MovieChat Forums > Halloween II (2009) Discussion > RZ's movies are better than the original...

RZ's movies are better than the originals


That's blasphemy in most circles, of course, but I stand by it--and I'm not trolling. I was disappointed in both of RZ's Halloween movies the first time I saw them, but they actually became two of my favorite horror movies after rewatching.

The characters--even knife-fodder--are deeper and more interesting than virtually anyone in the original movies. The story goes miles beyond anything from Carpenter's movies, and RZ build a world that feels vivid and real. Finally, stylistically, this film has some of the most memorable horror set pieces ever put on film.

I'm sure people will angrily disagree, but H2 is an under-appreciated horror classic.

reply

What do you expect? Not about angry disagreements but they are two different films.

The original was a 1978 low budget independent film made with new technology over 20 days. Given the time frame it was made it, the shoestring budget and the rookie filmmakers and actors/actresses, it's simple, unpolished and a freshman outing by kids in their teens and 20s.

Flashforward to 2007, Rob is not a rookie, in fact, it's his 3rd film. It wasn't low budget, it certainly wasn't independent and it was made in a lot longer time than the original ever had. Rob had time to write his story, develop it, put in a ton of characters to fill in the backstory the original never got. Not to mention the filming technology and technique that wouldn't exist without the original and all that came after it long before Zombie ever got into movies.

He had money, creative freedom to a point and his own vision, which ironically is a rehash of his previous films with the white trash uber violence that is his wheelhouse. Carpenter created his wheelhouse the first time out.

So taking into account the fact that tastes, let alone times changed in the 29 years between movies, not to mention the watershed moment of all the 100s of Halloween like movies that came out in that time, then yes, Rob's is going to be "better". But as I've put it so well, it's subjective. Extremely. And with a huge asterisk.

Rob had more depth, though it's debatable if that's really the way it had to go (as opposed to the original's idea of a good home but a boy gone evil/bad). He had all the bells and whistles. His was polished, but you can still polish a clunker and it be a clunker.

Rob could've been better at casting, writing, even directing. That would've made it "better" for me. And this isn't angry, this is facts. Halloween II would've been great had it not had Michael in it. What it was, was the furthest thing a Halloween movie ever was. Mental, brutal, non redeeming. As an original idea, it was good, but not a good fit in the Halloween franchise. The fact that the series has yet to recover from it, now on it's 3rd take (3D, Returns, now this) proves that.

Even III and 6 didn't hurt the franchise this bad. So under all those circumstances, all those facts, you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's not shared. Taken with a huge grain of salt.

To be fair, one can say that Amityville and TCM remakes were also "better" hotter actresses, better, deeper stories, but again, for reasons. Time and money being chief among them. You can't make a 70s movie in a 2000s sensibility. Doesn't work. You have to modernize it, tweak it and give it an edge. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. But in the end, originals are always better because they set the foundation other people build off of. Ir's not a new house, it's a remodel.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

Huh, so I suppose opinions CAN be wrong.

reply

That's crazy you say that because I always despised his films but really liked Halloween(not loved). I hated Halloween 2, House 1000 Corpses, Devils Rejects etc....then a few years ago I watched Halloween 2 again & thought it was one of the greatestate horror movies ever. I then went back & rewarded Deils Rejects & House 1000 Corpsession & fell in love with them. Then I saw Lords of Salem & almost 2 years later I'm still talking about it. I guess it's been a complete 360 turn around as far as my taste in RZ's films go. I literally thought he was thee most pathetic director I had ever seen & now I find myself waiting to see what he does next

reply

Seriously? ALL of zombies films sucked except 1000 corpses, rejects, and halloween 1. Halloween 2 was trash as well as every movie except 31, 31 reminded me of Slashers. SLASHERS with him trying to go back to his corpse and rejects roots and Doom was a crApple copy of Otis.

reply

You contradict yourself a bit here. You say ALL his movies sucked, then proceed to list about 75% of his work that you DO like. Am confused as to what point you're trying to make.

reply

Glad I'm not alone there. Obviously, he's a divisive director, but there's definitely something about his films where people (at least some of us) genuinely hate them on the first viewing, but then love them upon a second viewing.

I think part of it is, his movies are very unconventional and usually upend any expectations you might have. Once you know what story you're getting, the film becomes way more effective. Lords of Salem is a perfect example. I didn't really "get it" at all the first time I watched it, but now I think it's one of the best Satanic/witch movies of all time.

reply

Rob definitely has his own style and it's not for everybody. That's okay. His style doesn't fit into a typical Halloween film but that's okay too. Personally, I liked Devil's Rejects and Halloween, haven't seen 31 yet. He has his hits and misses like everyone else and not everyone's going to like everything he does, all directors have that. Bottom line, he gave it a shot, some people like it, some don't, it's just a matter of personal choice and taste.


"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

I wish I could agree with you. I just watched this movie for the third time since it's release. I decided to watch all the Halloween films this month (except for 3). Anyway, I was not looking forward to watching this one because I didn't enjoy it the first two times and I didn't like it this time either. It seems like he's trying to make a physiological thriller hiding in a slasher film and to me, it just doesn't work. When I watch a Halloween movie I shouldn't leave the theater wondering what the *beep* just happened. That's just my two cents.

reply

I tend to skip this one. Last time I watched it was just to make sure the Blu Ray from the box set worked. That's it. Hate this film.

"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

reply

I don't blame you Dave. This film had no redeming qualities.

reply

No. just no.

You are wrong. End of story.

reply

[deleted]

RZ's first remake was a good movie. It was dark, sinister, different yet you still knew it was Halloween with Michael Myers.

The second film was a Rob Zombie White-Trash Snuff Film with a Halloween 2 sticker plopped on top.

reply

Tou have genuinely *beep* taste in horror movies

reply

One was good. The second was an abomination. The originals were timeless classics.

reply

By turning Michael Myers into a misunderstood hillbilly, Zombie neutered the entire concept. His first two films were fine. Beginning with the needless Halloween remake, he started a downhill progression that hasn't ended.

reply