Halloween (2007)

AUGUST 1, 2007

GENRE: REMAKE, SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

I had hope. I really really did. For all the backlash they get (some of which is deserved), I honestly don’t really mind remakes. I gave mostly good reviews of The Hitcher and Black Xmas on Bloody-Disgusting, a site with about 99% more readers than Horror Movie A Day. Clearly, I am not one to dislike or like a movie just because it’s expected of me.

But I had a sneaking suspicion that this might be a little different when three different people I don’t really even know that well, one of them a director himself (the other two are fellow movie enthusiasts/journalists), were specifically interested in what I’d think about Rob Zombie’s Halloween. I was a bit surprised/honored, but it makes sense: if I have ever spoken to someone for more than 12 seconds, I more than likely mentioned Halloween. It’s my favorite thing in the world, next to Bat out of Hell. In a way, those two things present a beautifully ironic dichotomy – one celebrates excess, the other is so sparse it can almost be considered plotless, and yet both inspire me in every creative thing I do.

Needless to say, this was no ordinary remake to me.

But I felt the same way about Dawn of the Dead (the original of which is probably my 3rd favorite horror movie, after Halloween and of course, Shocker), and I loved the remake. It was probably my favorite genre film of 2004. And while I wasn’t too big a fan of 1000 Corpses, I loved Devil’s Rejects, which in turn was my favorite genre film of 2005. So while I wasn’t expecting any sort of masterpiece, I felt confident that Rob could make a film that, if nothing else, would be better than the previous 3 entries, which were the worst in the series (and surprise – they were all from Dimension!)

I did not get my wish.

While better than Resurrection (so is being raped by an elephant), Rob Zombie’s Halloween is such a mess, such a massive disappointment, such a… clusterfuck, that I am almost convinced I didn’t even see the whole movie. I saw it on August 1st, but I went back again on the 21st to make sure they didn’t show us some sort of rough assembly or promo reel. Because even though I know for a fact that I stayed awake and saw every frame of the film (I guess I don’t blink?), it seriously felt like I was dozing off and missing entire chunks of story at times. But the 2nd time, while it improved, was the same. I didn’t miss anything. (NOTE – I have since seen the workprint and was not really surprised to learn that the film went through the usual Dimension re-edit after all. This review will not reflect the changes, but a separate piece will be written about my reaction to the workprint).

No, in reality, in one of the most curious creative decisions I think I have ever encountered in any film, not just a remake, Zombie apparently assumed everyone has seen the original, and thus had the right to stage the entire 2nd half of his film as a sort of greatest hits (or, as my friend referred to it, the “Terror In The Aisles” version) of Carpenter’s film. Nothing much really changes in this portion, but lots and lots of things are missing. For example, Annie’s first scene in the Wallace house is… her about to leave it, talking on the phone to Laurie about having her watch Lindsay. Now, we haven’t even really MET Lindsay yet, but that’s minor compared to the other massive storytelling holes that occur as a result of this decision. Michael is also apparently everywhere at once, as he is seen killing Laurie’s parents at their house, killing Lynda and Bob at his house, and killing Annie and Paul at what I THINK is the Wallace house (more on that later) practically back to back. And unlike the original, he doesn’t drive. How he manages to get around is never explained, nor why no one seems to notice a 7 foot tall man stalking the streets.

This also leads to another gigantic and almost-impossible-to- believe-they-didn’t-question-it plot hole. Much has been made about Zombie’s “explaining” why Michael kills, and to be honest I didn’t mind the idea. It couldn’t be dumber than Druids and cults and having Michael fuck his niece. But regardless of the why, his target this time is perfectly clear: Laurie. His sister. Now, you must remember, the “sister” angle was introduced in the sequels, NOT the original film. In the original, Michael had no rhyme or reason for stalking Laurie, other than maybe being really pissed that she dropped a key off on his porch while he was trying to eat a dog. That’s what made it so creepy. But here, the sister angle is front and center, and again, I have no problems with that per se, but it totally contradicts the actions Michael takes. If all he wants is Laurie, why does he kill Paul and Annie? They’re in another house, minding their own nudity. Bob and Lynda’s deaths are pointless too, but they are fooling around in his old house, so we can buy it (if not understand why he went back there in the first place – he was already seen out and about the town before this scene). One could say that Michael just wants to be the only person in Laurie’s life and thus kills everyone else she is close to, but for a movie that is painted with such broad strokes and has lines like “Bitch I will crawl over there and skullfuck the shit out of you!”, it’s not likely Zombie would suddenly turn subtle with his screenwriting when it concerns the actions taken by his primary character.

