Friday, January 15, 2010

CULT MOVIE REVIEW: Halloween 2 (2009)


"Hell is a teenage girl."

-- Anita "Needy" (Amanda Seyfried) waxes philosophical in Jennifer's Body (2009)


Well, here's a toughie...

The funny quote about teenage girls -- excerpted at the top of this review -- reflects the element I most appreciated about Jennifer's Body (2009), a bracing, black horror-comedy from writer Diablo Cody and director Karyn Kusama. 


In the spirit of that line, Jennifer's Body is droll, cynical, harsh-to-the-max, and undeniably clever. 


However, the film doesn't quite work as a horror piece, and the pervasive (if delightful politically-incorrect...) humor engenders an overall sense of distance from the material. 


Indeed, many aspects of the film's narrative are handled with such kookiness that the viewer ends up feeling wholly removed from the characters and their dilemmas. Some viewers may interpret this sense of distance from the nuts-and-bolts horror aspects of the film as actually making fun of the genre. Which probably explains why so many horror-conscious critics panned Jennifer's Body. Some viewed the piece as a slap in the face. And they may have a point: for horror to work well, it can't be scatter shot and inconsistent; you can't just throw anything and everything at the screen and hope it all sticks (unless you're Sam Raimi engineering a blood flood).

Yet, Jennifer's Body boasts something I find infinitely valuable in horror films: a distinctive world view...an original voice. Too many horror movies today rely on recycled world-views and conventional wisdom, and Jennifer's Body, for all the flaws it plainly evidences is determinedly different. Although it is garbed in the costume of a horror film, the movie's purpose is plainly satire in the mold of Juvenal, meaning it is contemptuous, abrasive, savage and in-your-face.

Personally, I wholeheartedly approve of that.

Here, the target is America's high school culture and the changes mores of our young people. Specifically, the film involves a floundering, obscure indie band, Low Shoulder, that can't make it big and thus resorts to Satanism for dummies to achieve fifteen minutes of fame. Such Satanism requires the sacrifice of a virgin, only the band can't find one...

Surely, this is exactly how Ashlee Simpson, Paris Hilton, the Gosselins and other non-talents achieved their place in the spotlight...right?

Rather daringly, Jennifer's Body also contemptuously gazes at our society's tendency to first rubberneck at human disaster; and then move on with touchy-feely, popcorn platitudes and mock catharsis. We saw it after Columbine; we saw it after 9/11 too. Between endless, exploitative footage of bloodied students at a high school shooting or the Twin Towers falling down, the news networks spouted truisms about "faith," "American strength," traditional values," etc. We were thus permitted to gawk at tragedy, and then turn around and feel good about ourselves. Yay us!

In Jennifer's Body, Cody comments on one town's "tragedy boner" after a tragic bar fire (brought on by the Satanists' agenda), and the media's obsession with the accident...at least until another tragedy comes along. Then, when it's time for someone else's fifteen minutes of fame, "sorrow" proves to be "last week's emotion" in the town of Devil's Kettle. The movie even delves into the strange myths that the media creates and perpetuates during such national tragedies. Remember how CNN reported on a non-existent Trench coat Mafia at Columbine? Or told us how one brave Christian girl dared to tell the Columbine killers she believed in God before she was shot? Pure fiction both. Here, the pure fiction is that the band Low Shoulder bravely rescued townspeople from the fire. Of course, this myth just makes the performers that much more famous. They even give the tragedy a theme song...

Jennifer's Body
 also gazes at our society's disturbing trend of sexualizing younger and younger females; the way that attire, pop music, and societal expectations transform adolescent girls into powerful objects of male sexual desire. That's almost precisely what vapid Jennifer (Megan Fox) becomes after becoming inhabited by a demon.

Only this sex object bites back.

In the end, when some of Jennifer's power (not the evil part, I guess..) is transplanted into nerdy Anita, the movie provides an unmistakable message of female empowerment; a taking back and controlling of the mini-skirted, skinny, bare-midriff Bratz/Britney Spears image society relentlessly forces on our young girls. If you think I'm making too much of this trend, go to any Target or Wal Mart store and just take a gander at the clothes being designed and marketed to ten year old girls. You won't doubt me. It makes me glad I'm raising a boy, not a girl. (And hell, I'm a liberal...)


