Happy Halloween!

WWW--Don't taken any apples with razors (this has never happened, incidentally), and be sure to watch out for the kids, they aren't always paying attention! Me? I'm writing, then I'll curl-up with some Lovecraft, some Poe, then I'm going to rewatch Evil Dead director Sam Raimi's excellent "Drag Me to Hell," a contender for the best horror film of 2009 and his first one since Army of Darkness in 1993 back when I was in college.

If you can't be good, at least be safe. Have fun kiddies.

Anticipating Rob Zombie's Halloween II

WWW--YES, I loved Rob Zombie's reimaging of John Carpenter's original Halloween, I thought it was extraordinary and worthwhile, almost a "what if" of filmmaking--think Peckinpah doing a slasher.

All the more reason to do a reimagining of the 1981 sequel, since it, well, sucked. Everything that the original Halloween was accused of--namely, being bloody and gratuitous--were writ large in the original Halloween II, it never justified its existence. Zombie's films justify themselves purely on their stylistic charms, but he does have point-of-view, something that's sorely lacking in most of today's cinema. Where are the great directors? Maybe Rob Zombie has yet to prove his mettle as a "great" director," but he's gradually convincing me, and I've been watching movies for at least 36 years.

Other than maybe Guillermo Del Toro, I'd have to say that Rob Zombie is one of the only noteworthy directors my generation has yet to produce. Whenever they make a new film, I'm as excited as I ever was or am when the new Terry Gilliam or David Cronenberg film becomes news.

Why? Zombie actually has something to say, and I thought his first remake in this series was a good anti-violence tract, it made me cringe the way a horror movie's supposed to, but it didn't allow me to like the carnage. This irritated a lot of the audience I saw it with a couple years ago, your typical Indiana goober crowd. Zombie went for the Kubrick approach from A Clockwork Orange or Peckinpah's masterstrokes in Straw Dogs and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia: show violence and its consequences, show it for what it is, ugly and tragic. More of the same? Bring it on, I want more...

Whore-monger Republican Senator David Vitter gets some future employers to pick-up the tab on his DC Madam legal expeses

Washington D.C.--Is it surprising? Vitter's legal defense fund released their report around the same time that the Tarpon Springs PD released their own that confirmed the obvious: Deborah Jeane Palfrey killed herself, she committed suicide by hanging.

Scholars say that Halloween was viewed by the ancient Celts as a time when people could commune with spirits and the dead, a time of divination and magic. There's something sadly poetic and disturbing about the parallel release of these two reports. What would Senator Vitter have said to the dead Jeane Palfrey had he the chance? Perhaps a visit to her graveside to apologize would be in order. Would he even want to? Doubtful, but who cares what he wants?

Vitter's behavior begs-the-question of what kind of hopelessly-flawed deity created this rock we live on, and the rest of the universe. Surely, it wasn't God, he's supposed to be perfect. I don't think people like Vitter or these donors really believe there is a "God"--if they really did, they wouldn't behave as they do. They feel that they are God. They aren't.

No, it must have been an emanation, an effluvium of deity that created our prison called earth, an excretion, something evil and degenerate. Or, there's no God at all, life on earth is just an accident from the big bang, and it's an existential universe where we're on our own. Does it really matter either way?

These "donors" ("graft-peddlers" sound more accurate) bent the rules to the breaking-point--with 27 donors, a curious percentage (seven-in-all) of them had the last name of "Chouest," all addressed to the same P.O. Box in Galliano, Louisiana. But why not? We can assume that at least one of the donors in the entire list was paying the bill at some juncture so that David Vitter could work out his problems with "getcha little somethin' that you can't get at home."

What's so pathetic about Vitter and the donors is that we all know this is only about money and that they'd give him this kind of aid and assistance if he was guilty of murder. Capitalism? Hardly. It's the anarchy of power, the belief in nothing...except more power and the maintaining of it. That puts its origins squarely in the natural world, a part of our animal-side. It doesn't matter, it really is as "natural" as a flower or a tree. Yet the hypocrisy is glaring here, and a woman is dead.

But at least Davey got laid, proved he was a "real man," a mensch, but really came-off as a total schmuck and a loser to anyone with a clue and a pulse. Does it matter whether he was a Senator at the time? No, because he misled the people of Louisiana as to what kind of person he was to get elected. He lied, and lied, and lied, and lied, and he's still lying and will continue to lie. What was it all about? The power that a woman can have over a powerful man in the kind of arrangement Palfrey and Vitter were in.