This theory almost has to be accepted in order to make any sense out of the scene where Michael kills Laurie’s parents, however, because otherwise the logic of it is beyond any comprehension a human can muster. In the scene, Michael watches as Laurie leaves to go baby-sit. He then goes inside the Strode home and kills her dad, attacks her mother and then shows her a picture of Laurie as a baby, as if to say “Where is she?” Well, you just saw her leave, asshole (how he knew she lived there in the first place is none of our business), why didn’t you follow her? Then, adding insult to stupidity, he somehow finds her anyway, even though he killed the mother before she said anything. The whole scene is so fucking pointless, you have to wonder if Zombie is just doing this stuff to see if anyone is paying attention. Well, I am, and it’s fucking insulting.

And again, seeing the original film is almost a requirement, because of the way Zombie plots the 2nd half of the film. We don’t meet Laurie and the other original characters until halfway through the film. Any audience member coming in blind will wonder why the fuck we are following these people all of a sudden, especially since the film doesn’t bother developing them (the only reason we even know that his baby sister “Boo” is in fact Laurie at all is from a throwaway line from Brackett). All of a sudden, we’re in their world, and given no reason (other than the fact that they are incredibly fucking cute) to care about them. If anything, they’re all a bit bitchy, even Laurie, who I almost expected to just stab poor Tommy to death, since she almost never says anything civil to the damn kid. Lines from the original, like “Ben Tramer likes you” or whatever, are thrown in for some reason as well, and again, have no real resonance since we don’t even know who Laurie is, let alone her unseen suitor. The lines are simply used to remind us of the original and mentally develop Laurie and her friends ourselves, based on what Carpenter did. It’s characterization by keywords.

I could go on some more about how dumb and idiotic and insulting the 2nd half of the film is (I haven’t even mentioned that it’s totally without suspense, though to be fair there are two decent jump scares), but I think I made my point. Let’s move on to the first half and how what goodwill it earns is totally invalidated by the 2nd half.

The film begins with Michael killing a rat. So for all the uproar about the film explaining why Michael is the way he is: it doesn’t. He’s clearly fucked from the start. We can assume that his redneck home life is what led him on this path, but since we never meet Michael as a normal kid, it doesn’t give us any reason to care about him or truly be shocked when he goes apeshit and kills a bully. So I guess we need a prequel to the prequel.

After the bully (a scene that’s actually somewhat disturbing, mostly thanks to the sound effects work), Michael goes home and carries out Zombie’s version of the opening scene of the original. Now, the first 5 minutes of the original Halloween is up there with the shower scene in Psycho, the dinner scene in Texas Chain Saw, and the TV show chase in Shocker as one of the pinnacles of cinematic achievement in horror films. In the original we didn’t know it was a kid until the end. That’s what made it shocking. Knowing perfectly well that the cat is out of the bag this time around, Zombie compensates by…. Doing the same thing he did with the bully 5 minutes before. Michael attacks by swinging a bat over and over, with LOUD SOUND EFFECTS. It worked for the bully, but by the time he actually gets to Judith, the effect is boring. Almost nothing from this point on in the film has any sort of suspense, terror, or even the shock value he was attempting to achieve, because he makes us numb to it by the 4th kill. And since everyone Michael has killed so far is just a degenerate or white trash loser, who the hell cares if he kills them anyway?

After this begins what is the best part of the film: The sanitarium section (this is what elevates it above Resurrection, which ironically had its own best scenes in a sanitarium). Michael is sent to Smith’s Grove, and we get a montage of Loomis trying to connect with Michael, as well as some surprisingly strong work from Sheri Moon Zombie as she visits him. This portion of the film is sadly only about 15 minutes long, and one wishes Zombie had just made this entire film. There’s a scene where Mrs. Myers finally realizes that her child is dead to her, and Sheri really pulls it off well. The scene is also presented without source audio, only the sound of an alarm. It’s a great fucking scene.

