I was willing to give Zombie a mulligan and hope he learned from the error on the first one and could create a stronger film this time around. I griped about the first one, but I saw this anyway because I'm a Halloween junkie and the major papers I read today actually gave this moderately good reviews.
I thought there was potential in the first one but the flaws just outweighed the positives by too much. Well all the problems of the first were exponentially multiplied in this outing. At least the first one had a relatively simple concept, watching this one, I felt like this was meant to been seen while on acid, with all the mental imagery (which I agree was a total ploy just so Zombie's wife could have a part) Here's a hint, if you're an actress where the only stuff you get cast in are your husband's films, maybe it's not the right thing for you.
While I thought the first was flawed and weak, this was just confusing and made little sense. For example, if you're Laurie Stode, and so haunted by the experience of the first film, why the hell didn't you save a few bucks and high tail it to West Palm for the week of Halloween.
Once again, no characters who one could feel anything for. The Laurie Strode character was even more off putting than in the first film. I don't get why these horror filmmakers still don't understand that what makes good horror and suspense is not the monster, but offering characters that we want to see live.
The kills were boring, they were mostly just stabbings. Hell, I don't have a problem if you want to make an exploitave film, but at least offer some varietly of creative kills. Even the original Halloween II managed to do that.
As for the Loomis character, as much as I like Malcolm McDowell, his role in the film was virtually unnecessary. They should have dropped most of his role. It would have been more effective if the story had just acknowledged he wrote an exploitive book and then had him show up at the end. And speaking of which, how was it not discovered unitl this film that Laurie was Michael's sister, that should have came out almost immediately after the events of the first one.
The most significant of very few bright spots in the film was Brad Dourif, an actor who gives me the impression that he is a true professional. He was the only good character in the film. The only other good part was getting to listen to "Nights in White Satin" Which, even though I'm a big Moody Blues fan, did get what was up with how the song and the video (with a tv turning on by itself) kept repeating through the hospital parts.
The sad thing is that I do think Zombie actually does have some flair as a director. There were a few shots of Michael waking towards Haddonfield in the early evening that I liked. But the guy just does not understand what make a compelling story. It makes me think that "The Devil's Rejects" was just him getting lucky and making a decent exploitation film by accident.
