#i think its a mistake because Michael is the opposite of macho and it takes away from his uniqueness if he's like a pro wrestler

[cipheramnesia]

The Rob Zombie Halloween movies are not exactly good, but they have this little chestnut of an idea that's intriguing.

The original two Halloween movies hinge on the core premise that Michael Meyers is a kind of empty vessel which embodies evil. You have to buy into the idea a little, because if you don't, not only do the movies not work as well, but also the character of Dr. Loomis comes of as an unhinged, abusive monster of a doctor. Which feels like something Rob Zombie intentionally wanted his version to consider. Ultimately the movies are not successful, likely in some measure through studio interference, but this explains a good deal of decisions which put Zombie's Halloween at loggerheads with the original movies and the fandom.

The thing about Rob Zombie is that his fans are his worst critics, in that they don't want him to make anything except a carbon copy of House of 1000 Corpses or Devil's Rejects, and when he tries to do more interesting (and in the case of Lords of Salem, significantly better) movies, they piss all over themselves in outrage. When you combine his unusual take on Halloween with a stylistic departure as well, the movies has no chance.

The funny thing is, in retrospect, Zombie's changes are actually the better choice compared to the slavishly accurate recent Halloweens, or any of the sequels following Halloween 2. He gave Michael Meyers a voice, and a more complex history, and a human connection, and all these details which fans mostly hated, but which repositioned Michael from hollow monster to a person who was deeply failed by the world. And the thing of it is, there's nothing left to explore after Halloween 2, which means the only place to go if you want to be interesting about the character is a radically different direction.

That's what Rob Zombie did, his version wasn't supposed to be scary as a remorseless killing machine, but scary as someone who was formed into a terrible creature by the world deciding for him that he is a monster. You can see this most of all with how Malcolm McDowell portrays his version of Loomis as self centered, malicious, and incompetent by varying degrees. It's stating as loudly as possible to the audience hey, this person is terrible at helping people, he is awful and his characterization of Michael Meyers as "evil" is self serving and horrible. It's meant to make the audience step back and realize, no matter how terrible the things Michael does, he's a child and locking him up for his entire life is a fucked up thing to do.

Now, ultimately the films are a mess, and this little idea doesn't really hold together or develop. I believe it's intentional still, but winds up being incompatible with what, I assume through studio pressure, is a movie too close to the original Halloween to make room for a different approach. I couldn't necessarily recommend watching them, but as failures they're still interesting.