Trick Or Trailers

Every Halloween, fear fans schedule their own movie marathons to celebrate the occasion (if you're stuck for ideas, by the way, feel free to check out the HorrorDad's recommendations). But as nice as it sounds to curl up with a line-up of your favorite frights, the sad truth of adult life is that there isn't always time to devote six hours or more - anything less than that can't be properly called a marathon - to watching movies. Often times if you get a chance to crash in front of the TV for just one movie at the end of the night, that's an accomplishment. But while you may not be able to enjoy every movie you'd like to before All Hallow's Eve is over, there's always time to fill up on horror trailers.

Whether you're taking a break from your Halloween horrorthon or you're just looking for a bite-sized, Halloween candy version of one, here's ten of my favorite horror trailers.

10. White Noise (2005)


Any time you put ghostly audio recordings into a trailer, you're gold. The movie itself was a ho-hum affair but I love the spooky In Search Of vibe of this trailer.



9. Of Unknown Origin (1983)

It was a curious decision on the part of Warner Bros.' marketing department to have the brownstone home of Peter Weller filled with an unearthly light at the end of this trailer. The movie is about Weller's character's life or death battle with a rat but all that light leads you to believe that something supernatural or even extraterrestrial is afoot. But I love it when horror trailers mislead the audience for no apparent reason so this one rates as a favorite with me.



8. Q: The Winged Serpent (1982)

If you want to know why I'm so sour on the majority of contemporary monster movies, look no further than this trailer for Larry Cohen's Q: The Winged Serpent. This quirky low budget offering shows more cool monster action in its trailer than most mega-million productions show in their entire film.



7. Nomads (1986)

This is the first movie from Die Hard director John McTiernan and it's one of those movies that I still only know through its trailer. I hear that Nomads isn't so good - one reason why I've never made a point to see it - but every time that I watch this trailer, I think I'm missing out on something great.




6. The House Where Evil Dwells (1982)

I know for a fact that The House Where Evil Dwells is lousy but whenever I see the ghostly samurai in this trailer, I'm tempted to give the movie another shot.



5. The Boogeyman (1980)

I miss the days when a horror trailer would leave me thinking "what the hell was that?" The Boogeyman definitely fits into that category of making the movie look like an incomprehensible hodgepodge of weird shit. Naturally, it terrified me to no end back in the day.



4. Silent Scream (1980)

I recently went looking through my collection to see if I could find my VHS copy of this little-known slasher gem. No dice, so I can't verify whether it holds up after all these years but the trailer is terrific. Overwrought narration has sadly gone out of fashion in trailers but this one has it in spades.



3. Dead & Buried (1981)

Any horror trailer that markets a tale about an idyllic small town hiding an evil secret scores an automatic win. It just happens that this is one movie that lives up to - and even exceeds - the expectations set up by the trailer. Bonus points for the few frames of animation at the end.



2. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Even though I'm not at all religious, I think this trailer is supremely freaky. The brooding tone, the sensationalistic assertions that it's based on a true story (complete with "authentic" audio recordings), and all the glimpses of people with demonic black goo running down their faces, make this trailer a winner to me.



1. The Beast Within (1981)

Horror movies used to be sold with full-on hyperbole and few did it better than this trailer for The Beast Within. You probably will find that you're able to remain seated during the last thirty minutes of the movie, despite the warnings of this trailer, but you won't be able to say that the filmmakers didn't pull out every stop to make this the horror experience of a lifetime.



