Horror, as a genre, typically relies on several common tropes in order to work properly. One of these tropes is the “unknown;” commonly, a lack of knowledge about a person or event serves to make it more ominous. Withholding knowledge from audiences builds suspense as audiences have no means expecting what might happen, which serves to make the frightening aspects of the film more potent when they occur.
Many classic horror movies utilize this principle with great success; they intentionally keep their plots minimalistic in order to create just such an effect. However, one specific subset of horror films typically fail to embrace the concept of the “unknown,” and suffer because of it. One potent example of this is the Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of John Carpenter’s classic Halloween.
Zombie’s re-imagining of Halloween follows the same basic plot as the original film: young Michael Myers, on Halloween night, brutally kills members of his family, and is shipped to a mental institution; years later, he breaks out, returns to his hometown and begins killing people again, while his doctor tries to track him down.
The characters, while obviously played by different actors, are also the same: Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) appears as Myers’ doctor in the hospital, and acts as Myers’ foil and primary opposition throughout the film; Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) acts as Myers’ primary target; a few stereotypical horror-movie-screaming-girls serve as unwitting victims of Myers’ rampage; and of course, there is the ever-ominous Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) himself.
However, while the remake retains the basic plot and characters of the original Halloween movie, that is where the comparisons end. As this film is a remake of the original, it makes sense that Zombie would bring new plot elements to the table in an effort to make the film his own. However, these elements he incorporates only serve to weaken the film, rather than strengthen it.
Horror, as a genre, typically relies on several common tropes in order to work properly. One of these tropes is the “unknown;” commonly, a lack of knowledge about a person or event serves to make it more ominous. Withholding knowledge from audiences builds suspense as audiences have no means expecting what might happen, which serves to make the frightening aspects of the film more potent when they occur.
Many classic horror movies utilize this principle with great success; they intentionally keep their plots minimalistic in order to create just such an effect. However, one specific subset of horror films typically fail to embrace the concept of the “unknown,” and suffer because of it. One potent example of this is the Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of John Carpenter’s classic Halloween.
Zombie’s re-imagining of Halloween follows the same basic plot as the original film: young Michael Myers, on Halloween night, brutally kills members of his family, and is shipped to a mental institution; years later, he breaks out, returns to his hometown, and begins killing people again, while his doctor tries to track him down.
The characters, while obviously played by different actors, are also the same: Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) appears as Myers’ doctor in the hospital, and acts as Myers’ foil and primary opposition throughout the film; Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) acts as Myers’ primary target; a few stereotypical horror-movie-screaming-girls serve as unwitting victims of Myers’ rampage; and of course, there is the ever-ominous Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) himself.
However, while the remake retains the basic plot and characters of the original Halloween movie, that is where the comparisons end. As this film is a remake of the original, it makes sense that Zombie would bring new plot elements to the table in an effort to make the film his own. However, these elements he incorporates only serve to weaken the film, rather than strengthen it.
What is important to remember is that horror films are inherently different from other movies. Whereas dramas depend entirely on the characters and plot in order to sustain themselves, horror films are ironically much more similar to comedies; in comedies, the characters and plot are secondary to the jokes and laughs the movie creates. For a comedy to be successful, it does not matter how good the plot is, but how much the film makes you laugh. Horror films are similar: the plot is secondary to how frightening it is.
Zombie, however, loses sight of this principle. While the original Halloween dedicated itself almost entirely to Myers’ attacks on his victims, eg. the scares, Zombie’s version is much more character driven. Through adding so much backstory to the Myers character, Zombie effectively destroys what makes Myers such a memorable horror icon.
What made Myers such an imposing figure was how much of an enigma he was. No one knew what drove him. No one knew when, where, or who he would attack. He couldn’t be bought or reasoned with. He was just a silent killer. By giving him so much of a backstory, however, Zombie destroys that image of Michael: the audience sympathizes with him, they know what he will do.
The suspense and anticipation about his actions is severely diminished, and the scary scenes in the film suffer as a result. Myers is the antagonist, the villain, the reaper. He isn’t the character audiences need to connect with. The audience needs more insight into the victims, as their suffering is what makes horror films work; that is what generates scariness. This aspect is also where this movie falls woefully short.
Myer’s attacks (the “scary” scenes) aren’t anything special. While the film relies primarily on jump scare tactics, as is typical for slasher films, these jump scares offer little true scare value. After the initial flinch, the shock value dies off quickly, as the scenes drag on and on.
While the technical effects are admittedly much better than the original (as one might expect from a remake made almost thirty years later), they do little to add to the suspense and scariness of the film.
It doesn’t help much that the majority of the victims in this film are characters who have received no development whatsoever; audiences will have little idea of who these people are when they are killed by Myers, which makes it far more difficult for the scary scenes to feel frightening. Admittedly, the victims were not given much depth in the classic film, either; however, in the original, they were not overshadowed by Myers’ character, either. Myers, with his bloated backstory, manages to suck away any minimal depth his victims’ characters had; as a result, the people Myers attacks feel like nameless extras.
This namelessness drains the scary scenes of potency, as audiences simply won’t be invested enough in the victims to feel the poignancy of the scary scenes. Ultimately, audiences will find nothing that will leave them shaking in their seats, and scary scenes are quickly forgotten.
The trade off, then, is clear. Zombie invested much more time in the plot and development of Myers than he did in the rest of the film. As a result, the film loses all of its fear potency.
While this makes the film more interesting from a certain standpoint, it makes the film much worse as a horror film, as it loses the main component a horror film is supposed to have: scariness. I would recommend skipping this film, and just sticking to the original. While it may be dated, it definitely knew how to create a film that fit its genre.
Overall score: 2/5 stars
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.