But this leads to the primary problem with the film. There are great scenes sprinkled throughout (even in the remake portion), so you know that Rob can write/direct. He has the ability. If the whole movie sucked, it would actually be less of a disappointment. Instead, we see glimpses of what could have been a worthy remake mixed in with other scenes that range from boring to downright awful. And worse, there is a giant disconnect with regards to passage of time, characters’ location in relation to one another, etc. The montage of Michael at the hospital could be two years or two weeks, it’s never quite clear.

There’s also a disturbingly high number of continuity errors. Michael slams a guy against a stall wall, which knocks the wall half over and breaks an ad on the other side of it. Then in the next shot (and for the rest of the scene) the wall is back up, the ad unbroken. Later, a character’s head is crushed, with blood running down from his eyes and mouth, only to appear simply knocked out (no blood or damage) in all subsequent shots of his body. Cops show up at a house different than the one they were asked to come to, and their car is shown in front of the house before they even arrive! To be fair, the original has its fair share of errors as well, but you know what? I saw the film a dozen times before I noticed them. Some I never noticed until I read about them on the IMDb and went back specifically looking for them. But here, I noticed things like this on the first time. If you’re drawn into a film, you won’t notice these things.

Rob also problems with the 180 rule. Primarily, he doesn’t seem to know about it. I spotted at least five occasions where characters are talking to each other from across a table or whatever and both shots have the characters looking screen left or right.

So it all comes down to the same question people asked from the beginning: Why bother? It’s clear that Rob had some really good ideas, but blending those with ones directly taken from Carpenter, the strange two act setup, and conflicting ideas behind Myers’ origin/methods just leave the film an as unfocused curiosity at best. Making his own film, or simply just doing a Van Sant-esque recreation of the original, albeit with his signature directing/editing style (other than the constant breaking of the 180 rule, the film is technically sound), would have probably turned out OK. But opting for trying to find a balance between the two has failed him, and in turn, us.

Better luck next time I guess.

(I just checked – longest review in HMAD history! Did you read it all in one sitting? I tried to and failed)

What say you?

56 comments:

  1. u haul frankensteinAugust 2, 2007 at 10:07 AM

    I can't believe you are honoring Dimension's request. Think of all the suffering they have caused you over the years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I know... but it was a very exclusive screening (like 12 people) and regardless of what I think of this one movie, we don't want to piss them off for other movies (i.e. The Mist) so I'll be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to predict that there are lots of music montages of "horror"....quick cuts of "horror"....and hmm...lot of shots of Sherri's ass.

    ReplyDelete
  4. oh man, the mist.... do want!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Me too! How long have they been talking about making The Mist into a movie?? Man I hope they do it right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Looking forward to seeing this! Cannot wait!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't seen the remake, but I fairly want to point out that in the original Halloween we (the viewer) are well aware that a little kid is doing the killing in the opening scene. We see a a childs perspective of opening the knife drawer, we see small hands grab the mask, etc. What was creepy to me was the blank, almost hypnotized glare on the kids face. I look forward to seeing the remake, regardless, but good read.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It doesn't matter how but I got to watch this film last night. Halloween is in my top 5 horror films and Carpenter was a genius in my eyes.

    I had to stop watching half way through (after the sheet + glasses scene of the original was so poorly redone).

    I'd been annoyed by the overuse of foul language (and i'm no old lady, it just seemed to detract from the 'story' too much) and I couldn't give a shit about the new 'Laurie' who this time around was more annoying than her slutty friends.

    I just wanted the whole lot of them to die and then for Michael to kill himself (and probably Rob Zombie).

    I remember thinking 'Zombie has just spent 30 minutes doing what Carpenter took only 3 minutes to do' and in the overlong remake it just served to remove any of the supernatural mystery of why Myers was how he was. We didn't really need to know, we knew he was messed up, we could use our imaginations to think of far worse than 'living with a bunch of foul mouthed rednecks'.

    Also why 2 nut-house staff would take a woman into Mike's cell for a gratuitous sex session and give Myers every oppurtunity to attack/escape is beyond me. The illusion was lost right there. Too cheap.