And if your heart can stand the terror, here's my Trick Or Trailers posts from '09:

The Shining (1980)

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990)

Magic (1978)

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

When A Stranger Calls (1978)

The Manitou (1978)

Motel Hell (1980)

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Alien (1979)

The Ghost And Mr. Chicken (1966)

Suspiria (1977)

In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream

In Scream 4, the film kicks off with spoofs of the fictitious Stab series - the films within the Scream films. Apparently, in the Scream-verse, Stab has chugged along to something like seven or eight installments. Unfortunately, unlike Stab's witty recreation of the events of the first Scream wherein Heather Graham was substituted for Drew Barrymore's character and Tori Spelling for Neve Campbell and the restaged scenes were given a glossy Hollywood horror sheen, the clips of these later-day Stab sequels prove to be soggy spoof material. Mostly they're just there to set up a pair of fake-outs as we think we're watching the opening of Scream 4 with two female friends alone in a house being stalked by Ghostface only to have it revealed that it's a Stab sequel and then the gag is repeated again with another pair of potential victims before Scream 4 properly begins.

The content of these mock Stab sequels is so banal, it made me wish that Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson would've tried to have some real fun in imagining where the phony Stab series might have progressed. If only they had seized on the starry precedent set by Hellraiser: Bloodline, Leprechaun 4: In Space, and Jason X and gave their bogus Stab sequel an out-of-this-world setting. Even John Carpenter had once lobbied for a Halloween sequel in which the indestructible Michael Myers would be shot into space (whether he really thought that was a good idea or if he was purposely out to undermine the series, who knows?) so taking a horror franchise out of earthly orbit is enough of a reoccurring theme to warrant spoofing. Yes, it would've meant that the fake-out scares of Scream 4 would've had to go by the wayside but I believe it would have been a worthy sacrifice.

Seeing Ghostface lurking on a space station would've been a wonderfully cheesy way to kick off Scream 4. And honestly, I wouldn't have minded if it had been the real story to Scream 4, either. It would've been ridiculous, yes, but I have to say I miss the days when horror sequels would stray into strange, misguided territory. Back in the day, it frustrated me to see a phony Jason behind the hockey mask or to see the real Jason fighting a telekinetic teen or stalking Times Square or to have the Halloween series derailed by the odd mythology of the Cult of the Thorn (having already been really derailed by the machinations of crazed mask maker Conal Cochran) but in hindsight I appreciate the room for spontaneity that existed then. As inept as some of those sequels were, and as much as they showed a deep misunderstanding of the creative properties involved, I miss the willingness to deviate from the program.

In the '80s and '90s, there wasn't much thought as to whether fans might be affronted or outraged by the direction of a sequel but the keepers of today's franchises always stay on script (with the sole exception being the Child's Play films, but that series has sadly been on hold since 2004's under appreciated Seed of Chucky).

The Saw films never took any zany detours (no Jigsaw Goes To Washington, for example) and likewise, for however long the series lasts you'll never see Paranormal Activity spring any surprises on viewers. At least the Final Destination films can keep ballooning its set-pieces to increasingly absurd levels but in general, the days of horror franchises doing anything to challenge or test their base are over. Walking out of a movie like Jason Goes to Hell, I would've told you that's what I always wanted but I'm not so sure anymore.

Being too cautious is ultimately what gutted Scream 4. I enjoyed it myself but as I said in my review, it's a movie that favors the old guard over the new blood and horror is always about new blood. That's how it's continued to survive. As confounding as some of the horror sequels of the past were, in hindsight I like that they only followed formula to a point. It's true that most of the creative leaps those sequels took didn't pay off but at least the attempts were memorable. It's easy to tell one Friday the 13th from the other - but can anyone other than the most attentive Saw fan tell those sequels apart?

While the box office for Scream 4 on its opening weekend wasn't exactly dismal, it was definitely lackluster compared to its predecessors. The series now ironically finds itself in the same position of the '80s warhorses it used to mock - a once thriving franchise whose audience has shrunk. If another Scream comes around, maybe they'll decide to throw caution to the wind and set their sights a little higher.

Like, maybe as high as the moon even.

A New Stab At Halloween

This Halloween, I decided to do something really novel - watch Halloween. Yes, that Halloween. I know it's traditional to watch John Carpenter's classic at this time of year, what with it being the Halloween season and all but I usually forgo it. I mean, it's just too easy. I always feel that horror fans should dig a little deeper for their scare fare - even if it's just a little deeper into the Halloween franchise.

