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

[CelticPredator]

He could've replaced Tyler!

 

[Marx]

This was on Daeg's imdb page. It was taken last summer.

 

[Matt Mortem]

That is one ugly kid. Good God!

 

[Nightmare]

Dude needs to trim that hair, looks like a beast of a female.

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

-sigh-

He's a kid, he's French-Canadian, he has a hippie for a mom...give the kid a break.

 

[mclay18]

That white horse, looked horribly out of place. Just many on the crap list though.

Maybe RZ was doing a mild homage to Blade Runner. I think it would've made the mother scenes downright hilarious if was an actual unicorn, as opposed to awkward.

 

[Eelectro 2]

i dont' know why they didnt' set young michaels scenes when he gets older anyways. i haven't seen the new film yet, but doesnt' michael spend his whole adolescent life in that place? it makes sense for him to get bigger...i mean after all he's huge now

 

[ABleedingCorpse]

Yeah, seeing a TALLER young Michael would have made sense, considering how tall adult Michael gets.

 

[CelticPredator]

-sigh-

He's a kid, he's French-Canadian, he has a hippie for a mom...give the kid a break.

Thats no excuse....

Cut that hair down broha.

 

[Mike_D202]

This movie had its rare moments, but overall it was bad IMO. He really needs to stop type casting his wife in all these roles in his movies, its coming off as...can't find the word to describe it...but its just as bad as Will Smith getting the rights to remake the Karate Kid and casting his own son in the starring role. I'm sure she'll be in Halloween 3 (if it ever gets made). Lame. He also needs to stay away from the redneck/hillbilly crap as well.

 

[Episode29]

My review:

(You might want to skip to the next post Nivek and TAC: you probably won't find much to like here. )

Watching Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween re-imagining, it was impossible not to detect the pungent odour of frustrated flop-sweat emanating from the disjointed final product. While the first half of the film was a continuation of the gonzo hillbilly exploitation themes of the director’s schlocky-but-promising debut House of 1000 Corpses and its sick-in-the-head brilliant sequel The Devil’s Rejects, the latter portion felt like a reigned-in and creatively bloodless retread of Carpenter’s 1977 original. The result was a movie more laughably bad than scary, with the buck wild-lunacy of the Zombie-influenced early scenes of Michael Myers childhood utterly destroying the suspense of his climactic Haddonfield, IL. home-town murder spree.

Now, with Halloween II, Zombie appears to have been let off the leash, free to explore his own obsessions and eccentricities to the fullest without having to adhere to the mythology of the earlier entries. Indeed, with this film the director seems to seeking, feverishly and gracelessly, to transcend the entire Slasher flick genre and create an unsettling quasi-artistic minded study in post-traumatic suffering, evidenced by the juxtaposed mental decay of Michael Myers (Tyler Mane), now tormented by hallucinations of his deceased mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and his younger self (Chase Wright Vanek), and his chief victim Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton), a scarred and emotionally rattled teenager battling schizophrenic visions and night terrors. This is unexplored territory in the franchise and, in theory at least, a fresh and intriguing approach to very creaky material. Sadly, however, Halloween II is an unwatchable slop-bucket of a film, filled to its grimy brim with incoherent editing, grainy, ugly cinematography, wretched performances and tensionless brutality. If there is a worse film looming ahead in 2009, I weep for the future.

Set mere minutes after the first film, wherein Laurie had blown most of Michael’s skull to paste with a revolver, we pick up with the blood-soaked, trembling girl being consoled by Sherriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif) and put through gruesome post-attack surgery (one of the film’s oh-so-rare neat touches), while the skull-smashed slasher is taken away in an ambulance driven by an inept pair of medics who ponder the finer points of necrophilia. After the vehicle is destroyed in a car-on-cow calamity, Michael escapes and pulls a Kwai Chang Caine, nomadically wandering the earth on foot (and growing a nifty beard in the process). In his Halloween: H20 review back in 1998, Roger Ebert queried how Michael survived between homicidal rampages. Well, Zombie shows us: he whiles away his time butchering obnoxious rednecks and devouring their dogs raw. Nice. As Myers slowly winds his way back home in time for October 31st, Laurie must confront the cause of her fractured psyche and prepare for another blood-drenched holiday.

