Halloween II (2009)
Of course, there’s a sequel. Of course. Why wouldn’t the remake have a sequel?
How many more HALLOWEEN movies are there, anyway?
Despite being completely burned-out on all things Michael Myers, I feel obligated to take a look at this follow-up to 2007’s HALLOWEEN.
Weird Al is still Weird Al.
Since the terrifying events of Halloween night (one or) two years ago everyone involved have become assholes. Laurie and Annie are now quick-tempered, fiery-tongued sassaholics. Loomis is a Hollywood-style fame-mongering d-bag. Weird Al Yankovic is still good old Weird Al Yankovic, though. Thankfully.
What about our main man Michael? After surviving the magnum blast to his cranium that Laurie administered at the close of the previous film, the Dread of Haddonfield is now a forest-dwelling, coyote-eating survivalist. Pretty brilliant move on filmmakers’ part, as they solve that pesky problem of previous HALLOWEENers: Where was Michael to spend his time between movies? Instead of introducing a Mountain Man to care for Michael, they just turn Michael himself into the Mountain Man! My hat is off, gentleman.
Michael Myers: Mountain Man.
The newest HALLOWEEN sequel manages to avoid another problem faced by previous sequels: Where do the victims come from? This is a problem I like to refer to as the “Puppet Master Problem.” PUPPET MASTER is a film about a group of horrifying little puppets who kill the shit out of a bunch of jerks. At the end of the movie though, you find out the puppets are good guys! Problem: How do you make a successful series of horror films when your monsters are good guys? Who are these monsters supposed to kill?
As you can see, filmmakers eventually solved PUPPET MASTER's own Puppet Master Problem by introducing demons from hell for the puppets to battle.
Previous HALLOWEEN sequels faced a similar problem. Not that Michael Myers was ever a good guy. Rather that he had very specific target victims. So it never made much sense why, if he was so intent on killing Laurie Strode or Jamie Strode, he would take so much time out to routinely kill a bunch of nobodies who were only loosely connected to his primary victims.
Past sequels’ answer to the Puppet Master Problem wasn’t really much of an answer. They just sorta distracted viewers with gore, hoping no one would pause long enough to questions Michael’s motives.
The newest HALLOWEEN successfully avoids the problem by making Michael just generally keen on killing whatever comes into his purview. This includes hunters, hunter’s girlfriends, nurses (maybe?), strippers, strip-club owners, strip-club trash taker-outers,¹ dudes peeing against a tree, dudes not peeing against a tree, girls who know Laurie Strode, and girls who do not. The only exception to his general rule of carving up anything that moves is his self-restraint in his sister’s presence and also, to a lesser extent, in Loomis’ presence. (He also doesn’t kill children, as he knows it would piss off Gamera — and nobody, not even Michael Myers, wants to piss off Gamera).
Now, as in movies like FRIDAY THE 13th and SLEEPAWAY CAMP, filmmakers have a recipe that provides for the constant parade of fresh victims. As soon as one group is sufficiently mashed and bashed, the next group can be gently nudged down the slaughter shoot, arriving safe, sound, and soon-to-be dead at destination sequel.
Michael's ghost family. Or something.
Another thing this sequel has in common with sequels past is a somewhat confusing psychic connection between Michael and another character. This story-telling device is, of course, similar to that used in HALLOWEEN 5. In that movie Michael and his niece Jamie had some strange connection, the nature of which was never made terribly explicit. In the newer movie, Michael’s connection with his sister Laurie involves, at one point, Laurie’s vomiting as Michael, many miles away, gobbles down something nasty.
Their connection also allows both Michael and Laurie to see and interact with visions of a young Michael Myers and his dead mother. Are these two familiar faces objective spirits, dual psychoses, or a mere story telling device? Seeing something so supernatural after the 2007 HALLOWEEN and its commitment to uber-realism is a little jarring at first, but you soon realize that this metaphysical connection — the connection between Michael, Laurie and their dead mother — is what the movie is about. You can ask why Michael’s older sister Judith isn’t involved in this little clan, but then this question ultimately leads to the question, why did Michael kill Judith in the first place. You get the feeling it really doesn’t matter and that those are questions beyond the scope of the story with answers of as much weight as Lady Macbeth’s children.
Michael in a hospital. Where have I seen this before?
Along with the previous HALLOWEEN’s commitment to realism, abandoned as well is the decision to avoid anything “cute.” The extended dream sequence involving Laurie’s flight from Michael within a hospital is a conscious (and cute) echo of the original HALLOWEEN II of 1981. While the scene is fun and suspenseful, and provides necessary back story (Michael’s escape, Annie’s survival, and Laurie’s general psychological state), when it ends with Laurie’s waking up in bed, you realize you’re watching a movie of a different style than the film whose story it continues.
One thing HALLOWEEN II has that its progenitor hasn’t is comic relief. Loomis on the “David Newman” show along with fellow guest Weird Al Yankovic is a short but funny sequence, and Loomis’ flagrant assholery punctuates the film, providing some much appreciated laughs².
Every sequel needs a magic horse.
HALLOWEEN II is a movie worthy of its predecessor 2007’s HALLOWEEN and manages to accomplish all that a sequel in a long tradition of sequels should. It continues the story, introduces slightly more outlandish plot elements, ups the gore, has a scene with a magical horse, and keeps us entertained for a couple hours. I understand that this movie disappointed a lot of fans, but I think if you’re going to blame a sequel for not being GODFATHER II, you might want to blame the first for not being GODFATHER.
And of course, there’s going to be a HALLOWEEN III — or should I say HALLOWEEN 3D, or maybe just H3D?. The director/writer of the movies it follows, a man named Rob Zombie (I’m sure you’ve never heard of him), refused to sign on for this one. He hasn’t stated his reasons, but I’m hoping it’s because this newest installment is going to be the most absurd, unbelievable, and stupidly awesome HALLOWEEN yet. (Michael in Space! Michael in space! Michael in space!)
But for now, that’s all the HALLOWEENs there are. Right?
Right?
Notes:
¹ Or maybe Michael killed the folks at the strip club because that’s where his mother used to work.
² Comic relief would have been completely out of place in sequels past, which were obliged to take themselves very seriously. Generally in a horror movie, providing opportunities for laughs is a sign of confidence and competence on the part of filmmakers. Real tension can be broken with laughs and then quickly restored; the illusion of tension, with only one simple joke, bursts like a bubble.