That used to mean reaching for Halloween III: Season of the Witch but in recent years even that once-reviled title has become a favored seasonal staple among fans. With little place left to go for hidden gems in the franchise - and believe me, I've even tried (and thankfully failed) to get on board with Halloween: Resurrection - I decided to stop making my life needlessly difficult and get back to the original for the first time in, well, I don't know how long.

I couldn't tell you what year it was when I last watched Halloween (somewhere in the mid-'90s) but I'll never forget that I first watched it in 1981 on its broadcast premiere on NBC. It was this showing right here:



In 1981, Halloween was part of recent history. Now it's older to today's kids than 1951's The Thing from Another World and 1956's Forbidden Planet were to Tommy Doyle and Lindsey Wallace in 1978. What I'm saying, basically, is that Halloween is fucking old. Far older than even seems possible. But then I see Jamie Lee Curtis on TV hawking yogurt to help mature ladies like herself poop properly and I'm like, yeah, a lot of time has gone by. Totally.

It's sometimes hard to find new things to notice, even in great movies, once you've seen them so many times but on this latest viewing of Halloween, one moment in particular caught my attention. At the end of the opening shot, after Michael is unmasked, his parents just stand there as the camera pulls back. His mother even calmly puts her hands in her coat pockets - talk about keeping a cool head!

Normally, when parents discover their six year old son holding a bloody butcher knife, some immediate action is called for. Taking the knife out of his hand, running to the house to see who - if anyone - was injured, that kind of thing. But Carpenter had his actors hold their positions as the camera pulls up and away from the scene.

Up front, Carpenter is telling us that he isn't interested in depicting reality. This isn't cinema vérité - it's a fantasy, a fairy tale. This archly artificial composition makes all the subsequent leaps we have to take in the rest of the movie possible. It signals the difference between a movie where we're listening to Donald Pleasence as the voice of reason rather than Simon Oakland. By the end of the film, Dr. Loomis' crazy talk has been proven 100% right and that Michael really is the boogeyman but from the start, Carpenter has put us in a heightened, subtly stylized world where that conclusion fits without question.

Another shot I've seen dozens of times but only now perceived something different about is the sight of Annie's body on the Wallace's bed with Judith Myers' grave.

This is an iconic image and yet it only registered with me on this latest viewing that not only did Michael pose Annie on the bed and not only did he display Judith's stolen headstone but before all that the sick freak made the bed. After all, this is the same bed where Lynda and Bob just contentedly fucked.

The simple explanation as to why Michael would do this is that Carpenter just thought the shot would look better that way. That's the pragmatic answer. However, this is a movie that Carpenter himself as described as about "the revenge of the repressed." Laurie, Michael - and even possibly Loomis himself - all have issues along these lines. Michael, especially, is not cool at all with the idea of sex.

Given that, it isn't such a stretch to regard that well-made bed as being symbolic of his severe pathology. What says "repressed" more than a killer that displays a corpse but is first compelled to smooth over all evidence of other "dirty" deeds?

In regards to Laurie, Halloween's repressed heroine, it occurred to me during this viewing how different this character was from the other horror movie roles that Jamie Lee Curtis went on to play. It's commonly assumed that Curtis portrayed the same "good girl" in Prom Night and Terror Train, that she lived in both of those films because of her character's pure virtue. When Scream came out, part of the slasher "rules" that scripter Kevin Williamson made such a big deal about was that the virgin always lives but both Kim (Prom Night) and Alana (Terror Train) had far more in common with the extroverted Annie and Lynda than with the shy Laurie (just try to imagine Laurie doing a provocative disco dance in front of her high school classmates - hell, she'd have to be hypnotized to accomplish that).