Zombie has shown in the past a bitter spitefulness towards his critics and has this time found a mouthpiece for his aggravations in Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), Myers’ former psychologist who, having survived a vicious assault in the previous film, has become the glory-seeking author of an opportunistic expose of Michael’s eviscerating exploits. As the director’s film spins frantically away from him into a numbing black hole of unintelligible Marilyn Manson video-esque dream sequences - not to mention an aggravating extended cheat which recalls 1981’s own Halloween II - and misplaced 70s nostalgia (a black-and-white live performance of 10cc’s “The Things We Do For Love” apparently gets lots of airplay in Haddonfield), Loomis hurls insulting barbs regarding “journalists” and even resentfully yells that “I don’t think you understand what I’m trying to do here!”. Oh, we get it Rob, but it stinks.

Despite the movie’s lofty aims, all drama is sucked out of Halloween II by its tin-eared dialogue (Do kids really say things like “too coolio for schoolio” and “I’m starvin’ like Marvin”?) and feeble lead performances. While a bored McDowell often seems to be channelling his obnoxious Tank Girl villain, Scout-Compton, perhaps the shrillest Scream Queen ever, wildly overplays every scene, succumbing to endless fits of headache-inducing hysteria by the third act. A scene featuring a fateful revelation has the potential for true disquieting horror, but instead the actress thrashes around like a grounded mackerel and shrieks the F-word in endless succession. By the time we get to the overwrought climactic showdown in a dilapidated shack we yearn desperately for gunfire if only to silence the grinding cacophony of ear-splitting sound-effects and banshee-like screeching.

Sitting through Halloween II is a punishingly dull experience, where even the ferocious kills feel exhausted and mundane. In attempting to mould the series into a pretentious weirdo experiment Zombie has delivered a true fiasco which, fingers crossed, will inspire him to regroup and rediscover the sly wit and stylishness which made him such a promising talent in the first place. For the only mark Halloween II seems destined to leave is a greasy stain on theatre screens across the world.

1 out of 5

 

[marvelman2006]

I really wanted to see this but after reading all these reviews i can happily say i will wait for a rent. out of 200 reviews i found maybe 25 positive.

 

[The Dark Defender]

You know as well as I do that that is not how it happens. You are exaggerating and distorting for your points or you did not get Zombie's very unsubtle development. When we are introduced to Michael he honestly really does want to help him and you taste the desperation he has of losing this child. He does call Michael sincerely his best friend and spends most of the second half of RZH trying to find him (he has one book scene, unlike H2) and at the end, either ending, features him begging Michael to stop like a friend would try to stop his alcoholic buddy. This was not subtle and far more intriguing than "I'm looking for my sister." Even if he as shallow as you say, he is still a more fully realized personality than the cardboard cutouts of FT13. You had the ****ty teen, the jerk alpha male, the mysterious rebel outsider, the good girl (Jenna? I forgot before the movie ended), the nerdy minority teen and even the hip-funny black guy. Reeeeeealllly.

Most of them were rather typical hedonists, but it's F13...of course that's how they're going to be, it's part of Jason's motivation, the reason he died in the first place was because of people like this, and far as he's concerned this is who killed his mother, and the primary target that he's lashing out against.

And you forgot her name before you left the theatre huh...well guess what, I couldn't name either one of Laurie's friends from H2 for you...

and no it was is not far more intriuging than a brother that screwed up his relationship with his sister trying to find her and make up for the damage he'd done...the characters I mentioned were not cardboard cut outs.