It most certainly was a witch-hunt, but rest assured that he's never going to be a presidential candidate and that his political career has been permanently damaged from his problem controlling his sex drive. In all, these corrupt Louisiana businesspeople and political figures raised $200,010.00 for a corrupt, whore-mongering politician. A wolf knows a wolf, and a whore knows a whore (and a pimp).

Forget about what I wrote about "hypocrisy," there's none to be had here.

But I have to thank Senator Vitter, the donors, and the entire GOP--it's people like you--at least--who remind me that I'll never run out of assholes to kick around. Thank you. With the job they and many other rich clowns have done on the economy, I'll hardly be the only one doing the kicking, and there isn't going to be anywhere left to run. And c'mon Louisiana, I know you have the self-respect to rid yourselves of this turkey, so quit waiting for someone else to do it, grow a pair. You too Wendy. I don't have to tell Vitter's daughters to dog him about all of this, that's always going to be underneath the surface anyway for the rest of his worthless life.

Was it all worth it, defending Palfrey? Yes. I rest well at night knowing that I helped cost Vitter and several rich turds a lot of money during an economic crisis, and that we tried to take down corrupt representatives like Vitter who protected what can only be the most criminal presidential administration in American history (just wait). Gloating? No. It was the right thing to do, pointing-out Vitter's unethical behaviors along with the rest of the internet. These dopes are your representatives, your mirror-image, your shadow on the walls of the cave.

Surprised the GOP was routed in the last two elections? You shouldn't be, they earned it and couldn't steal an election during a landslide. God knows they tried, and they will again. Vitter's time is coming, this mark on his life is his doing, and it's never going away. Eventually, even the GOP will discard him when he's no longer useful. That could be sooner rather than later.

"Vitter officially closes 'Madam' legal fund; see complete list of donors," The New Star, 10.31.2008: http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20081031/NEWS01/810310335

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) review

In 1978, I tried to see the original John Carpenter film, but I was only ten-years-old. Interestingly, the local theater played it again in 1980, as the word-of-mouth on the film had spread and it had become a major independent hit.

For a long time it was the most successful independent film ever made, though the lousy Blair Witch Project ended that record. What can I write about the original that hasn't already been written? It's incredible, and very atmospheric, a favorite, and still pretty plausible and creepy. It could happen. The same could be said for the new version.

Rob Zombie has given genuine horror fans a wonderful gift: we don't have to feel bad about missing the original when it came out anymore. This is equally good and pays incredible respect to the original, and Zombie discussed the project and his take on it with John Carpenter beforehand, something that wasn't done with the so-so 'Dawn of the Dead' remake.

Shot in the same widescreen Panavision (2.35:1), we get a familiar story with some significant changes: gone is the possible supernatural quality of Michael Myers, a phantasm who becomes something non-human, a part of the holiday itself. He's just 'the shape' emerging fully-formed in the 1978 version. In Zombie's recasting of the original screenplay by John Carpenter and Debra Hill (RIP), the focus isn't on the mystery surrounding the killer, but offers some explanations as to why he is what he is.

This version makes the killer and his victims human, and this is where a number of so-called horror fans are going to be split. To make his point clear, the director begins the film before the prologue killings of the original, and paints a more contemporary and honest view of American family life, while setting it as a period piece in the late-1970s (the time of the original film's release).

It's a very vivid recreation of the decade that was my childhood, and it has an aspect of social realism to it, regardless of the stylization of the film itself. It's an awfully realistic depiction of squalid American working-class family life during that era, which I bore witness to in other families around my neighborhood. These are the people nobody cares about. Little has changed, as the movie makes clear, and the seeds are now bearing their fruit.

Rather than the brief glimpses of a straight-laced 1963 Myers family, we see a disaster of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse. This wouldn't have been possible in 1978 to the degree it's depicted by Zombie and his collaborators (if you wanted an 'R-rating' then), and actor William Forsythe (Patty Hearst, Dick Tracy, The Devil's Rejects, and much more) does a fine job playing an abusive step-father to Sheri Moon's stripper mother. It's not a healthy home environment.

