it was an even better experience the second time around for me…saw some things i didnt fully pay attention to the first time around.
keep in mind that i considered myself Pro-H2 after the first time i watched it…i did really like it and not because im a RZ dickrider either.
i think im just confused over 2 choices that were made with RZ’s direction.
- the music.
without carpenter’ theme…there are places in the film that just lack the suspense and impact that they couldve had. there were moments for me, especially the scenes of him making his trek back to haddonfield where i was like…“ok, cue the music”, but instead it was just this ominous synthesizer durge…or worse the captain clegg stuff… it just didnt seem like Haddonfield…more like LA to be honest. the modern music “dated” the film wheareas the early films never seemed to have an exact chronology in terms of time. couldve been the late 70’s…couldve been the mid-late 80’s…who knows? the point was that haddonfield couldve been ANY small suburban town in the United States. by having the record shop scene and all the screaming punk music blaring at times of the film…it took away the “quiet, sleepy town” feel of haddonfield and turned it into a bunch of pissed off teens moshing and breaking shit up. the whole reason some of the other films worked is the music sets the tone for the pacing of the film. without the original capenter themes or at least a re-mixed version of the original by RZ, the music in the film just lacked any and all character. and believe me… along with michael, loomis, laurie, and brackett…the music is in itself a character as well. i so wish this film would get re-scored when it gets its dvd release (even though it’ll never happen)…
- the violence
i can honestly say i wasnt prepared for the over-the-top violent “rage-outs” that michael did in the film. truthfully, when i first watched him wailing on the downed nurse’s head repeatedly…he was grunting with anger! he’d wail, take a breath and then wail some more. i was like Oh shit! whats really going on with mike?!! lol…whats he so pissed about?..he’s painting the gotdamned walls!!! being an age old fan of the series…ive always had an inner pride as to the simplicity of michael’s murders. the way he stalks his victims, the cat n’ mouse games that he plays, the demented sense of humor he had at times, and above all… just the simple nature of his earlier kills. it was either a shank with the knife or you were choked out…maybe throw in a scalpel here and a clawed hammer there…but that was pretty much it.
Again, i just wasnt prepared to seeing Michael cold-cock a guy and then bash his head into spaghettios with his bootheels. the violence was overly brutal. it made me ask myself where are we going with michaels character?..is he just beyond his wits with frustration?..is he just a mindless killing machine now? where has all the rage came from? he was always played so patient and plotting before …i just havent really seemed to wrap my head around it just yet. although i enjoyed all the brutality and the above the head arm knife wailing, in any other slasher film…it wouldve been a welcomed sight for me…but it just didnt seem like michael.
good film.