I'm not distorting ****...the characterization was extremely uneven, he spends the first film trying to understand Michael's psyche for the primary purpose of ****ing it out for a book deal and doing the same to his victims...and shows up at the tale end of both films and begs Michael to stop because Zombie wanted to tack on a half-assed excuse for an arc that was meant to keep him from being more than 1D prick...which is exactly what he was.
I think you're simply trying to add character depth where it isn't in the same way that you've accused me of doing with F13.


What you described isn't, but how they were actually written, directed and performed was. They were clichés so the audience could root for their deaths. Everyone of them, even "poor Jenna" was treated with cheers and applause when I saw it in theatre. Archetypes up for the slaughter. I don't care if they are watered down by a Hollywood studio to be more likable, they were thinner than cartoon characters. They literally were every single freaking cliché from the entire franchise.

What I described was exactly how they were written and acted, Whitney's unfocused demeanor since she was more concerned about her mother than she was about anything going on here, which her boyfriend talked to her about, already had me caring about her much more than I ever grew to care about any of Michaels victims in RZH...and the three that I mentioned from F13 were not cliche'd...Lynda and Laurie's golden shower buddy in H2 are just as cliche'd and just as much of the typical irritating, shallow hedonists as anyone in F13 was, and for that matter so was Annie in the first film (that "oh baby tell me I'm hot! oh yeah!" bs with her boyfriend was just as ridiculous and stupid as the "stupendous ****" dialogue in F13 was, and she fits the bill as the same type of cliche that you're complaining about in F13. She was better in H2 and I enjoyed her interaction with her father)...and Rob spends huge chunks of his Halloween films on the same exact white trash cliches fom his other films...there's hardly more cinematic merit to that.

I never said H2 was a good movie. But there is a certain inevitability and almost destiny at work in Zombie's films. As Loomis says in RZH what happened to Michael was the "perfect storm" of exterior and interior problems that manifested himself into something beyond a psychopath and his Laurie is doomed to be haunted and destroyed by his legacy. There is almost a tragedy at work there. Same with how once the evil and violence touched Annie and her father, there was no way out for them ever. The violence is inevitable and inescapably corrupting.

Yes, he has a destiny to rip off Jason with the trying to recreate broken memories from his ****ed up childhood, and Loomis has a destiny to ****e out peoples suffering as much as possible for book deals and then show up in his last scene to try to reason with Michael for the sake of a ridiculously shallow, uneven, and just plain stupid point a to point b with almost nothing in between "arc."

I predicted every single death and every single scene in FT13 remake. The biggest surprise was that they lingered on ski girl so as to pull up one more gratuitous boob shot after she died. There was no rhyme, reason or meaning to it. Just senseless violence that is not meant to terrify but to bait the audience. Get those hoots, holler, laugh and revel in the blood bath. AFter all, that's what is meant to be. And I don't think anyone was surprised Michael was developed as a psychological study from birth as the first hour takes place when Michael was a child. That's like complaining it is obvious that Dickens is using what affects David Copperfield as a youth as an explanation of his adulthood. Way too predictable there as well.

And again, I found the overall development of both Trashoween films just as predictable, and less satisfying.

Again, I repeat, I find a woman being set on fire in front of her boyfriend to bait him into a bear trap, then letting him suffer to bait in someone else before slamming a blade through his skull much more brutal and disturbing than anything in RZH was.

Also, Jenna dying got a silent, respectful indifference from the audience. Nobody cared. Nobody talks about that being a highlight of the movie. She was a cliché that got dispatched. Annie's death may have been predictable, but she sure gets a lot more threads and attention from fans who lament the loss of a character. Annie's death was truly sad. Jenna managed to get a shrug from me.

I guess that silent, respectful indifference is better than laughing at things that weren't supposed to be funny and just shaking my head in disgust at the wildly out of place excerpts from the Springer show, which is the reaction many of Rob's characters got from me...

Annie's death was good, that's one of the few points I actually agree with you on.