What I found mind-blowing, however, was just how well Rob Zombie remembers the cultural landscape of late-1970s America, it was jaw-dropping. From the expletive-laden, sexually humiliating slang of the kids bullying young Michael in a school bathroom, to the music, the kitsch (t-shirts and joke-stickers abound), and the attitudes, he's brought the 1970s to gasping, breathing life again. It's an incredible time-capsule, and it made for what is a great way to adapt the story to a contemporary culture and setting: NOW.

As one would expect, there is a lot of movie history and homage to be found in this film, and it's a real joy, but the director decided to take-up the aesthetic of Kubrick and Peckinpah in his depictions of violence and murder. What's that you say? Read on.

If you've ever watched a Sam Peckinpah film, you already know what I mean. If you've ever watched--truly watched--Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971-72--cut and re-released due to an early 'X-rating'), you understand what an anti-violence movie must do in order to get its message across: it has to show mayhem for what it is, which is drawn-out, ugly, and something that has consequences for the perpetrators and society. You're not supposed to get-off on the violence, you're supposed to be repulsed and fearful of it.

Insofar as violence and murder are concerned, it's well-established that once the door has been opened, it's rare that it ever gets shut until all the players are dead or neutralized in some fashion. Will gore hounds love Zombie's 'Halloween'? Yes and no. They'll enjoy the brutality and grimness--there's plenty of that on-offer here--but they're not going to find the violence entirely enjoyable or even tolerable...that is, if they're normal.

From "The Wild Bunch" (1969), to "Straw Dogs" (1971), and even to "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" (1974) and his final film, "The Osterman Weekend" (1983), Sam Peckinpah wanted to show us that violence has consequences and that it is something ugly and to be feared. His message was cautionary, and that same message is apparent in Rob Zombie's take on Halloween. It's not meant to replace the original at all, but to compliment it.

The story-jump of fifteen-to-twenty-years is covered more here--the time that Michael Myers is locked-away in the mental institution, and his time with Dr. Sam Loomis. As most fans of the original remember, it was the late Donald Pleasance who played this part, and exceptionally well. Cult legend Malcolm MacDowell lends the same authority to the role, we well as cementing the anti-violence message of the film by his mere presence, and his performance is of a more caring Loomis. He pities Michael Myers, and in a nice touch, his relationship with the killer is extended back further as a school counselor.

As in the last two Rob Zombie movies, we get a gaggle of b-movie legends: the great Ken Foree (1978's Dawn of the Dead, From Beyond, and much more), the incredible Bill Moseley (Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, House of 1,000 Corpses, etc.), Joe Pilato (The Matrix, and almost everything else), the great Udo Kier (Andy Warhol's Dracula, Shadow of the Vampire), Brad Dourif (Blue Velvet, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Dune), Clint Howard (everything), Danny Trejo (Grindhouse, Maniac Cop 2, Whore, From Dusk Till Dawn, etc.), Richard Lynch (God Told Me To, The Sword & the Sorcerer, Deathsport, Vampire, and more), and several others who will please most movie buffs.

But what I found really smart was casting the Laurie Strode character (originally played by Jamie Lee Curtis) with someone with a low-profile as an actress--Scout Taylor-Compton. Little Daeg Faerch as '10-year-old Michael Myers' is the real eye opener here, and he makes the movie very unsettling. Imagine watching a child descend into insanity--I cannot think of anything more disturbing, but that's what Zombie depicts. It's like a slice of Poe, it's the essence of horror. We get to see the process unfold, even after the initial murders, and it's not exactly entertaining. It's truly horrifying to watch a little boy transform into a killer.

Very few films--to my knowledge--have ever depicted a child murdering another child in a drawn-out fashion (think Hitchcock's "Topaz"). The Loomis character adds to the 'whys' of how Michael Myers became a murderer--that he was a 'perfect storm' of 'internal and external influences,' someone with pre-existing tendencies who was pushed too-far by his environment. It might have went in another direction in another home, another community...another life. But it didn't. Rob Zombie's Halloween, then, can only be a classic tragedy that is almost mythic in its examinations of violence and the family.

Wisely utilizing an original score with the original Carpenter themes (albeit adapted) and a bulk of new musical-cues , as well as that same William Shatner Halloween mask, Zombie has scored a classic study in what makes a serial killer while retaining what made the original so good. One could find comparisons to Richard Speck or even Henry Lee Lucas and Ted Bundy. The parallels are there for the curious to examine. A must-see for those concerned about the roots of violence, and a solid addition to the canon of horror. Evil has a destiny alright--constructing its own demise. Rob Zombie has nothing to prove after this film, good job.