'H2', Rob Zombie's sequel to 'Halloween'

Do they explain why
Annie was kept alive from the first movie? I never got why Michael didn't just kill her right from the start, but he goes and kills Laurie's step parents without hesitation.
 
I think it's more...

Superherohype: 'The place for stating your opinion, whether its the popular one or not.'

Well, thank god just having an "opinion" does not mean you are right, or know anything about the topic at hand. If this is a new outlook as far as opinions go, maybe I can go infect other threads with my unwanted, uninformed, and unsolicited (but apparently still valid) personal opinion...
 
Annie was probably my favorite thing about this movie. I liked her character and of course she's beautiful. She looks amazing and is in her 30s.
 
Do they explain why
Annie was kept alive from the first movie? I never got why Michael didn't just kill her right from the start, but he goes and kills Laurie's step parents without hesitation.

As SsM said, I think she was kept alive for bait. Michael kept Laurie in the house because she needed to stay and try to help Annie.

Well, thank god just having an "opinion" does not mean you are right, or know anything about the topic at hand. If this is a new outlook as far as opinions go, maybe I can go infect other threads with my unwanted, uninformed, and unsolicited (but apparently still valid) personal opinion...

Don't get me wrong, there are some people who are just trolls and only come into a thread to troll.

However, stating an opinion that is different from someone else's is not trolling. I think we all need to respect that.
 
Things that made no sense to me:

Why was Michael at the rave? Clearly he could not have known Laurie was there. Him just showing up to kill the girl and the random guy she was ****ing served no purpose to the film and really defies logic. Either Michael knew Laurie was there in which case, why did he leave or he just stumbled across it, stopped to kill some chick for the hell of it and moved on? Also, how did he know to go to Annie's house?

This scene in particular had me shaking my head. It's this kind of stuff that makes me wonder if today's new blood of horror director's are f**ked in the head. These new age slasher directors have 25+ years of crap slasher films that serve as a blueprint of what NOT to do.

Seriously, if you're trying to make a good (and different) horror film and you've seen some of the most hackneyed sh** on celluloid in the last 25 years would you want to put that same stuff in your movie and cheapen it?

Are you really going to have one of the victims say "Ive gotta take a piss" to set him up for a pointless kill that has nothing to do with the story itself? Is that hack-worthy stuff really going to make it into your final cut of a horror film? That's 5+ minutes that could be used for something so much better such as the development of a REAL character or to add a scene where this movie would have a little more cohesion. Just about all the kills in this film had little to do with the movie at all. They were just there for body count sake and used as filler.

I don't know...I just think these new blood directors should be held to a higher standard today. Like I said before, they have the blueprint of mistakes that hack directors before them have made so why are we still seeing this sh**? It makes no sense to me.
 
A few scars on the face in exchange for a total gutting? At any rate, my point is, Loomis and Annie's deaths were clearly shown in the original and Zombie just backtracked with not even a quick crappy scene of EMTs finding them.



But he was clearly shot somewhere that would kill him, as he was pronounced dead at the beginning of the film by the EMTs. A grazing to the side of the face wouldn't stop his heart and make him clinically dead and being as the police were on scene when he was shot we can assume not enough time passed for him to bleed out (plus the EMTs would instantly begin to treat him if he was bleeding, and there was no sign of that). This makes the two likely areas of his shooting either the throat (which would deprive oxygen and cause his heart to stop beating rather quickly) or the brain. Either way, these aren't injuries you just walk off.

At any rate, you are correct that we do not know. We have to fill in our own blanks which makes it a plot hole, and IMO lazy film making. Almost as lazy as the magical, fix all explanation to every action of Michael being "PSYCHIC CONNECTION!"

You have a great point with Michael. RZH was obviously meant to be a standalone movie where he got capped in the skull (not to mention Loomis shot him three times in the back earlier). He should be dead and there is NO logical explanation for this "realistic Michael" to still be alive.

With that said, Annie was never stabbed in RZH. I don't get where y'all get that from. He beat her up, punched her face and caused her to bleed all over herself from throwing her around, but she was clearly not stabbed (as she was naked and we would have noticed) and alive in her last scene. She is crying and tells Laurie to leave and make a run for it, while losing her seeming mind. And then her father finds her alive and that is the last we see of them as he bends over her waiting to get medical help.