I don't care if a character is moral or not. At least not in the sense of creativity. A character's morality does not make them interesting nor does it make them sympathetic or not (necessarily speaking). And in any case Laurie was a moral and likable girl who should want to root for and she actually has a fully developed personality and background. And if you really care about making amends, maybe you should like Zombie's Loomis as that is all he did for the second half of the first movie--and though badly written, it is also what he did at the end of H2. I think Laurie and Annie deserved a chance to live, but the horror that touched them in the first film never would give them that opportunity again and there is a sense of doom and meloncholy to both of them in the sequel.

I care very much, in fact, it's one of the most important factors that determines how much I actually like a character; and I found Whitney's personality and background very likeable, and under the circumstances, very sympathetic...and Laurie was a decent character...but I didn't have any more reason to like her than I did Jenna, who you felt was so shallow...and her coming from a ****ed up trashy family before being adopted by a nice one didn't add any more depth to her than Jenna being stuck in a horrible relationship and having the chance at one she was more deserving of.

I'm not even going to bother getting into why I didn't by Loomins "making amends," I'm sick of discussing it. If you saw some interesting character arc to that hackneyed media ****e that turns into the good guy in one freaking scene at the end because the director wanted to tack something on in a weak attempt at keeping him from being a 1D prick...more power to you.

One thing I will say though. It was great to see such a wonderful character arc where Loomis "makes amends" at the end of the first film, trying to help out Michael like a guy trying so hard to help a drunk buddy...only to regress back to the exact same freaking character in H2...actually scratch that, he regresses back to an even worse character in H2...then the ending the exactly the same.

If he acts like an even bigger ******* in H3 than he did in H2 only to show up in the final scene and try to help Laurie like she's his drunk body, I'm sure it'll be a very interesting character arc...

More creative. Sure. But you're cheering their deaths. The difference is empathy. I felt empathy for the nurse who was brutally pinned down and stabbed like a wild animal or the "good daughter," who was dragged out of a truck and butchered by a psychopath that she had tried to help. Sure the stabbing isn't original, but it is shot in a ruthless manner that is meant to invoke disgust and horror from the audience. Not "**** yeahs!" It isn't scary. It is just stupid.

I felt nothing for the nurse, especially when finding out 15 minutes of freaking screen time was wasted on a damn dream sequence...again, the scene cheated the audience.

I felt much more empathy for a guy having to watch his girlfriend burn to death in front of him...and the best part is, nobody wakes up at the end of the scene to reveal as a pointlessly drawn out dream.

And you should never be cheering for the killer. You just proved my point. You're not rooting for the characters or hoping to survive, you're embracing and egging on the slaughter for gratification. The kills are meant to get cheers and not gasps. You proved my point these characters are nothing more than machete fodder. If you are rooting for the villain and laughing at the kills, then your horror movie has failed on its most basic level.

As I already mentioned numerous times, I was very much rooting for Jenna, Clay and Whitney to make it...and I didn't laugh at any kill in F13...I've laughed at how over the top and just plain stupid some were in Rob's films though, especially considering how he wanted a "more realistic" Michael.

The only one I would consider a "cheer death" was Trent...and the audience was cheering because they just witnessed a great, inense as hell horror opening that showed that a series that they loved was back onscreen in top form...they didn't cheer when a woman was burnt to death or a guy had his face split open or a woman watched her boyfriend impaled and dragged away in front of her...nothing of that elicited cheers from the audience.

Agreed.



False. You may enjoy FT13 more, but while slick in music video styles it lacks any real cinematic quality to differenciate it from a commercial. Zombie, whether you hate his crude style or not, certainly is an auteur and leaves a visual stamp on his films. RZH and H2 are no masterpieces, but they are directed by a man with some skills that make him stand out.