These characters were outgoing (bordering on vivacious), popular, and had steady boyfriends. Clearly they were not wallflowers in the Laurie Strode mold. So without getting lewd or making crass accusations, I'll just say that I think that the cliché of the virginal heroine was broken early on in the slasher cycle and that slasher history, in this particular instance, may need some amending.

In no need of amending, though, is Halloween's prized reputation. It's an easy movie to take for granted (even for those of us old enough to remember a time before Halloween) but seeing it again has given me a renewed appreciation for the consummate skill that Carpenter and co. brought to what in lesser hands would've just been a movie about a thug with a knife instead of a movie that defined horror for a generation. It's so good, I think I'll watch it again next Halloween.

Dimension's Dark Decline

Being completely outside the world of film, when it comes to the business of Hollywood, I only know what I read in the entertainment press. However, while I'm no inside authority, the news that Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Dimension Films - along with the entirety of The Weinstein Company - is facing grim times (as reported by Deadline Hollywood) has me thinking of the often-exasperating history of what began as a genre label of Miramax Films. In the early '90s, when I first started noticing the Dimension logo on films like Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice and Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (both 1992), even though the movies themselves weren't stellar, it was still encouraging to see a dedicated new provider of horror movies at a time when studios were reluctant to embrace the genre. At the time I thought, hey, give 'em a chance - these guys are bound to start putting out better films.

And from time to time, those better films did come along. Thanks to Dimension, I got to see at least one Stuart Gordon movie in the theaters (Fortress, 1993). And in 1994, they released The Crow which was pretty sweet. In the mid-'90s, they were on kind of a roll with The Prophecy (1995), Scream (1996), and From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) and in recent years, there's been favorites bearing their imprint like The Others (2001), Grindhouse (2007) and The Mist (2008). However, over the course of all these years, the ratio of quality to shit in Dimension's catalog has been impossible to ignore. And their handling of franchises like Children of the Corn, The Crow, Highlander, Hellraiser, and (in particular) Halloween has often been infuriating.

But history may show that the Weinstein's all-time fuck-up move was to roll the dice on Rob Zombie a second time with Halloween II. While the Weinsteins had some success with Zombie's 2007 reboot of Halloween, that film had the novelty of being the restart of the franchise - an event that was going to bring in a flock of curious fans regardless. And by telling the origin of Michael Myers, Halloween '07 also had the semblance of a story to it. But Halloween II is a disaster on nearly every level and the Weinsteins have only themselves to blame for letting it happen. Was the negative reaction to Zombie's first Halloween (not a universally negative reaction but more than enough to be a cause for concern) something they thought they could completely discount? I can't blame Rob Zombie for making Halloween II his way but I can't believe that this project ever looked to the Weinsteins like anything but a death-knell.

Maybe the debacle of Halloween II just at the moment when their company needed a big success is karma for the Weinstein's long-running abuse of the Halloween franchise (1998's Halloween: H20 being the rare Halloween under their stewardship to respect the series' history and gild its legacy rather than trash it) but regardless, making a Halloween that was only appealing to the Rob Zombie faithful looks a lot like suicide. And to put Halloween II in a game of box office chicken with The Final Destination when they could've easily moved to a more advantageous release date was just begging to lose and to lose hard.

While Zombie's sequel has found some admirers, I think most paying customers feel that Zombie fucked them in the ass and to quote The Big Lebowski (1997), "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass!" What's galling about both of Zombie's Halloween movies - but II especially - is the contempt that it shows for anyone who is so conventional-minded as to actually come to the theater hoping to see a Halloween film that is suspenseful and scary. I mean, there hasn't been much luck on that front in awhile but for Zombie to at least have tried would've been sporting of him. And personally, I don't see anything in Halloween II that makes me think he did. It's not a bad film because it's not Carpenter's vision of these characters, it's bad because Zombie is a capable visual stylist who has a poor aptitude for writing.