Jennifer Body's secret weapon is Megan Fox, who -- let's face it -- has been a willing vehicle for the exploitation of the young female form in pop culture cinema. As such, she's perfect in the role of wolf in sheep's clothing. Only Nixon could go to China, and all that. And I'll say this for any doubters: Fox can act. Her performance here is quite accomplished because it takes the material at face value and doesn't camp it up, which would have been disastrous. Instead, Fox cheerily spouts the most cynical, filthy, sexual dialogue you can imagine, and does it with the aura and attitude of total naivete and youth. At one point, she discusses the physical after-effects of anal sex with the wondrous, guilelessness...of a virgin; a paradoxical contradiction. When demonically possessed of voracious appetites, Fox's Jennifer is a warning to the youth-obsessed, male-dominated culture that inappropriately sexualizes these girls: be careful what you wish for.

Given the message of female empowerment and the distinctive mode of communication here (Cody's zippy, pop-culture heavy dialogue), Jennifer's Body is clearly this generation's answer to the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) -- the movie, not the TV show. And interestingly, it shares in common that old movie's central flaw: it isn't scary in the slightest. Jennifer's Body makes the terminal mistake of playing the villains and their evil plans for laughs. Rutger Hauer and Pee Wee Herman kind of camped it up in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) and the result was that the bottom fell out of the satire; the horror wasn't grounded in anything genuinely horrific. Though Fox doesn't play her villainous role in campy fashion, the movie's other villains -- a group of "emo" "Satanists with awesome hair cuts" -- are so silly, so over-the-top, so obvious, that -- again -- the bottom falls out of the movie. There's no sense of menace. Without it, the movie just kind of bops from one set-piece to another, with half-thought-out ideas taking the forefront. For instance, Anita is mildly psychic..sometimes.

I would also be remiss if I didn't point out a lesbian kiss late in the film that -- entirely contrary to the movie's thematic point --panders the male culture's interest in seeing two hot women get it on.

I understand that there's been a kind of backlash against Diablo Cody; the belief that Cody's dialogue is too hip; too glib. I disagree: the dialogue is the best thing about Jennifer's Body, in tandem with Fox's blunt delivery. This may be a matter of subjective taste, but I would rather watch a film witha distinctive (even if occasionally annoying) voice, than a cookie-cutter product extruded from the Hollywood assembly line. Finally, I'll offer this caveat: Jennifer's Body may play better a few years from now, once we've separated ourselves from this particular moment in history and can thus more easily detect the very context that Jennifer's Body satirizes.

So how's this for a guarded recommendation: Jennifer's Body is "freaktarded." It' a pretty good comedy and a pretty lousy horror film.

13 comments:

  1. I've only ever run across two interesting reviews of this film - and this is one of them. Thank you for the thoughtful look at a flick that threw most reviewers in hysterics of thoughtless hyperbole and absurd ad hominem slanders.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CRwM,

    Wow -- thank you for that compliment!

    After seeing the film I agree with you that -- sadly -- critics were out of line in their level of hostility.

    This is an artistic, valid way to do Halloween. It's just not the way that many fans, critics or enthusiasts approve of.

    It's not my cup of tea, either, but Rob Zombie's genius (and directing chops) are plainly evident.

    best,
    JKM

    ReplyDelete
  3. An excellent review! I watched the film two days ago and am still thinking about it a lot. You put my ambivalent thoughts into words. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is great review, JKM. I don't know if the film and material reaches this height, as I've yet to see it. Bleakness is something I choose to look away from, for the most part. However, your analysis does intrigue... enough, perhaps, that I'll take a look at this, despite my reservations.

    There are some films I still cannot get myself to watch: SALO, IRREVERSIBLE, INSIDE, and the like because of the despair and misery tied up with the gore. I'm curious, but not enough to overcome the thoughts of what I'd be left with to remember. But, your observations I trust, and your evaluations are keen.

    I need to ponder this a bit more, John. Thanks for this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LeOpard13:

    Thank you for your comment. Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 is definitely not a happy movie; it's soooo bleak. But it is absorbing. I found the experience wortwhile, if not in any way joyful or fun. Again - not my Halloween; but a valid and unique Rorschach interpretation.

    best,
    JKM

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:29 PM

    Hey John,
    I think you pretty much nail it with this review. What I like about Zombie is that there is a clear style and way of thinking behind all of his films. It is so rare these days that you can actually identify a genre director as an auteur, but he certainly qualifies. There's no question with any of his work that you're watching a Rob Zombie film . . . and that's refreshing. It also helps that he has a pretty great eye when it comes to visuals - his movies are often striking in their imagery.