False...the narrative in Rob's Halloween films is VERY amateur for reasons that I've already covered with numerous examples, and the dialogue is so bad that the films become parodies of Halloween rather than actual Halloween films. F13 wasn't a parody of F13...it was F13, you just happen to hate F13. I love Halloween...and I HATED Rob's version of it.
The only reason that they stood out was because I've never seen how it would look if the Myers family guest starred on the Springer show (and never wanted to), and it really stood out how freaking incompetent the narrative structure and overall development of H2 was...it definitely stood out from F13 which was competently edited and directed.
Zombie at his best is a much better filmmaker than Marcus Nispel...however Halloween is far from him at his best, and Nispel has yet to make a film that was below good. Thus far, even when he's at his worst, he's still competent, I can't say the same for Zombie.


Well it didn't prove it. I saw no performance on par with Brad Dourif, Danielle Harris, Malcom McDowell (a hammy performance, but done in a clever way) and even Taylor Scout Compton. Maybe FT13's cast could have matched them, but their material never gave them the chance.

Dourif was good in this film, which is one of the reasons I prefer it, he had nothing to do in the first one, Danielle and Scout were good also...and so was Amanda Righetti and Jared Padalacki...I felt very bad for his character in addition to Danielle Panabaker's when she died in front of him...and I bought Righetti's terror perfectly when she's trapped in the tunnels with Jason.

Well that was vague and difficult to discern what these "sappy dramas" you are referring to. You mean like Christopher Nolan's Memento? Last year's fun and high-quality Slumdog Millionaire? Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds? I don't know what you're talking about. But if you don't see Basterds in theatres this month, you're cheating yourself.

Memento I don't even really remember. Slumdog was great...Inglorious Basterds was good but drawn out (and I don't like Tarantino very much, and he often depicts violence as "cheer-worthy" and sometimes even amusing, btw btw)...The Departed, which is a perfect example, is quite boring, and a very typical crime drama. It doesn't stand out from any other film about a cop going undercover into a world of corruption. It was predictable, and I didn't really care that much how it turned out. But hey, it's Martin Scorcese, so it must be a masterpiece...for example, Matt Damon turning his phone on ringer after it was vibrate in the theatre so it can conveniently ring while he's being pursued...nothing wrong with that (even if it's as big of a plot hole as Leatherface's chainsaw that mysteriously stays silent until he's within reaching distance of a victim in the new films or Jason popping up all over the place or a variety of other horror devices that people often ***** about)...and Mark Wahlberg's character that serves no purpose in the narrative other than to show up and shoot the ******* at the end...Brokeback Mountain, an even better example, is a flat out piece of ****. The performances were competent, nothing special, and it's about "deeply moving" as the typical day time soap opera...it's a typical piece of sappy melodramatic garbage with the only distinction being it has gay cowboys thrown into it...I feel the same way about many of the films that alot of cinema buffs consider "high art" that you do about many horror films.

Never saw it. But I liked the original and thought the remake was okay.

I don't care enough about Rob's pieces of **** to even continue this discussion any further. I get aggravated just thinking about how horrendously they turned out, and they're not even worth it. You probably shouldn't bother wasting your time on another lengthy response, because I doubt I'll bother reading it.

Suffice to say that I respectfully, and wholeheartedly disagree with about 9 out of 10 of your points.

 

[steintym]

I really wanted to see this but after reading all these reviews i can happily say i will wait for a rent. out of 200 reviews i found maybe 25 positive.

If you liked the first one, there's a good chance you'll probably like this one. If you hated the first, I doubt you'll enjoy this one.

 

[Marx]

The first one still felt like a Halloween movie, this one does not.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't care enough about Rob's pieces of **** to even continue this discussion any further. I get aggravated just thinking about how horrendously they turned out, and they're not even worth it. You probably shouldn't bother wasting your time on another lengthy response, because I doubt I'll bother reading it.

Fair. I too tire of these long winded posts. But I just do want to address one or two things briefly.

