HALLOWEEN

[Moviefan02000]

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/halloween/halloween_posterbig.jpg

Synopsis: The residents of Haddonfield don't know it yet... but death is coming to their small sleepy town. Fifteen years ago a small six year old boy called Michael Myers brutally slashed his elder sister to death. Locked up till his 21st birthday, he escapes the mental institution that held him for fifteen years and makes his way back to his hometown intent on a murderous rampage pursued by Dr Sam Loomis who is Michael's doctor and the only one who knows Michael's true evil. Elsewhere a shy teenager by the name of Laurie Strode (and her two best friends, Annie and Lynda) are babysitting on the night Michael comes home.

Directed by: Rob Zombie (The Devil's Rejects)

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Scout Taylor-Compton, Danielle Harris, Sheri Moon-Zombie, Kristina Klebe

Screenplay by: Rob Zombie (House of 1000 Corpses)

MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language.

Feature Running Time: 109 minutes

Distributed by: Dimension Films, MGM Distribution Company

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/halloween/_group_photos/malcolm_mcdowell3.jpg

[Bourne101]

If any of you have been in the Halloween thread in the upcoming movie talk forum, you know I will be first in line on August 31st for this.

And not to be a dick, but it is acutally Rated R For strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language.

[movieme07]

I'm in but I'm nervous. As a Halloween fan I'm hesitant about the departures but I'll give it a fair shot. It just might take a bit of getting used to.

[Cronos]

i'm still on the fence with this, part of me wants to see it since i loved both of Zombies other films but the other part of me wants to stay away from it because its a fucking remake of Halloween

[Moviefan02000]

Originally posted by Bourne101
And not to be a dick, but it is acutally Rated R For strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language.

I just came in this thread to change that, actually. The one I posted was a rumor.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Moviefan02000
I just came in this thread to change that, actually. The one I posted was a rumor.

Cool :D

[smok3h]

I'll definitely be seeing this movie. I love the original movie, but I'm really interested to see where Zombie takes the franchise. I loved Devils Rejects but thought House of 1,000 Corpses was extremely unoriginal , but still entertaining.

[ilovemovies]

This looks stupid. Remaking Halloween was an asinine idea. And nothing I've seen from Rob Zombie instills confidence in me.

[fooknasty]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
This looks stupid. Remaking Halloween was an asinine idea. And nothing I've seen from Rob Zombie instills confidence in me.


Agreed

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
This looks stupid. Remaking Halloween was an asinine idea. And nothing I've seen from Rob Zombie instills confidence in me.

Amen. I've already heard one online critic call it the worst movie of the year. The script is one of the worst I have ever read, and the TV spots are laughably generic. It looks completely terrible in every possible way and is the textbook definition of an unnecessary remake, directed by someone who a few years ago pissed all over remakes. Way to take the money and run Rob.

[Worthystevens]

Which online critic would that be?

And a few years ago, I always thought that high school was the worst place possible. But now, I wish I was back there. I guess that makes me a hypocrite, because we're all suppose to keep the same opinions after a long while? :rolleyes:

[MadsenOMC]

It would be Devin at CHUD, for the record.

Oh no, eye rolls again! Whatever will I do? How can I argue against the eye roll? You win.

[Worthystevens]

You could probably win by making an actual rebuttal to my post.

[MadsenOMC]

I never used the word hypocrite, did I? No, I didn't. Of course people are allowed to change their minds. Way to state the obvious. Should I roll my eyes now? Zombie not only bashed remakes but horror remakes, and changed his tune not long after. But hey, whatever, you say no big deal. That's cool. I still think this looks like pure shit and Zombie is ridiculously overpraised by many horror fans.

[fooknasty]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
[BI I still think this looks like pure shit and Zombie is ridiculously overpraised by many horror fans. [/B]

I am actually glad to hear some people who actually see Zombie as he truely is, which is a hack of a director and terrible at bringing together good plot and character development.

[Bourne101]

Just saw a new TV spot and it looked mega cool! I am siked to see Mikey on the big screen again. I seriously do not give a fuck what anyone says, this movie is going to be one hell of a good time. And the original Halloween is my favorite horror movie of all time... shows how much I care about remakes being made. I don't care. Rob Zombie made an OK flick in House of 1000 Corpses, and a fucking great film in The Devil's Rejects (yes it was fucking great... IMO of course). I have complete faith in this film, and I hope it does well so we can get some more R rated horror.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Corpses was fun, but a remarkably shallow and incoherent clusterfuck of a movie. Rejects was great and showed a tremendous improvement in Rob as a director, though also showed he's not nearly as good as a writer.

