob Zombie music video than an opening for a film. Overall, it just fell apart with cheesy dialogue and an unconvincing sense of dread. There were about 60 people in the theatre and all except 7 walked out by the end, not because they were shocked or disgusted, but from what I could tell it was because they were just disappointed! The film had been overhyped and in my opinion, did not deliver.
I did not actively seek out The Devil’s Rejects, or any of Zombie’s future films, however I did happen to see the first Halloween remake in a double-feature. I also thought that the dinner scene that you talked about was uncomfortable and poorly acted. Being from the south, I can say that Rob really nails the deplorable white trash behavior and attitude on paper, but the way it is delivered on film is just sad and unbelievably over the top. I was very let down that Rob could not even manage to deliver a watchable “mindless slasher” flick!
I can’t say that any of his films got better with time either, as I recently revisited them all on DVD.
Halloween II was shot close to where I live (in Georgia), so I was mostly just interested to see the “Halloween Party” scene because it featured a few of my friends as extras and set designers. I watched it on a rainy night at a drive-in in the middle-of-nowhere Alabama with my wife. We were both impressed. This was the kind of film that -should- be seen at a drive-in and I felt a lot of nostalgic vibes from my teen years. We were both blown away at the stream of brutality coming from the seemingly more massive Michael Myers. I also enjoyed the inclusion of the “ghost” sequences even though the exact motivation for those was not very clear to me (I think you and Schlogg’s hit it on the head that they were they simply to include another cameo from the “plank” Sheri Moon Zombie). I had not seen the director’s cut, so I tracked it down before writing this and I can’t see much difference compared to what I remember about the theatrical version. I agree that the movie should have ended with Annie’s death, everything after that just seemed to be Rob Zombie grasping at straws to keep his “Halloween world” open for another possible sequel.
Get ready for this edition of “Nut’s On Glue”.
This film is a mess. Not in the same way HALLOWEEN (2007) was. That film is just kind of bad. I’ll probably revisit it somewhere down the road but I know I’ll watch HALLOWEEN II (2009) again because I truly enjoy it; it’s just that some reasons are of my own invention.
There are some great uses of music in this film. Take “Nights in White Satin” for instance. I’ve been a fan of that song since I was a kid. Now I won’t be able to hear it without thinking of its use in this film. It never seemed creepy to me until now.
I agree with Shloggs about the dinner scene. That is completely me with my family. I am ever referencing people, places, things, and quotes from films and no one has a clue to what I’m referring.
The dream sequence at the beginning is great. Any problems I had with it initially were washed away by the fact that it is a dream. Besides being homage to the original HALLOWEEN II, the scenes exiting the Hospital put me in the mind of SUSPIRIA with everything being bathed in a light of one color or another. There was also that dumpster full of body parts which reminded of something that would be in INFERNO. A stretch I know, but that’s where my mind went. Lastly there’s the scene with the guy at the guard shack. I half expected him to pull up with his car, beat Laurie with a broom and throw her into a sack ala THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.
“Get that b****, Shatnerface!”
End Dream Sequence… or is it?
Here’s the thing, I like to think the whole film is a dream sequence. Thinking this way gets me past some of my problem’s with the film and in a way makes it even more enjoyable for me, artist’s intention be damned. I’m not saying these are conclusions anyone should come to but somewhere along the way they did for me.
In the dream sequence at the beginning of the film Michael sees Deborah Myers and the White Horse after the ambulance hits the cow and the paramedic loses his head. Why would Laurie be dreaming about the horse and Mother Myers in the first place? I think this is something she invented in her mind. It could be that she saw the Rorschach on the wall at her therapist’s office and made the connections during their sessions. That could be why the test on the wall so obviously looks like a horse. We are not seeing the actual test; we’re seeing it the way she does.
Loomis is a complete 180 degree turn character wise from the guy we saw in HALLOWEEN (2007). I think this could be another case of “Laurie’s version” of the man. The only time she even sees Loomis is at the end of the film and he’s just trying to help at that point much like he was in the previous film. That’s a bit of “Real Loomis” in the dream.
There’s a scene that shows Young Michael receiving the news from Loomis that his mother is dead. He says something about seeing her again, etc. Wasn’t it established in the first film that Michael had stopped speaking by this point? Laurie is not privy to this information and that is why he speaks here. I honestly don’t remember if Michael grunted in HALLOWEEN (2007) as much as he does in this film but that could be Laurie’s invention as well. It would certainly explain why Michael yells, “DIE!” before he kills Loomis. (I am aware that Michael was never completely silent, even in the original.)
People seem to get killed in this movie after Laurie comes across them. Does that mean Laurie is killing these people? Maybe some of them, it just depends on how you look at it. Think HIGH TENSION. That film is seen completely from the view of Marie. My contention is that this film can work in that same way with a dash of PHANTASM. We are seeing a playing out of events not as they happened but as Laurie’s mind has reconciled them. Some of those people might not even be dead. The scenes of Michael making his way to Haddonfield could be her growing psychosis culminating with the scene at the shack. Laurie may have even killed Annie and Mya. The other girl? I’m not sure. Maybe she was dead to Laurie for abandoning them at the party. (Ha!)
In the last scene we see Laurie apparently in an asylum seeing Mother Myers with White Horse in tow. Where’s Michael? Laurie gives us her best Norman Bates smile as an answer. You could say either she is the new killer OR she has been all along, in the context of THIS film I mean. I wonder if there was even really a Michael in this film. Oh man, people would really hate that.
I know my theory may be crazy and convoluted as hell but I don’t think it’s any worse than buying the White Horse stuff as something mystical or that there’s a psychic connection between Michael and Laurie. Is the White Horse Glue just getting to me? Probably! At any rate, great episode! It made me rewatch HALLOWEEN II (2009) and led to these insane ramblings. I look forward to more from Mr. Shloggs.
NUT
P.S. the more I re-read what I just typed the more my head hurts.
Oh yeah, I can buy the girls in DEATH PROOF loving VANISHING POINT. Why? They’re stunt people! I was aware of that film at that age and I’m not in the industry. Why wouldn’t a couple of gear head stunt girls be?
Nut,
I can concede your point on Vanishing Point. But I still think those two lengthy dialogue scenes in Death Proof absolutely kill what was otherwise a pretty decent movie. Kurt Russell is the bomb in that flick.
Nick,
I love Tarantino’s lenghty dialogus scenes. That’s one of his trademarks and it’s in these kind of scenes that his characters take shape. Still, I understand that’s not everyone’s cup of tea. I’ll have two cups, thank you.
As far as Kurt Russel goes in this movie… AGREED 100%! He knocked it out of the park BIG TIME with Stuntman Mike.
I think those lengthy dialogue scenes are hit and miss. Sometimes they really add something to characters, motivation, tension, etc. And sometimes they take away, in the sense that they make me see the man behind the curtain, so to speak. The character becomes a ventriloquist’s dummy sitting on Quentin’s knee. And I really thought that was the case in Death Proof.
On the other hand, I think it really worked in a movie like Basterds, because by virtue of the era it was set in, those guys COULDN’T talk like Tarantino would. He didn’t get to reference things like Vanishing Point and Happy Days. I think he’s so much better when he’s not being so “meta” . . . if I’m using that term correctly.