Zombie has said that he wanted to make Laurie and Annie come off as traumatized by their previous run-in with Michael Myers but apparently the entire population of Haddonfield was also attacked by a serial killer as there's nothing to differentiate Laurie and Annie from the rest of the town. Everyone looks and talks exactly the same (and I defy anyone to tell me how the squalid living quarters of Sheriff Brackett's house looks any different from the squalid apartment of Laurie's friends, the dishevelled record store that she works at, or the trashy interior of the Rabbit In Red Lounge). If Zombie really wanted to show how Laurie and Annie have been drastically altered by their ordeal, he needed to show how their lives now contrast against the 'straight' world. To have Laurie and Annie attending college classes or working jobs side-by-side with peers who are optimistic about their lives and their futures, oblivious to the darkness that Laurie and Annie carry with them could've set up a poignant portrayal of both girls (as would the introduction of new romantic relationships, hampered by the girl's emotional baggage). But if anything, it looks as though Laurie and Annie (particularly Laurie) have finally found their niche in the world thanks to their lives taking a dark turn. It makes one wonder how these girls ever fit into the Haddonfield social scene before.

Zombie's done with Halloween now (well, at least it looks that way - remember that he swore up and down after the release of Halloween that he wouldn't do a second film) but rather than hiring Zombie and letting the chips fall where they may, I think Dimension should've shown more concern from the start towards rebooting the Halloween franchise the right way. I know some believe that Zombie should be commended for doing something different but I think his revisionist approach only put the series into a worse corner than it already was (and it didn't result in very good films, either - even if assessed strictly on their own terms). There's no reason why a venerable horror series like Halloween couldn't be relaunched with the same quality control that James Bond and Batman were shown with Casino Royale and Batman Begins (I can imagine directors like The Stepfather's Joseph Ruben or The Strangers' Bryan Bertino doing well with Halloween) but as long as companies like Dimension don't care enough to match the right talent with the right franchise, it won't happen.

And to me, that just seems like bad business.

Five Ways To Save Halloween

With the latest exploits of Michael Myers coming in a disappointing third at the box office this weekend behind the second week of Inglourious Basterds and the debut of competing horror franchise Final Destination's latest installment (in 3-D!), it should be a time for the Weinstein Co. to reassess where one of horror's most enduring series now stands in the cultural zeitgeist.

However, that hoped-for period of reflection isn't going to happen as its already been announced that Halloween 3-D is on deck for an August 2010 release! Still, as August is a year away and - other than the fact that it's going to be in 3-D - we have no inkling as to the direction of this new Halloween, I'm going to toss out a few helpful suggestions. Of course, my frankly awesome plan for Halloween II already fell on deaf ears but as a fan I still feel duty-bound to put my two cents in on the future of Halloween. If these five issues are addressed, the next Halloween might not be so painful to endure.

5) No More 'Name' Writer/Directors

The problem with hiring someone who's a superstar in their own right like Rob Zombie is that it becomes about selling their name and their brand, not the series itself. Whether you liked Zombie's take on Halloween or not, I think it ultimately was a bad move to let Zombie reinvent the franchise. It reminds me of when Marvel Comics was in a desperate situation in the late '90s and they licenced out some of their most iconic titles, like Fantastic Four and Captain America, to the founders of Image Comics in the hopes that guys like Rob Liefeld would revive interest in these characters and bring in a big haul of cash. In the short term that worked on a financial level, but the actual product was poor and putting flashy 'name' creators on these books did more harm than good. With their next choice of a Halloween director, I hope the Weinsteins will go with someone who's just a solid director. I'd love to have, say, Wrong Turn's Rob Schmidt tackle this. Or My Bloody Valentine 3-D's Patrick Lussier. Those are the kind of directors who would do a bang-up job with Halloween, I think.