Most of them were rather typical hedonists, but it's F13...of course that's how they're going to be, it's part of Jason's motivation, the reason he died in the first place was because of people like this, and far as he's concerned this is who killed his mother, and the primary target that he's lashing out against.

And you forgot her name before you left the theatre huh...well guess what, I couldn't name either one of Laurie's friends from H2 for you...

and no it was is not far more intriuging than a brother that screwed up his relationship with his sister trying to find her and make up for the damage he'd done...the characters I mentioned were not cardboard cut outs.

I'm not distorting ****...the characterization was extremely uneven, he spends the first film trying to understand Michael's psyche for the primary purpose of ****ing it out for a book deal and doing the same to his victims...and shows up at the tale end of both films and begs Michael to stop because Zombie wanted to tack on a half-assed excuse for an arc that was meant to keep him from being more than 1D prick...which is exactly what he was.
I think you're simply trying to add character depth where it isn't in the same way that you've accused me of doing with F13.

To keep it short, you're right. I don't remember those two other girls' names either. Difference is they weren't major characters and were thrown in for the horrible slasher movie cliché of upping the body count (remember when 4 deaths was enough for Carpenter's classic?) and to add a little T&A. Difference is they weren't major characters. Laurie and Annie were. Again, nobody seems to give a **** that Jenna died. Because she was a vacant character. While Zombie is no award-winning writer and Harris is certainly not a great actress, they created a character who would likely die but her death was truly meaningful. The audience felt it. Zombie lingered on the grieving stage for both Laurie and Sheriff Brackett. There was pain there and audiences were sad to see her go as she and Douriff are constantly the only things that get good mentions and threads on IMDB, etc. devoted to the sadness of the scene. Jenna dying was a half-assed "twist," because the good girl is always supposed to live.

As for the rest. Yeah, I see what you're saying, they all are given thin introductions. But there is little point in arguing that further if you honestly believe them to be well written or acted characters. I shall just point out though with Loomis, again in the first film he is not ****ing out Michael and only has one scene after giving up on Michael after 15 years as an author. And if he is 1D what does that make "stupendous ****" girl? And do you know anything about Jenna other than she is nice to the rogue and has an ******* boyfriend?

Again, I repeat, I find a woman being set on fire in front of her boyfriend to bait him into a bear trap, then letting him suffer to bait in someone else before slamming a blade through his skull much more brutal and disturbing than anything in RZH was.

Yeah, in description it sounds worse. But it is meant to get cheers from the audience. I heard laughter and clapping when Jason came to slice Whitney's head open at the end of the pre-credit sequence. No one clapped when Michael gutted the nurse or stabbed "the good daughter" to death, because Zombie depicts violence as horrible, not funny.

As I already mentioned numerous times, I was very much rooting for Jenna, Clay and Whitney to make it...and I didn't laugh at any kill in F13...I've laughed at how over the top and just plain stupid some were in Rob's films though, especially considering how he wanted a "more realistic" Michael.

Well you are one of the few. My audience was in stiches. And my main point is it wasn't trying to be scary, but funny. Ski boob girl's death was a laugh.

False...the narrative in Rob's Halloween films is VERY amateur for reasons that I've already covered with numerous examples, and the dialogue is so bad that the films become parodies of Halloween rather than actual Halloween films. F13 wasn't a parody of F13...it was F13, you just happen to hate F13. I love Halloween...

I'd agree with a lot of what you said, but from a technical and visual sense (as well as use of actors) Zombie factually was a better director.