    So far the closest he's come for me to a consistent "masterpiece" level is The Devil's Rejects. It is also I believe the most pure expression of his interests and concerns. Halloween 2 may tread similar ground, but he's still working with someone else's material (even though this constitutes what I would classify as a worthy remake).

    All this being said, I rarely feel the need to revisit the worlds he creates more than once. It's too grim to be enjoyable as entertainment, but it is admirable (mostly) for making the violence uncomfortable to watch (as it should be). Don't get me wrong I like escapist horror as much as the next person, but every once in a while a cinematic reminder of the fact that violence is ugly is a good thing (especially since a lot of the younger multiplex folks who watch this might not tread often into more serious fare where such issues are explored).

    Bottom line you have to respect him for aggressively pursuing his vision, even if it's hard to stomach at times . . . and yes I'll probably not be rushing to see Halloween 2 again either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Jim --

    I couldn't agree more with your comment. Zombie's Halloween 2 is about the ugliness of violence; the reality of violence. That's a level of "truth" we don't necessarily want or see in our entertainments very frequently. I think that what muddies the waters for me is that Zombie sees all of life as ugly, and that somehow mitigates his message. He sees only the despair, the hopeless...and it's often too much.

    That said, he is indeed an auteur, and his films are often visually brilliant. Honestly: I would take Halloween 2 over last year's My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th any day. At least Halloween 2 MEANS something, even if it is deeply, irrevocably unpleasant.

    Thanks for the comment, buddy!

    best,
    JKM

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would certainly like to echo other people's comments that this is certainly the most thoughtful review I've read on this film. Zombie is a filmmaker that really polarizes not just critics but horror film fans especially. I really like many of his films and think that THE DEVIL'S REJECTS is most definitely his best film and one of the best horror films from the last decade. As you point out, whether you love or hate Zombie's film there's no denying that he is a skilled director and that his film's have his definite stamp on them.

    I actually quite liked Zombie's first HALLOWEEN film and have been curious to see this one. Your review has me even more intrigued.

    Thanks for this, JKM.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey J.D.:

    Thanks for the comment. You nailed it, both about The Devil's Rejects and the polarizing aspects of Zombie's approach to filmmaking.

    I'll tell you one thing: I can't stop thinking about Halloween 2. It is ugly...but brazen. It is vicious...but daring.

    The more I think back on it, the more I believe he's made some kind of masterpiece of our times. One that is simply to ugly for us to look at right now. One which we want to reject. But can't...

    best,
    JKM

    ReplyDelete
  10. Like CRwM said, I've only read two interesting reviews and this is one of them. I just recently engaged in a good conversation reading the other one over at Kindertrauma. And both of you had similar points to make. But there were different enough points you made that combined with the other review has now almost made me reverse my decision on seeing this. Yes...I haven't seen it. Nor have I seen the first one. Again I hold Carpenter's original in such high regard I could never bring myself to watch these. And it's not even a matter of a remake. There are plenty of remakes I've enjoyed. It's just a matter of Halloween. It's much easier to disregard a sequel. Yes the Halloween franchise overall is terrible. But I can always go back and know that the first one will always be there to stand tall. So to go back and take these characters I love and warp them into something ugly..I just couldn't deal. I mean why? Why not create his own universe and make them as f'd up as he wants? Why does he have to ruin poor Laurie and poor Loomis. But just like listening to a good band do an interesting cover of a good classic. It's nice to see what someone else can do once and a while. As painful as that may be.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow. Thanks for that fascinating post on a fascinating movie. I agree with everything you said except for the part about not watching it again!-Unk

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Kindertrauma,

    And you know...after several weeks distance, I feel like I actually probably would watch it again; given the right frame of mind (or assignment...)

    H2 lingers in the mind...it's powerful stuff; and I'd rather my horror have teeth like this, then no teeth, like The Final Destination.

    Thanks for the comment,
    JKM

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wait, so Rob Zombie basically turned Halloween into Friday the 13th? The second Friday the 13th movie shows us that Jason kills because he hallucinates the presence of his mother. In Freddy vs. Jason she even gives the explicit command, "Kill for mommy!" Or rather Freddy masquerading as his mother does, but the idea is Jason obeys because that is the voice he always hears. It seems to me Zombie would make a great Friday the 13th movie, which is all about a hulking brute slaughtering others in super gory ways. But that isn't Halloween.

    ReplyDelete

60 Years Ago: Goldfinger (1964) and the Perfect Bond Movie Model

Unlike many film critics, I do not count  Goldfinger  (1964) as the absolute “best” James Bond film of all-time. You can check out my rankin...