4) Reboot Everything

Seeing the series pick up from where Zombie left off is a dismal proposition. He painted the series into a corner that's not going to be easy or fun to get out of. You don't have to call the next film a remake and you don't have to do an origin story again but pretending that the two Zombie films didn't happen is going to be the best move, I think. I mean, Zombie didn't even set up an interesting mythology to carry on from. What was up with the hallucinations and visions and the psychic link between Laurie and Michael? As terrible as it was, I'd rather see the Cult of the Thorn brought back.

3) Recast Everything

Whoever takes on this next installment might as well reboot everything because they're sure as hell going to have to recast everything. I'm sure that Zombie's cast isn't going to be eager to carry on without him so no Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie, no Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett, no Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis (if that character can even be brought back). While some might balk at this, I think the majority of fans and movie-goers will be glad for a chance to start over and not question how it's accomplished. The idea of rebooting Halloween from square one wasn't bad in itself, it just needed to be handled with more reverence to the original series.

2) Bring Back The Suspense

If Halloween is known for one thing, it's for its classic suspense. Now, no one besides Carpenter has worked that angle as well but the better entries in the series - the original Halloween II, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, and Halloween: H20 - did well by trying to follow in his footsteps. I know that some people think that brutality is where it's at with horror now but I disagree. That works for some films but I think Halloween should stick to a more classic style. Brutal isn't scary - is there a single person who found Zombie's Halloween II to be the least bit frightening? Anyone? I doubt it. A return to stalk n' slash suspense where we have real build-ups to the kills (the depth of vision that 3-D provides would be perfect for the kind of visuals that Carpenter had in the original where you'd have a character in the foreground and Michael looming in the distance behind them), real jump scares, and real terror is what's going to work for Halloween. Look at how well The Strangers (2008) did and that film was a complete Halloween homage. Come to think of it - get Strangers writer/director Bryan Bertino to do the new Halloween. That'd be perfect!

1) Bring Back The Boogeyman

Turning Michael Myers into a kid from a dysfunctional home was a losing move from the get-go, making him into just a dime-a-dozen psycho. The next Halloween needs to reestablish Michael Myers as The Boogeyman. Bring that implacable sense of mystery back to the character. And his look needs to be repaired, too. Get that decaying shit off Michael's face and get him back in the white mask, for crying out loud, and not looking like a hobo that slept in a dumpster. That smooth, white, emotionless mask is what's classic about Michael. If you're not going to go with that, why bother?

Zombie's reinvention of Michael reminds me of the long development process the Superman movie suffered in the '90s. You'd keep hearing that the producers were questioning why Superman needed a cape, why the costume had to be red and blue, why he needed to fly, why have an 'S' on his chest, and so on - all that kind of bullshit. Then there's the Godzilla remake from '98 where suddenly the iconic look of that character that the fans loved for decades and that everyone around the world recognized was shit-canned because some geniuses thought they had a better idea. Studios should learn that when they have a classic character, they need to embrace the fact that these characters have their following for a reason. When you whittle away what the fans love about these characters, you've got nothing left.

Some might say "oh, come on - we've seen it so many times, what's new about it?" But the whole point of sequels is that audiences want to revisit characters that they love (or formulas that they love - witness the ongoing success of the Final Destination films). When I went to see a new Dirty Harry movie in the '80s like Sudden Impact or The Dead Pool, it was never about - "Man, I wonder how Harry's going to react to crime this time around?" No, you're going for that familiarity - that's why sequels work. And even with the new Batman films, Nolan and co. have succeeded by embracing the core elements of that character - portraying Batman as the Dark Knight - not getting away from them. The same with the new Bond films, which have returned to the tougher Bond of the novels and the Sean Connery films. Getting back to basics works and it can work for Halloween, too.

Will any of these things come to pass in the new Halloween? I hope so. While the series is a little long in the tooth, I don't think that it's played out. It just needs to be handled with more care. Halloween is a classic brand that audiences want to support. The Weinstein Co. just needs to realize that on Halloween, everyone deserves one good scare. And if you give it to them, they'll keep coming back for more.

