Editorials
The Curious Case of Number 2s: When ‘Halloween,’ ‘Elm Street’ and ‘Phantasm’ Went Hollywood
John Carpenter and Debra Hill didn’t want to make Halloween II. Those of you who know this story, indulge me for a bit. Those of you who don’t, well, here you go. Anyway, the dynamic duo created a monster with Halloween and creatively, saw no reason to wade back into the same waters. Plus, as far as Carpenter was concerned, there was no more story to tell. So, what changed his mind? The extensive account in the book Taking Shape gets it straight from the horse’s mouth, and it rhymes with honey.
“The sequel was going to be made with us or without us. And part of the reason for making the sequel was to get the money that was owed to both Debra and I from the first film. Being nice capitalists, we decided to go ahead and do that,” reflects Carpenter.
At least he’s honest.
With Universal on board to distribute the sequel to the little independent exploitation movie that could, Halloween officially went from the minors to the majors. But more money involved meant more oversight, and more oversight meant working within a system involving test screenings and notes. By 1981, slashers powered the horror business. And business was booming.
As a result, Carpenter, the other producers, and the studio believed Halloween II needed to contend with the slew of Halloween imitators. Feelings on Halloween II aside, this is a vast difference between the first movie and its sequel. While the former was auteur-driven, the latter was anything but. In the end, seemingly no one on the production was incredibly happy, least of all director Rick Rosenthal, and most certainly not Carpenter. Ask him; he has plenty to say on the subject.
Halloween II is one of three horror sophomore efforts in the ’80s that were less about the auteur, more about the business, and all about establishing the brand. Halloween II, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, and Phantasm II are forks in the road and their respective franchises’ most consequential films.
In each instance, these movies were victims of their own success. Of course, New Line wanted a sequel to A Nightmare on Elm Street since it made all the money. And why wouldn’t a horror-loving exec at Universal want a sequel to that successful Don Coscarelli film at a time when horror was big box office? Each of these business decisions required sacrifices on the creative side of the equation.
Coscarelli ran into the same corporate buzzsaw that chopped and screwed Halloween II several years earlier. As a result, Phantasm II has a different lead actor, adds a love interest, and its narrative is pretty straightforward. Fans use many words to describe the Phantasm franchise, but it’s a good bet “straightforward” isn’t one of them. In fact, Phantasm II is the weirdest of the franchise because, relatively speaking, it’s pretty normal. The director acknowledged he played the studio game, making concessions and giving them what they wanted.
Wes Craven, on the other hand, was less inclined to partake. To be fair, the Never Sleep Again documentary features a few different opinions on the exact reason the director of A Nightmare on Elm Street didn’t direct its first sequel. But according to the man himself, he had no desire to turn his “dream child” into a franchise, and not having ownership of said creation bothered him. The studio went ahead without Craven and created a movie that, while beloved now, was anything but in 1985, to say nothing of the fact that it ripped up and contradicted a lot of Craven’s established rules. How? Well, it is the only time Freddy Krueger operates in the real world at a pool party in front of a captivated audience.
Turns out, leaving the auteur in the dust purely to keep the brand alive wasn’t the best decision at the time.
These three movies were catalysts for what came in their wake. Halloween II led to Halloween III (sans Michael Myers), which gave us Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers. Halloween II made The Shape human by giving him familial bonds. From that point on, the series turned into a soap opera saga about the most dysfunctional family since the clan Manson led in the ’60s. The 1981 movie’s legacy loomed large enough to the point that a storyline Carpenter attributes to obligation and alcohol wasn’t done away with until 2018.
Nightmare 2’s chilly reception got the studio to bring Craven back into the fold and gave birth to A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. The series shifted direction when it was left for dead, and all these years later, we’re still talking about the dream demon. As far as Phantasm II is concerned, it showed Coscarelli the power of ownership and the joys of creative freedom. Phantasm III didn’t drop until 1994, and his voice is evident from the first frame to the last.
Horror history wouldn’t be the same without these movies with the number two in their titles. What’s crazy is they were all created under similar circumstances at different times and yielded identical long-term results. We needed these movies when we got them, even if we didn’t know it yet. They ensured longevity for characters we love and love to hate. And not for nothing, but they are examples of why horror works best when the creator’s vision remains pure.
Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.
To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.
Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.
After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.
SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?
Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.
For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.
Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.
Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?
AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?
Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.
From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.
The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.
Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.
With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega…
There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.
Looking for New Episodes of “Chucky” on Peacock? Here’s What Changed
‘Mountain Man’ – Joe Manganiello Will Battle Zombies in Upcoming Horror Movie
‘The Blair Witch Project’ – Original Stars Release a Statement Asking Lionsgate for Residuals & Recognition
‘Trap’ – Official Trailer Previews a Wild New Horror Experience from M. Night Shyamalan
‘Halloween: Illustrated’ Review: Original Novelization of John Carpenter’s Classic Gets an Upgrade
You must be logged in to post a comment.