It looks like Rob is just again going for that trash, everybody's either weird or an asshole feel, which doesn't gel with Halloween. I hated the early version of the script, I hated the clips released not too long ago, and I've hated the direction Rob has taken from the start. I was very enthusiastic when I first heard about him getting the job, but the more I've heard the more that's dwindled.

Hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[LordSimen]

Blah, blah. More people shittying on Zombie and the new generation of horror filmmakers than praising them from what I've witnessed, feels like every day I have to defend them against something.

I'm looking forward to this movie a lot. I love Zombie's work and I'm glad that he remade Halloween in a way that was completely different from the original and thus making it his own.

[Duke Nukem]

I never expected this to happen but I'm actually looking forward to this. It might be because this has been a disappointing summer for movies, and it also might be because I've been waiting five years for another "Halloween" movie. But the previews playing on TV are honestly looking promising. And this is coming from me. Of course, how the previews appear are all speculation and I haven't read the apparently terrible script (for spoilers sake). But, I'm going to be there.

More than a year back, I felt utter disgust when I heard about this remake to be directed by Rob Zombie of all people. "House of a Thousand Corpses" wasn't brilliant, but it was a mildly fun, nightmarish diversion. Emphasis notably on the words "not brilliant." "The Devil's Rejects," however, would be even less not brilliant, if that was possible. Probably in the negatives. It was the first movie to truly be awful in my eyes and that's saying something. Everything about it was crap. Crap that was all shock value ONLY for the sake of shock value. And it didn't work for me.

And not to mention, remaking "Halloween" was sinful enough. In my mind, they still could have made an offcial "Halloween" sequel that was classy and suspenseful again. By featuring Michael's nephew returning to Haddonfield to stop Michael (John Tate was not killed in the last movie or implied to be in the last movie). It's so basic, you could do a lot with it.

I wrote my own script on it. What I did was set it several years later. John Tate was older (making re-casting easier). He had a family and he still felt terrible over his mother's fate and the innocent lives running into Michael's path in Haddonfield (teenagers sneaking into the old Myers house, who knows). You should see where it's going from there. I called it "Halloween: The Blood of Michael Myers." And plus, it managed to continue with the "H4-6 didn't happen" rules too.

Anyway...I am no longer cursing all this to myself. Despite a slight positive and huge negative coming from Rob Zombie, I honestly see potential in the new "Halloween."

I will say that I do not care for the intention of making the Myers family trailer trash, whereas they originally were your average middle-class household. I also do not care for the intention of Michael no longer being supernaturally and possessively evil (if that's what Rob Zombie truly has in mind). If these two intentions are going to be what I expect them to be, I am not currently pleased. However, I won't deny the possiblity of this change possibly working out for this new addition. I will keep an open mind.

I have some questions specifically for Madsen. You've apparently read the script. Is it the official script for the official movie? Is it really so terrible? You also read the script for "Stay" back in 2005 and claimed it too to be bad. And when I saw the movie, I respectfully disagreed. How would compare the two? I hope I'm not asking too much from you, I'm just asking for you honest opinion. If you do answer, please avoid presenting spoilers.

[brodeurnumber1]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
This looks stupid. Remaking Halloween was an asinine idea. And nothing I've seen from Rob Zombie instills confidence in me.

I completely agree with this.

[IronMonkey]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I never used the word hypocrite, did I? No, I didn't. Of course people are allowed to change their minds. Way to state the obvious. Should I roll my eyes now? Zombie not only bashed remakes but horror remakes, and changed his tune not long after. But hey, whatever, you say no big deal. That's cool. I still think this looks like pure shit and Zombie is ridiculously overpraised by many horror fans.

Nah, actually its you who ridiculously over-bash zombie..so, um yeah, get over it and yourself already

[EDsoulsurvive*]

I think Zombie directs a certain type of movie for people with a taste for it. I enjoyed both of this other films, but I feel like i have enough fingers on the pulse to know that they are not for everyone. Still, I have to say this remake looks pathetic and has less buzz than the bee I killed in my kitchen about an hour ago. Seriously, I haven't heard a soul mention this useless remake, and Halloween is a goddamn classic. This movie is going to bomb and it probably deserves to. Don't get me wrong, I thought Zombie could've made a great remake, but everything I've heard and seen in regards to this film so far are completely bland, surprisingly so, because bland is the last word I'd use to describe House or Rejects. I'd love to be wrong, but I cannot see that happening. And lay off madsen, alot of other people hate Zombie's film making too. Leave your computer once in a while.