    I walked. I vowed never to disrepect the original by watching this 'vanity remake' ever again.

    The ONLY good piece in the whole film was the use of the original theme music, ergo Carpenter's music is the only thing that adds suspense to this otherwise dull, messy film.

    And why all the teens had to be so whiny, maybe they just are these days but damn they were beyond annoying. One of the girls taunting Michael in the street 'Hey you want some young stuff', cos yeah a teenage girl would do that to a 7 foot freak wearing a Kirk mask who'd been following them around all day, they didn't even show any sign of fear (so it wasn't even bravado) it was just poorly acted and poorly executed like the rest of the film.

    Halloween (1978) would be turning in it's grave.

    ReplyDelete
  9. yeah but... the person playing the kid was a grown woman!

    ReplyDelete
  10. How can you NOT like this movie!? I know why. You made ONE mistake. You compared it to the original, that's how. This is NOT the original, but this however was MUCH better than the last 5 sequels. Actually, this film had about as much originality as the original. In this flick, Laurie is MUCH more likeable than JLC's Laurie....MUCH more likeable. I fucking loved this movie and will be seeing it again all weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hahaha if there's any movie on this blog that I gave enough reasons for disliking it, it's this one.

    But to sum up:

    - Not scary
    - Not suspenseful
    - No character development
    - Awkward narrative flow
    - Distracting cameos
    - No payoff for Loomis' character
    - Gaping plot holes and continuity errors

    none of that had anything to do with the original.

    But hey, glad you like it, I'm sure many people will disagree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I believe you Tommy."

    BC, that couldn't have been more true of a review. See, I already vowed not to compare it to the original, because...well...you NEVER do that to a remake, because it will die, painfully. Hmm, maybe I should do it.

    Anyways, yes. The dialogue is unbelievable. I'm sorry, but Zombie has to relaize that the majority of teens having sex aren't trailer trash, and aren't yelling "fuck me". Gah!!!

    The characters sucked. Aside from Mrs. Myers, I cared for no one! Not Laurie, not her friends, and not even the people who didn't deserve it. Although, America is losing one fun set of parents. :D

    Lindsay was funny, but I feared for her life. Laurie is one uinsuitable babysitter bitch! Ach! I'm swearing again. People will think I was just in a Rob Zombie flick!

    So I was thinking the same thing about: No suspense, NOT ONE tense moment, nothing scary, and you see Michael so much, he's less creepy than any of the previous Michaels from the last 8. Yes, I'm including the small video segment from Part III.

    By the end, I said, "Well, it was better than Part 6, but, it was more annoying in the sense that Zombie said he wanted to get the series back on track" or whatever. Well, I think I felt more happy leaving the last three films than this one by far. This serves no purpose whatsoever!

    That ghost-sheet thing could have been so good. But he rushed it. Rushed it like every other damn thing in this flick. I enjoyed the pool-stuck scene, and the bully-beat-up. But Judith has become unlikeable. We knew nothing about her before, and that was good. I always thought, "she was a nice girl, who had potential", not, "disposable trash". And yep, I DO think that Zombie just wanted to portray his childhood as a horror flick.

    Gah! The people are in relation to mullets. If everyone in this movie had a mullet, I don't think we'd notice. It's all one big stain. A train with many oil compartments, that don't quite hook up with each other. Thus, the oil leaks out everywhere, creating...OMG!!!...a mess. Zombie! Rejects was great! 1000 corpses was not, and this...was even less. :(

    This is a comment, not a review. Woops! Sorry, guess I am just rowdied up. I did not bother to compare this film to the original, until I realised, there was nothing left to do. It sucks in comparison, and it sucks on its own. It wasn't even that gory. And please! People don't bleed black blood!!! Gaaaaahhh!

    That is all, have a nice day. ;)
    And great review.

    ReplyDelete
  13. hahaha thats ok... a long review = long comments!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fantastic, well thought out review.

    Read it all in one sitting - and you nailed the problems perfectly.

    Nice site and nice job.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nice site and nice review.