As for Loomis it was left ambiguous in the TC (he didn't get attacked in the superior ending of the workprint, but that isn't canon) but if I recall we see him alive and grab Michael's leg to give Laurie some time to escape and gets hit. But how they explain him not losing his eyes, I don't know. Then again both he and Michael survived being clearly burned alive (and Michael clearly going blind) in HII, but again, H4 wasn't very good and shouldn't be held as the standard bearer for the franchise.
 
Last edited:
You have a great point with Michael. RZH was obviously meant to be a standalone movie where he got capped in the skull (not to mention Loomis shot him three times in the back earlier). He should be dead and there is NO logical explanation for this "realistic Michael" to still be alive.

With that said, Annie was never stabbed in RZH. I don't get where y'all get that from. He beat her up, punched her face and caused her to bleed all over herself from throwing her around, but she was clearly not stabbed (as she was naked and we would have noticed) and alive in her last scene. She is crying and tells Laurie to leave and make a run for it, while losing her seeming mind. And then her father finds her alive and that is the last we see of them as he bends over her waiting to get medical help.


As for Loomis it was left ambiguous in the TC (he didn't get attacked in the superior ending of the workprint, but that isn't canon) but if I recall we see him alive and grab Michael's leg to give Laurie some time to escape and gets hit. But how they explain him not losing his eyes, I don't know. Then again both he and Michael survived being clearly burned alive (and Michael clearly going blind) in HII, but again, H4 wasn't very good and shouldn't be held as the standard bearer for the franchise.

I saw that workprint ending. That was excellent. I guess I'm glad i didn't see the original ending.

But was the rape scene in the theatrical cut? Because that really was one of the most pointless and disgusting things I have eveer seen.
 
You have a great point with Michael. RZH was obviously meant to be a standalone movie where he got capped in the skull (not to mention Loomis shot him three times in the back earlier). He should be dead and there is NO logical explanation for this "realistic Michael" to still be alive.
Michael was never realistic in the Zombie films
With that said, Annie was never stabbed in RZH. I don't get where y'all get that from. He beat her up, punched her face and caused her to bleed all over herself from throwing her around, but she was clearly not stabbed (as she was naked and we would have noticed) and alive in her last scene. She is crying and tells Laurie to leave and make a run for it, while losing her seeming mind. And then her father finds her alive and that is the last we see of them as he bends over her waiting to get medical help.
Annie most certainly was stabbed and slashed in the first movie. As for H2, she was just such a bloody mess, it was hard to see what happened to her.
 
Agreed, because it makes it seem as if Michael was planning to escape at one point, rather than him escaping be a matter of circumstance.

It was also more violent. :D
 
I was very meh to this movie. I didn't see the first one, but I don't feel I really had to. I called the ending to this film in the first 5 mins, and I didn't even look up spoilers. It was visually interesting in many regards, but the film lacked subtlety and was very predictable. While the surreal nature of the hallucinations was cool to watch, it didn't outweigh the film's faults IMO.

I'd say this film is a 4 or 5 out of 10 to me...nothing overtly special and not a film I am really going to dwell on.
 
I thought the breakout scene was much better than the rape scene. I agree with SwordMaster that it made it seem like Michael was planning his escape versus just jumping at an opportunity. The rape scene really just seems out of place to me.
 
I'd buy the theater version to just get that part of the movie.

I have the unrated 2 disc version. I got it since it has the features.
 
^^ I plan on buying the version with the 4 hour documentary on Blu-Ray. I think it came out last October. :up:
 
Yeah, your description of the protagonists of FT13 sounds like some interesting leads, but it's lipservice. Their backstories are not important to the series. They're window dressing or a backdrop to gain quick audience sympathy. But despite the guy saying this to the cop and his new gal pal, there is no actual psychological development of what this is doing to him or of his personality, really. It serves no purpose to the movie and is just filler so the audience has someone to root for. We never see anything from Whitney that deals with this pain. We actually see Loomis and Michael's connection and see their relationship develop, as well as see the destruction of his sympathy and it leading to his sad mother to slowly lose hope. There is some meat to that movie and even though H2 is a bad film, Laurie's arc is actually crucial. Her discovering she is Mike's sister and her bad dreams involve her entirely empathetic path of self-destruction. There is nothing that interesting in FT3.