[Worthystevens]

To those saying this remake is useless and that the movie looks bad, you don't have to go see the movie. You aren't being forced to. You look or hear something that you don't like about the movie, ignore it. The original is still going to be there, regardless of Zombie's version.

Simple as that.

[thedudeman69]

I don't think that Zombie does in th box horror. He possibly injects his own brand into the genre, that is why a good amount of people don't lik his movies. I mean, they are really totally different from what other horror movies are doing for the genre. It looks good to me.

[Jig Saw 123]

I honestly think Zombie is gonna rape this movie to death. But I'll still see it just because Michael Myers is in it...

[Mr.HyDe807]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
I honestly think Zombie is gonna rape this movie to death. But I'll still see it just because Michael Myers is in it...

Exactly, my friend and i are huge Halloween fans, and although were kinda hesistant, were there simply for a Halloween movie!
:D

[dreamcurls]

can't wait to see this

[movieme07]

I forgot to address Rob Zombie in my earlier post. He's my hero. He really is. The guy makes badass music, badass comics and one badass movie (House of 1000 Corpses was, regrettable), he's a modern Renaissance man. I've been a fan of his for forever and I trust that even if the movie fails from a Halloween fan's perspective he'll create something interesting. The only thing I"m worried about from the clip is how fast everything moves. I saw the clip of his escape from Smith's Grove and I could hardly tell what was going on, I hope it translates better on a big screen.

[ScaryFreak1827]

The original Halloween is one of my all time favorite horror films and the idea of a remake is just... not so good. But with my liking of remakes such as TCM and Hills Have Eyes and Zombie's previous films, I might just give this a try.

[Country1969]

I really hate when they remake the original movie and what use to look at it like we don't know the storyline. Come on people, we need new movies with new storylines. There are ideas out there that can made into movies. I'm going to pass on this one.

[MisterTwister]

Fuck the negetive buzz, I'm seeing this badboy Friday.

[Worthystevens]

Originally posted by Country1969
I really hate when they remake the original movie and what use to look at it like we don't know the storyline. Come on people, we need new movies with new storylines. There are ideas out there that can made into movies. I'm going to pass on this one.

The Haddonfield portion isn't new, but Michael's backstory is. The movie's not a total rehash of the original. So there are new ideas with this.

[Bourne101]

DVD quality version already online. I doubt it will have any impact on the box-office though.

[NightStalkerGtx]

^ um where?

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by NightStalkerGtx
^ um where?

There is a DVD quality workprint out there on the newsgroups. The ending is different than the theaters ending. Im sure you can get it on bittorrents too but I wouldnt do that unless you enjoy taking a chance on getting a letter from the MPAAs lawyers.


I didnt download the workprint. Dont plan on it until AFTER I go to theaters to see the real cut and then go watch the difference. I for one am dying to see this. It is going to kick ass!

[MisterTwister]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
There is a DVD quality workprint out there on the newsgroups. The ending is different than the theaters ending. Im sure you can get it on bittorrents too but I wouldnt do that unless you enjoy taking a chance on getting a letter from the MPAAs lawyers.


I didnt download the workprint. Dont plan on it until AFTER I go to theaters to see the real cut and then go watch the difference. I for one am dying to see this. It is going to kick ass!

Damn straight I'm seeing this badboy in theatres and not some unfinished workprint.

[CuatroDiablos]

I saw it and I was laughing all the way through it...YUCK! And there's a disgusting rape scene , Zombie needs to stop making movies.

[CreeperBEATNGU]

Originally posted by CuatroDiablos
I saw it and I was laughing all the way through it...YUCK! And there's a disgusting rape scene , Zombie needs to stop making movies.

That's been cut from the film, Akkad described that as Rob just being a retard.

[MisterTwister]

Yeah I've heard from different people that the workprint contains material not in the final film but it also doesn't have any of the additional footage Zombie did months back. I'll be interested in viewing the workprint after I see the final film.

4 more days...

[yorrick brown]

yippy i found the full version on line at -----f----- but i really want to see this on the big screen but then again i don`t live in america and theres no release date but what i saw off it on s----o-- was fantastic i was very impressed.i take it back rob zombie job well done.

but this will kickass on the big screen with surround sound.but i can`t tell you if ------ dies like it says on imdb,i hope not but then again that would be a cool surpise.

but i don`t know if i want to wreck it by watching the last part on the small screen or just wait to see it on the big screen.

[XCoRyX]

Being the horror nut I am, I simply have to see any Halloween,Friday th 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street flick made,point blank.