    You nailed the problems with the movie perfectly, without coming off as a "purist" who hates remakes altogther. (Like I am ;D )

    Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  16. sounds like this movie is made of fail, blah, i'm sure i'll still see it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I saw Halloween remake a few days ago. I was not a big fan of the original (I know, I know, don't throw anything at me)but I was interested to see what Mr. Zombie did with it. It started out promising enough, I thought the scenes showing the family dynamic were excellent, however they don't take it far enough. Michael is "pure evil" Loomis says, and while they dipped into the causes in the beginning they never really explain, nurture or nature?
    I enjoyed the first part of the movie, it added to the original and seemed like they were going to actually flesh the characters out. Ha, wishful thinking.
    The second half is like a switch is flipped. Suddenly the mom, who is so incredibly neglectful that she puts up with a drunk abusive loser boyfriend who treats her and her kids like shit, starts visiting Michael religiously in the hospital after he murders most of the family. Michael murders again...???why?
    Let me say that I found the child Michael repulsive from the start.

    Fast forward, giant and dangerous, but the dumb shit guards decide to rape someone in his room, on his bed. Surprise surprise, Michael goes apeshit, kills them and escapes.
    Then the movie just goes downhill from there. I noticed some of the continuity errors as well, though I wasn't sure if Zombie had Michael standing in one part of the street and then cut to the other half of the street and there is Michael, to give some sort of supernatural feel to this drivel.
    One of the biggest problems is that none of these characters behaves like a real human. Laurie looking out the window, there's a giant freak wearing a mask standing there, staring at her. Does she mention it to her friends? No. Then the same giant freak is "stalking" them. Do they get scared and wonder WTF is going on? No instead they taunt him...
    I don't know what Mr. Zombie was thinking. Does he really think his audience is stupid, and will just fall in line and like anything, no matter how lame?

    This movie was like bad sex, get your hopes up only to be so terribly disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. U PEOPLE R FUCKING IDIOTS!!!!!! U'r ideas and opinions are a FUCKING JOKE and so is u'r SITE by the way! If u don't like fine, So y n the FUCk did u have 2 write a loong as review 4 a film u don't even care 4? All u dumb fucks who bash this movie suck! lol

    ReplyDelete
  19. My long review is countered by your apparent inability to type out whole words (and even spell abbreviations wrong - impressive). So it evens out!

    It seems whenever Anonymous posts here he disagrees with me...

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Anonymous said...

    U PEOPLE R FUCKING IDIOTS!!!!!! U'r ideas and opinions are a FUCKING JOKE and so is u'r SITE by the way! If u don't like fine, So y n the FUCk did u have 2 write a loong as review 4 a film u don't even care 4? All u dumb fucks who bash this movie suck! lol"


    um, what?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good review, I'll still be seeing it tomorrow so I can give my take on it. Well, hopefully 'Hatchet' will live up to the hype.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Butcher aka THE SEXORCIST!!!August 30, 2007 at 6:51 PM

    The first off your retarded and definatley rhode the little short cheese bus to school...second Halloween the original version is your favorite movie?..third you pay attention to the dumbest shit and point it out like "he borke an ad and now it's up in the next shot"..you must not get laid at all...and if you are a fan you have to be the worst fan ever...you write->he has no reason for killing Lories 2 friends?...hey dumbass what about the part when all three of them are walking down the street and one yells "Speed Kills!!" then he stops the car for a second and then leaves...hmmm did we forget that part or is your DVD special and missing that part...never write a review again...hang yourself, chainsaw your grandmother, and eat a goat dick...NECRO FOR PRESIDENT...ALBUM DROPS 9/11..IF YOU DON"T KNOW SEARCH MYSPACE MUSIC AND YOU'LL BE HOOKED I PROMISE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hahaha "The first off your retarded and definatley rhode the little short cheese bus to school"

    Hahahaha.

    The funny thing is, I APPROVE these comments.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The first off your retarded and definatley rhode the little short cheese bus to school"

    Congratulations, BC. Apparently the dumbest person in the world reads your blog!
    <3

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey, what can I say, I like to reach a wide variety of folks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think anonymous must have written the screenplay, that's why they are so upset that your retarted, such as Halloween the remake was like for the future of our children, such as kiss my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Breaking the 180 degree rule can be done. Yes it is preached that you shouldn't, but I respect when people try to go out of the "boundaries". How do you know he didn't do that to make you feel unsure of where the people were. After all it was supposed to be suspenseful. Anyone who knows anything about film should know that the rules are made to be broken.