And we also see that only reason Loomis makes any 'connection' with Michael for the sake of his damn book deal so he ****e out Michael and anyone else he can to make a buck, then show up at the last minute to try to "reason" with Michael for the sake of some half-assed, underdeveloped excuse for an "arc."

What I described about the Whitney, Clay, and Jenna relationships is not interchangeable, it's much more likeable and gives me much more reason to care whether these people live or die than what I know about the characters in most slasher films, including RZH and H2.

And regarding the predictability of F13...I feel exactly the same way about Rob's Halloween films...he turns Michael into the typical "this is what happened when he was a kid and this is why he kills people" killer, and it was blatantly obvious where the film would go, it was also blatantly obvious that H2 would end with Laurie flipping out and becoming just like Michael, it was obvious that Annie would die and Brackett would go after Michael for revenge...nothing in Rob's films was as surprising as Jenna's death in F13.


That may be, but I never cared for Jason and the movie gave me no reason to start doing it now. And why would you care about any of the victims? They are interchangeable cliches. Yeah, Zombie is guilty of populating his movies with them too, but was there anyone in it whose death was as sad as Annie's or as fully developed as Laurie, Sheriff Brackett or Dr. Loomis (whether you like this interpretation or not)? I thought they were really pretty future soap actors in FT13 waiting to get skewered, myself.

Because I care about characters that are very morally driven, I care about characters that are trying to make ammends for the mistakes of their past, I care about characters that are stuck in horrible relationships and now have the chance at a much healthier relationship that they deserve if they survive...

and the films have always given the audience plenty of reason to care about Jason, one can argue that the films were shallow and redundant, but Jason has plenty of substance; and as for "cheesy kills," I think him setting a woman on fire to bait her boyfriend into a bear trap and making him watch her die, then leaving him there to bait in her friend before bearing a blade in his face is more brutal and unnerving than anything in Rob's Halloween films...granted it was rather difficult to be disturbed by the death of an unlikeable trampy character with "a nice plopper" like Judity, or Lynda, who had a personality that was pretty much interchangeable with her, or the "golden shower" girl from H2, or watching a hillbilly get impaled on the hood of his truck, or some some sleazy club owner get stabbed, etc... I had no reason to give a **** about most of the people Michael kill in Rob's films, atleast in F13 I cared about the core characters.


To each their own. But based just on cinematic qualities, RZH (which is no screen gem) has more to offer than any FT13 film ever made and H2 may, but it is pretty bottom rung. I personally love Carpenter's original and find the original Halloween II a pretty good follow-up that is quite satisfying. I also liked Curtis's performance in H20 enough to overlook how boring that movie otherwise was. And...I like Scream? See...I don't hate all slashers. ;) :cool:

Yes, I agree, it has more to offer cinematically than F13...because it's one of the best examples of what NOT to do when you're assigned to revive an iconic franchise to come down the pike in some time.;)

F13 had the audience bursting out cheering and gave me a huge "Jason is back!" adrenaline rush after the opening scene (which was more intense than both of Rob's Trashoween films combined, btw)...after the opening of RZH the audience burst out laughing as though I were at a Will Ferrell film as I sunk into the seat practically ashamed to be a Halloween fan.

Rob is capble of being a competent, and sometimes even great director...the problem is he's a HORRIBLE writer, and the scripts are what ruined his Halloween films, if somebody else had written them they could've been good.
As is, F13 is an F13 film, love it or hate it, RZH and H2 are uneven, unintentional comedies mixed with especially violent episodes of the Springer show guest starring a half-assed Jason rip off that was apparently supposed to be Michael Myers...

F1309 is a better directed film than Rob's Trashoweens, and it's atleast as well acted, and Rob's ridiculous, vulgar rants, geographical and narratively incompetent as far as where Michael shows up and why appearances, the development of his attempts at "character arcs," and his all around butchery of one of the greatest horror villains of all time have very, very little cinematic worth to me at all...much less than the better installments of the F13 series or the Halloween sequels, which Rob made an inferior re-creation of.

I don't think much of the Oscar bait trash or sappy dramas that alot of film buffs can't stop lauding have much, if any, cinematic worth, but then again...I'm not the target audience for that type of garbage, because I don't value it any more than you do the horror genre.

Oh, and TCM 2 which I saw mentioned previously is probably a better film than F1309 and definitely a much better film than either of Zombie's attempts at Halloween.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"