This movies been kind of a bumpy ride at times, first upon hearing it was being "remade" and I hated the idea,then I got some of the more in-depth stuff flowing and wound up getting really pumped up for it,now i'm getting worried about it...hopefully that means i'll have lower expectations. I just watched interviews with Malcolm McDowell,whom while a favorite actor of mine (have the clockwork orange tattoo,remember) he always seems arrogant/angry about something...so this isn't as bad but for some reason he seems absolutely bored and unhappy with this movie and Rob Zombie in general. But like I said, i've seen many interviews of him and found him to be the same way but still kind of worrying.

[#1dvdfan]

Originally posted by Bourne101
DVD quality version already online. I doubt it will have any impact on the box-office though.

Yes sir, I just got my copy from a friend it is excelleant dvd qaulity my firend burned it for me.I am going to watch it in a couple of hours after i watched HOWARD THE DUCK. :D

I will go see it in theaters if the ending is different and if this is the workprint and has added scenes.

[gyro_44]

I'll be seeing this Thursday night.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by #1dvdfan
Yes sir, I just got my copy from a friend it is excelleant dvd qaulity my firend burned it for me.I am going to watch it in a couple of hours after i watched HOWARD THE DUCK. :D

I will go see it in theaters if the ending is different and if this is the workprint and has added scenes.

Shame.

I would only ever watch a pirate copy if a movie didn't come to my theatre (and the chances of it not coming to a local theatre are slim to none as it is in 3300 theatres), or if it was released in another country and the date for US/Canada was unknown.

Enjoy the very rough, multiple scene missing, different ending version. This version is actually the version that was completed when they were going to call it Halloween Retribution, so who knows how old it is.

[Cronos]

Originally posted by Bourne101
so who knows how old it is.
It's apparently the cut that was shown to the test audience that hated it which caused it to have reshoots.

[daddiefatsacks]

why would that release get leaked now?

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by daddiefatsacks
why would that release get leaked now?

I have no idea.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

My plan is to go Saturday, regardless of word of mouth, and I'll be going to a bar afterwards, so if it sucks, I can just drink the memory away. :p

[athf1980]

I will probably see it. I live in a crapp small town and there is nothing else to do. I will give him another shot after the very good movie in Devil rejects but I did not care for House of 1000 corpes. I like some of his music.

[smok3h]

Bring on Halloween! Can't wait to see this.

[Duke Nukem]

I'm buying my ticket tomorrow for a Friday show.

*Looks on dramatically, tilting head*

I never thought I would be doing this...

*Looks on some more, tilting head further*

I never thought this day would ever come...

*Looks on extra longer, to William Shatner proportions*

I never thought God would allow such a thing to happen...

*Suddenly, Michael Myers appears and snaps my tilted neck (CRACK!) / My body lifelessly slumps over and Michael stares down at it, breathing heavily*

Seriously, I am going to be seeing the remake to "Halloween" in two days and so will at least some of you. And it's by Rob Zombie all of people. Am I the only one who hasn't woken up from this dream yet? I still can't believe I woke up from that nightmare called "The Devil's Rejects." It felt like forever and was absolutely interminable to sleep through. Well, having survived that, I am convinced this remake will not be be one of the very worst movies I'll ever see. It can't be. Not possibly.

Yet, on the opposite end of the spectrum, it looks promising. Call me crazy, but it *could* be a decent movie. Even despite the blatant changes in the Myers family tree and the lack of Michael's literal evil.

I have no idea how I'm going to wake up from this bizarre dream. I could up wake genuinely surprised or I might end up waking up from a terrible dream no better or worse than that one I experienced two summers ago. The slight possibility still exists that it could be an even worse nightmare than that other one, who really knows. Whatever happens, we'll see. Or not...

*Upon learning of my betrayal, Michael Myers shows up and stabs me to death (Shing! Shing! Sha-shing! Shing! Splatter! Splatter!...)

[GodHand]

I liked it. Gruesome and violent. It doesn't touch the original but it IS a good remake.

[Cop No. 633]

I'm seeing it tonight at 9 pm for free... Thank God. I'll let everybody know whether or not this will be worth their time.

[dellamorte dellamore]

This definitely looks good , and i want to see it , but it doesn't seem to have that sense of foreboding , and it doesn't look as if it contains not even one moment of suspense . This Myers is a hulking , brooding , familiar horror baddie , unlike the still mysterious Myers from the first two films .


There seems to be more emphasis on the action aspects , instead of the focus being on the otherworldly nature of a singleminded psychotic . In other words , this Myers may seem more intimidating , but he's not exactly as terrifying and surreal . He seems to have watched some karate movies in the psyche ward also , he has some slick moves for sure .