    ReplyDelete
  28. yeah but he did it in non suspense scenes (mrs myers w/principal, for example). I know it can be used to purposely disorient the viewer (the movie STAY with ewan mcgregor, for example) but that didn't seem the intention here.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Good day,
    I finished watching the remake last evening. In so far as your review, I agree completely. I was very disappointed in many ways. However, there were a few surprises that I enjoyed.
    I did like some psychology of sorts that Zombie employed. Namely that Michael was "human" when the mask was off(i.e the scenes with his mother and half sister).When the mask was on he was "evil, ugly". I am also going to be in all probability, the only person who enjoyed this ending compared to the original. Zombie started the movie trying to get us to understand how Michael became a killer. He showed us "some" human qualities to Michael. I believe he attempted to do the same with this ending. Showing him not trying to kill his sister but only going back to her as the one person he believed would accept him.In Michael's eyes, his mother, Loomis, etc had abandoned him.In the end, the mask came off to show there was at least an ounce of human left in him.When Laurie stabbed him, the mask came back on and the killer resumed.
    As far as the final scene, I am mixed but I was again pleased with the fact that Zombie chose to kill Michael off...permanently.Not exposing us to remake after remake of Micheal being some sort of impossible to kill demon.Zombie ended this movie as he had started it.Showing us the human angle and ending with it as well.I was pleasantly surprised that he included the character of Michael's niece in this movie and that she did not die.The actress to play his niece from the fourth and fifth installments( I believe). So in my opinion, Zombie gave complete closure...Michael's death, Laurie surviving and his niece surviving.You have to admire that to an extent.Zombie's version staves off having to create endless sequels.
    Zombie's version lacked considerably and since he chose to have the movie come off as a human tragedy of sorts, he should have explained more of Michael's transformation and other human elements. The first half of the movie flowed pretty well. The last half seemed crammed together and rushed almost as an afterthought.Carpenter did give his permission for Zombie to make this movie. So evidently he saw something in Zombie's vision to give his blessing.
    As an explanation for us older generation who have seen the original, it gave us some justice.For the current generation of horror fans, I feel it was fail miserably.
    I do admire Zombie's efforts. It is clear by this presentation of the movie that he was not in it for the money but trying to pay hommage to a perineal favorite.Perhaps this will be a lesson for Zombie in future movies of his that he truly needs to not only pay hommage but to concentrate more clearly on what he is trying to express to the audience.

    Whew...long post and more than likely, permeated in grammatical errors. Please excuse those as my coffee was brewing at the same time I wrote this.

    Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.

    ~breath{MS}~

    ReplyDelete
  30. Well I'm still gonna go see it

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just saw this a couple hours ago, and it was just terrible. About the only positive thing I can say about it is that it didn't have Busta Rhymes saying "Dangertainment" every five minutes in it. I only wish I had actually read your review first instead of deciding to avoid any reviews before seeing it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. hmm...

    maybe i'm glad the manager at the movies caught me trying to sneak into Halloween last night.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree with some of what you said but it really wasen't that bad of a movie. I really don't think he wanted it to be suspense but more disturbing.

    The problem is the orginal exists. There's no way he can give you a surprize or suspense at all that you haven't already seen without a uproar of people screaming about his deviation.

    I do honestly think that he was very subtle and that he had Micheal killing off anyone close to her. That's why there's that scene with them in the meyers home >.>; not spoiling or anything.

    Also have you heard how teenage girls talk to each other when adults are not around? It's kinda the same way these girls talked to each other with less dry humping.. >.>

    You also said that the sister angle wasen't in the first movie and only added in the sequals. I don't think John Carpenter created a sequal and then just came up with that as a twist. I think he always intended it to be that way.

    Though I do have to agree Halloween Ressurection and The Curse of Micheal Myer's made me shudder I thought of H20 as a end or at least what I thought should be an end.

    Anyway thank you for writing on Sheri Moon's acting. I'm so tired of seeing people trash her because she's Rob's wife. She played her character so well I empathized with her.