Halloween 2: The Revenge of Big Joe Grizzly

Despite his once-adamant stance that 2007's Halloween would be writer/director Rob Zombie's one and only trip to Haddonfield, the news just broke that Zombie will be filming Halloween 2 (aka H2) next year. My immediate thought to that is "Thank God another horror film can finally give fucking Saw a run for its money next Halloween!". Of course, that's kind of like having a mice problem in your home and letting snakes loose to take care of it but that's fine.

At the very least, Zombie doing his own follow-up means that the truly promising directors that were attached to this project - most recently, Inside helmers Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury - can move on to something more deserving of their talents. For another, this is the first time to my knowledge that a director has gone on to sequelize their own remake and that's an intriguing situation.

Word from Variety that Halloween 2 will chronicle "the aftermath of Michael Myers' murderous rampage through the eyes of the sister he hunted" doesn't really say much, however, and what it does say worries me. I just hope Zombie doesn't try to justify returning to the Halloween universe by going experimental and having the new film be some kind of psychoanalysis of Laurie Strode's traumatized mind. That's a waste of everyone's time. Now that the origin story is out of the way, just put Michael Myers on a full-out rampage. There's still room to do things differently than in the original saga but at the end of the day Halloween 2 has to be about Michael suited up in his overalls and mask, knife in hand, doing what we like seeing him do. If it isn't, it shouldn't be called Halloween 2.

To that end, here's my suggestions: first, kill Loomis off right away. Bring Malcolm McDowell back for an Adrienne King-like opening cameo. Have him living alone, bat-shit crazy and blinded after Michael gouged his eyes out in the last movie. Michael, of course, pays him a final visit and the opening credits roll. Once that's done, bring back Ken Foree's character of trucker Big Joe Grizzly as the new antagonist for Michael - a character who'd be more akin to Robert Shaw in Jaws than the traditional Loomis type. Sure it looked like Michael put a permanent end to Big Joe during their last encounter but this is a horror movie so who's to say this character couldn't have survived his injuries and emerged with a vendetta to carry out against Michael Myers? Michael caught him off-guard the first time but now Big Joe's ready for Round Two. For the last two years he's been watching, waiting, training his ass off. Now it's on.

If this sounds ridiculous to you, listen: we've already seen six Halloween movies where Michael is pursued by Loomis - someone who could never pose any kind of physical threat to Michael and who's only purpose is to spread the word on Michael's evil nature. That's beyond tired. Now I want to see a Halloween movie where a total bad-ass is gunning for Michael, not some frail old dude but a guy who can really take it to Michael on his own terms. I also think it'd be cool to see this tough bastard who doesn't believe in shit like the Boogeyman slowly forced to consider that there's more than just a whole lot of crazy to Michael.

Of course, in Zombie's Halloween universe, I'm sure that Michael is still just supposed to be some burly psycho and not a supernatural force and that bringing Big Joe Grizzly back to grapple with Michael - taking their death-feud through the streets of Haddonfield - would be regarded as a cheesy move. Well, yeah. It would. But I also believe it'd be fun and that slasher movies - especially sequels to remakes of slasher movies - ought to be fun and not so full of themselves. I want to see a Halloween movie where Michael is in some suburban house, bearing down on his latest victim when suddenly a semi truck crashes through, horn blaring, taking off the back of the house and Big Joe Grizzly jumps out of his giant rig in a suit of homemade armour, ready to stomp the shit out of Michael. Goddammit, that's the Halloween 2 I want to see - the Night HE Got Rocked. And I'd also like to see Keith David cast as Big Joe's brother - someone even more bad-ass than Big Joe himself, some real John Carpenter-esque character like Napoleon Wilson who just broke out of jail. Shit, if Zombie doesn't want to bring back Foree because feels like it'd be cheesy to have him survive his Halloween injuries, just have David as Foree's brother, busting himself out of maximum security to avenge Big Joe's death. If that's what it comes to, I'd be cool with that.