Inglorious Basterds was good but drawn out (and I don't like Tarantino very much, and he often depicts violence as "cheer-worthy" and sometimes even amusing, btw btw)...The Departed, which is a perfect example, is quite boring, and a very typical crime drama. It doesn't stand out from any other film about a cop going undercover into a world of corruption. It was predictable, and I didn't really care that much how it turned out. But hey, it's Martin Scorcese, so it must be a masterpiece...for example, Matt Damon turning his phone on ringer after it was vibrate in the theatre so it can conveniently ring while he's being pursued...nothing wrong with that (even if it's as big of a plot hole as Leatherface's chainsaw that mysteriously stays silent until he's within reaching distance of a victim in the new films or Jason popping up all over the place or a variety of other horror devices that people often ***** about)...and Mark Wahlberg's character that serves no purpose in the narrative other than to show up and shoot the ******* at the end...Brokeback Mountain, an even better example, is a flat out piece of ****. The performances were competent, nothing special, and it's about "deeply moving" as the typical day time soap opera...it's a typical piece of sappy melodramatic garbage with the only distinction being it has gay cowboys thrown into it...I feel the same way about many of the films that alot of cinema buffs consider "high art" that you do about many horror films.

Woah that was long. Eh. Basterds was great, see Pulp Fiction. I agree BBM was trite Oscar-bait (though Ledger gave a great performance in it and Gyllenhall was solid). And The Departed. Wow. I'm not sure how one can call one of the most suspenseful movies of the decade boring and praise a slasher movie where you could literally predict the order of the kills and probably the minute mark if you used watch. So, yeah agree to disagree there. I guess on it all too.

I just wanted to respond to a few comments briefly. I hope my comments are short enough you'll read.

 

[The Chris]

Just came back from this. Overall I liked it. I Probably like Zombie's other Halloween film more, but I find his style still interesting and unique, especially for this series where for the exception of the original horror masterpiece, the direction to me never stood out.

Did I have some problems with this, yep. Especially with Dr. Loomis. Couldn't stand him here, and there was almost no point to him in this film. Also you can say the film is a little too nuts at times, too warped.

However one thing that startled me, and positively I might add, is Michael's straight aggression. He seems really really ANGRY in this movie. He's so darn brutal in it. So aggressive he was, and it was cool. I also liked the psychological aspects of the movie with the mother and a young michael (I have to join the group who can't see why they couldn't just bring back the other kid. Yeah he's older, but so what, he seems much more demented) I liked the ending too, a little nod to

Spoiler

Psycho, with being in holding basically and the smile at the camera

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

I think it was just cause he was taller. That's all. Cause he be almost or if not taller then Sheri.

They said he grew too much and that's why he was recast.

INdeed. I think he's going ot be HUGE by 20.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But they didn't have to recast him. I mean, he grows for 15 years in Smith's Grove. Why couldn't they show it in another point in time?

And Episode29's review was good. His paragraph of the first pretty much summed up my thoughts. But when he mentioned the beard and Micahel walking, the cross country scene in Forrest Gump came to my head.

 

[The Dark Defender]

I think the grunting, which I know alot of people hated, actually fits Rob's version of Michael. It doesn't fit The Shape from the original series, but this is a totally different character.
I think Mane played the part that Zombie wanted him to play just fine, the problem is the part that he wanted him to play wasn't really Michael Myers.

 

[Sawyer]

This was on Daeg's imdb page. It was taken last summer.

Dakota Fanning?

 

[Marx]

I think the grunting, which I know alot of people hated, actually fits Rob's version of Michael. It doesn't fit The Shape from the original series, but this is a totally different character.
I think Mane played the part that Zombie wanted him to play just fine, the problem is the part that he wanted him to play wasn't really Michael Myers.

Exactly, DD.

 

[Mike_D202]

JI also liked the psychological aspects of the movie with the mother and a young michael

...really? I think your in the small minority who actually enjoyed Sheri Moon Zombie's type casting.

 

[CrypticOne]

i dont' know why they didnt' set young michaels scenes when he gets older anyways. i haven't seen the new film yet, but doesnt' michael spend his whole adolescent life in that place? it makes sense for him to get bigger...i mean after all he's huge now

Yeah, but his mom commits suicide when he's still little.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Tyler Mane resembles Jason Voorhees more than Michael Myers, but that's just me.