    And that bully in the beginning I actually felt bad for him too after everything he did. >.>;

    ReplyDelete
  34. this place has to be the worst place to check on review's. Im done taking this site serious i cant believe black x-mas remake got a better review then halloween, what a piece of shit movie that was!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Aw, but Anonymous is one of my favorite posters here! Hate to lose ya...

    As for the sister angle, I forget where but Carpenter has stated a few times that he was drunk when he wrote most of Halloween II, and since Empire was big at the time he decided to make her the sister. Some people think this is not the case because of the scene in the original where Loomis finds SISTER written on the wall but that was a scene added into the Halloween TV version, shot during production on II.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I don't tend to agree with you on your reviews...but this one was perfect! The movie wasn't good, parts made me want to laugh- which isn't cool when i should be terrified.

    I thought that's what he was going for? More terror- wanted little kids to be scared of Michael. OH WELL i guess.

    I wanted to cry when i left the theatre.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I like Rob Zombie's music and his movies (my mother prays for me in heaven). However, I'm a little leery of this flick.

    Still, I'm going to buck up and go.

    Hold me, Mommy...*

    ReplyDelete
  38. anyone reading this: please comment this page replying to my question-- okay, in the first scene of the movie. well, even before that.. the screnes black & there is a quote from 'samuel loomis.' i cant find it anywhere, and i really liked it. help?

    ReplyDelete
  39. You are an idiot - just like most critics who are too big for their britches. Take the movie for what it is - nobody wants to see Casablanca anymore. It is a fun ride akin to a rock concert and it is fun as hell to go and see. It is on pace to be one of the highest grossing horror flicks of this decade - so obviously most of the movie-going public agrees. The Devil's Rejects was a classic - but Halloween does pretty damn good itself despite some very real restrictions. Five stars.

    ReplyDelete
  40. god, brian, i agree completely... what a piece of garbage.

    ReplyDelete
  41. If my grammar was as bad of some of these posters then I'd choose to be anonymous as well.

    As for the movie, I haven't seen it and to be honest, after reading your review and all the other comments, I'm not feeling inclined to splash out for it - even on rental!

    Great blog though! Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hahaha Nail... i should apologize then, seeing as how different we are when it comes to rating horror movies, I thought for SURE it was you who kept telling us to stop laughing...

    ReplyDelete
  43. i would like to point out that just bcause a movie grosses well, doesn't make it good-- ringing down the house, anyone? there is nothing worth spending $10 on a ticket for this piece of crap.

    incidentally, maybe its just me, but to the commenter who said teenage kids don't talk the way zombie portrayed them to... i am almost 26 and still talk like that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Hmmm I think I heard from somewhere that you do get laid. wink wink

    Great review honey.............

    ReplyDelete
  45. I refused to see it. I was affraid it would ruin the first one for me. And plus, I thought it was disrespectful of Rob Zombie to put up "Rob Zombie's Halloween" It's not Rob Zombie's its John Capenter's. Its like an artist writing his name on someone else's work.

    ReplyDelete
  46. HATED IT...It lacked originality. I didn't need a back story of Michael Myers. His back-story has been kicked around by fans since before the dawn of the interenet or WWW. John Carpenter is the King of film horror, I can't beleive that he would allow his classic to be missed with. In the "Original" Hallowen the Myeres were middle-class, not some Jerry Springer rip off. & it was never mentioned if MM had a sister etc untill "Halloween 2". He was just "The Shape". The killer who escaped on Halloween night, the same night he killed his own sister some 20 years eaierler. Who on that day saw a young girl who reminded him of his sister whom he had killed so many years ago, and it triggers something in him to go and kill this unknown girl for that purpose alone, & no matter who may be in his way. This "So-Called" New Vision was nothing but a rip-off on the orginial with no "real" horror scares. I was bored by the end. No edge of the seat terror. More blood and guts. No shadows, less light, & more use of the audience imagination! A real waste of $15.00 for 2 People! It missed the mark with horror originality, intenseness & Characterization. I was laughing by the end. When Lori was runnning from MM toward the of the film, it looked more like a something from "The Mummy" films of the 30's!
    Razzie Nominee mention here: for "Worst Actress": Scout-Taylor Compton!
    Razzie Nominee "Worst Supporting-Actress":
    Danielle Harris!
    So far on my list of "Wosrt films of 2007", right next to "Underdog", "Hostel Part II" & " Perfect Stranger (2007)"

    ReplyDelete
  47. Christopher Phoenix AZSeptember 5, 2007 at 12:30 AM

    ......HATED IT...It lacked originality. I didn't need a back story of Michael Myers. His back-story has been kicked around by fans since before the dawn of the interenet or WWW.