I'm sure what Zombie has in mind for Halloween 2 is nothing like what I have in mind for Halloween 2 but until I hear for sure, I'll keep hoping that Big Joe Grizzly will be on the comeback trail next October.

A Hardy Halloween

According to the onscreen text, this clip from The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries is taking place on June 12th - and the episode itself originally ran on September 11th, 1977. So as a Halloween clip, its credentials may be suspect. But when you have Paul Williams sporting a Dracula cape and signing "The Hell Of It" from Phantom of the Paradise to a costumed crowd of revelers, I think it all evens out.



Have A Happy Halloween!

Halloween Meltdown

For the duration of my trick or treating years (1975-1981), I never wore a really great costume. At first, dressing up as Spider-Man or Captain Marvel (better known as "Shazam!" to kids of the '70s) was pure pleasure – no matter how chintzy the store-bought outfits may have been – but as time went on, I felt that I wasn’t living up to my full Halloween potential.

Finally, in 1978, I saw an opportunity for all that to change.

A few weeks before Halloween that year, as I walked through a Kaybee’s toy store with my mother, I spotted an actual, honest-to-God, officially sanctioned make-up kit for The Incredible Melting Man. The film – about an ill-fated astronaut who returns from a space mission only to find that he’s melting away – had been released the year before and even though it had tanked, I had no concept of the success or failure of movies back then. I just knew that it had come out and that it had looked absolutely awesome.

I remember having excitedly gawked at MM’s melted mug on the cover of Famous Monsters and knowing that this had to be one of the scariest movies ever made – I had no capacity at the time to discern that it was likely to be utter shit. In that regard I can’t be too hard on myself because honestly, Rick Baker’s make-up for the titular melting menace was so badass that it single-handedly sold the movie as a must-see.

And standing in the toy store on that day in ‘78, I saw my golden chance to become the talk of the neighborhood by transforming my face into the glistening visage of The Incredible Melting Man.

As I looked at the picture of MM on the cover of that kit in all his dripping glory, I knew that’s exactly how I was going to look. I pictured that head sitting on my shoulders - there would be no discrepancy between the image on the box and how I’d look once that make-up was applied. The kit was designed by make-up maestro Rick Baker himself and I knew that he’d make the process of becoming The Incredible Melting Man an easily accomplished one.

I’d never be able to find that out first hand, however, because as soon as I called my mother’s attention to what I wanted, she made it clear that she would not allow me to be the Melting Man. After one look at the oozing edifice on the front of the box and examining the array of materials pictured on the back, my mother told me that there was no way I was putting any of this on my face. I tried to argue, being adamant that there was no potential harm in whatever materials were used in the kit but she was sure that something in that make-up would cause some kind of reaction in my skin, that there must be unknown chemicals that would leave me permanently marked (I shouldn’t have been surprised – after all, this was the same woman who adamantly refused to buy me a chemistry set for fear of exposure to deadly materials) or that it would drip into my mouth or eyes and we’d have to spend Halloween in the emergency room. There was nothing I could do to convince her otherwise.

When Halloween finally came a few weeks later, I didn’t see any Melting Men walking the streets (my only solace in the situation) so maybe my mother’s reaction wasn’t a unique one. I can’t even remember now what my own costume was that year. I’m sure I settled for a full-head Wolf Man mask or something. Whatever it was, my heart wasn’t it. Once we left Kaybee’s without that make-up kit, I was done caring. I had wanted to walk the night looking like someone had poured a bucket of dripping snot on my head. I wanted to be hideous - spectacularly hideous, as only a melting man can be.

But in 1978, my chance to live that dream came and went. And with it, my hopes of Halloween greatness melted away for good.

The above post was my contribution to a group blog on "Halloween Memories" by The League of Tana Tea Drinkers. Read the rest of the LoTTD contributors' recollections here.