    & if this was a New "Vison" or some other lame excuse way you want to say "Re-Make", why wasn't there any mention of 'THORN".? The sixth installment also reveals that Michael at some point in his childhood was chosen by a cult to bear the Curse of Thorn. The cult believes that a child from one family must be chosen to bear the curse and sacrifice their entire family in order to save the rest of the community from death. The curse apparently makes the user immortal or grants the ability to self-resurrect once dead, and gives other super-natural abilities like superhuman strength. The curse is what the cult believes causes Michael to stalk and kill family members. It is not known exactly how many family members Michael has killed outside his immediate family. He has at least two biological family members still living: John, Laurie Myers Strode's 17 year old son in Halloween H20 and Jamie Lloyd Carruthers's infant son from The Curse of Michael Myers...????

    Hollywood stop trying to Re-Make, Up-Date or Place-A-New-Spin on old material..just invest into Re-Mastering the "Original" print, and Re-Release the "Original" into theaters.

    WORST RE-MAKE NEXT TO "HALLOWEEn"..See "Black Christmas".

    RAZZIE:

    WORST ACTRESS: Scout Taylor-Compton
    WORST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Danielle Harris
    WORST DIRECTOR: Rob Zombie
    Runner Up-Worst Director: Glen Morgan (Black Christmas), I'm still mad this was ever Re-Made!

    Power to the people who punish bad cinema

    ReplyDelete
  48. I've made it a point not to see this movie. The very idea of remaking it was awful, but I thought maybe Zombie could do something really well with it, but about 2 hrs after it first opened I heard the bad buzz and I knew it was awful. I have to say you wrote a great review and I have this curiosity to watch it a-la-Mystery Science Theater and crack on it the whole time.

    This whole remake craze is so scary. I'm betting your review of the Friday the 13th remake "reimagining" or whatever the hell the call it will be similar. I predict it to be a trainwreck. I've heard Platinum Dunes is working on NOES remake to, they are soulless. Their TCM movies were by far worse than any of the sequels, my god what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I kind of wish everyone would kind of relax. The original Halloween is my favorite movie in the entire world. Yeah, maybe Rob Zombie didn't do as well as we hoped. Even he knew that it was going to be difficult. He tried. Doing remakes is hard enough. You want there to be a new vision to the story but you don't want to overstep the original director's vision. And I wouldn't want anyone besides Rob Zombie to direct this movie. I didn't exactly like it but I'm not going to refuse to watch it anymore. I was entertained.

    And I'm sorry. But the whole "the original Halloween would be turning over in it's grave" thing is just completely ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Congratulations...this is the funniest thing I'll probably read all day

    "Michael had no rhyme or reason for stalking Laurie, other than maybe being really pissed that she dropped a key off on his porch while he was trying to eat a dog"

    ReplyDelete
  51. A bad remake of a movie that wasnt that great in the first place - people wont admit that it was great when they first watched it as a kid, but watching it later in life its just a cliched mess. It really isnt as good as you remember it being. But anyway, remakes suck because you can never keep everyone happy. Some hate when you change stuff and want it similiar to the original. Others hate when its the same as the original and want the director to change stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  52. In your review of the original Halloween you say, "I've read that this is what makes the film so scary, that he would go after them for no reason whatsoever, but I vehemently disagree. I think it's much better for the killer to explain his motives to the heroine before he kills her. It's more realistic." But in this review you say,"In the original, Michael had no rhyme or reason for stalking Laurie, other than maybe being really pissed that she dropped a key off on his porch while he was trying to eat a dog. That’s what made it so creepy." I was just curious what changed your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Perhaps you should look at the date on that 'review' :)

    ReplyDelete

Movie & TV Show Preview Widget

Google