That said , and it's something i've said before , i still think it will be entertaining , a nice trip down memory lane without a rapper in sight ( hopefully ) , but it's mainly a curiosity and will work more as nostalgia than anything else .

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Shame.

I would only ever watch a pirate copy if a movie didn't come to my theatre (and the chances of it not coming to a local theatre are slim to none as it is in 3300 theatres), or if it was released in another country and the date for US/Canada was unknown.

Enjoy the very rough, multiple scene missing, different ending version. This version is actually the version that was completed when they were going to call it Halloween Retribution, so who knows how old it is.


mine is dated

5/18/07, several deaths have been reworked the rape removed and the ending changed from the version I saw,

I have no intention to see this film at the cinema, and the version I saw was not great and though the child playing the young michel was great, the second half of the film seemed porley paced and not very interesting.

I was not too keen on Zombies other films, but did not hate them either,this, unless hes done radicle changes to his new version, another meh film, Macolm Mcdowel seemed uncomfortable and thinking, 'did they pay me enough?'

There were a few directed quotes and senes taken from the original, and Zombie also used clips from 'the thing from another world' as if to say the thing was a radical reworking of an old film, this films a 5/10 but i saw a crummy work print.

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by Bourne101


Enjoy the very rough, multiple scene missing, different ending version. This version is actually the version that was completed when they were going to call it Halloween Retribution, so who knows how old it is.



Just about every workprint I have seen does end up being different in many ways than the theatrical release but I dont have to go by the dvd when it comes out because I have seen all the deleted scenes already. I usually download a workprint after I have seen the true version so I can see how much it was improved. Nothing wrong with checking out a workprint as long as you dont hold it responsible for why you do or dont like a movie.

[XCoRyX]

wait...so how many damn versions are supposedly out there?

please don't let this become like H6 all over again.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by XCoRyX
wait...so how many damn versions are supposedly out there?

please don't let this become like H6 all over again.

There is a workprint and a final theatrical print, so two prints. It is no where near H6 all over again.

[gyro_44]

Well I'm pissed, I just wrote a several paragraph review only to have the fucking page not load.

So I'll try it again...

It's not bad. Not bad at all.

I agree with Jimmy O's review, Zombie did a good job of homaging the original and throwing in his own personal touches. It's an honest attempt to make an interesting and unusual Halloween film and flesh out an iconic movie monster. Pretty cool at times if you're a fan of the original.

On the downside, Zombie's writing is sometimes all over the place. There are some just plain bad lines of dialogue, most of which comes from the three female leads (at least two of whom are annoying as hell). The second half of the movie (which is really where the remake part begins, lots of nods to the original movie) seems to be missing a few beats, but there are lots of intense moments and bloody deaths.

It's brutally violent, not overly gory (he doesn't show everything) but really really nasty and disturbing. I wish Zombie had hired someone to polish up his screenplay a bit, but I admire his effort here. Michael Myers is still scary, more scary than in most of the crappy sequels. This one at least tries something new, and while there is both good and bad decisions made by Zombie, I was glad to see more of the former than I originally feared.

Plus there's lots of cool B-horror movie faces showing up, like Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree and so on. That was fun.

6.5/10

[someguy]

Saw it tonight at a preview screening. Minor Spoilers.

Considering the amount of ways this movie could have gone, it's pretty good that it ended up in the way it did. This is a major reworking of Carpenter's version, with the third act going more into remake territory.

After reading some of the script that was put online, I was really not looking forward to the movie. The writing was just bad, and hoped that the major changes were true. Luckily, they were for the most part. Zombie took out a lot of dumb parts, reworked the dialogue around a bit to give it a better context and tweaked things a bit more. It still wasn't very good though, the dialogue between Forsythe and Sheri Moon was still not too great and parts felt rushed.

Once Michael got to the mental hospital, things started to slowly pick up. There was a better pace overall I guess, and showed that the kid playing young Myers actually had a bit of talent (all I could see from him so far was that he whispered and talked weird). Since most child actors annoy the crap out of me, I'd say that he did fine since I wasn't bothered by him much.

I've read reviews saying that the final act of the movie isn't very good, but I'd say that it was my favourite part of the movie. It turns into a pretty good slasher film that had bodies dropping everywhere. I was a fan of the ending too, mainly because it didn't stay very open ended at all.

My biggest problems in the movie were with the score and some of the directing. The score had a lot of weird parts where the 'scary' music would kick in when it wasn't even necessary at all. At points in the movie the shaky cam method would be used and by the end it got a little grating, luckily I didn't find it that bothersome.

For the most part though, it was a success. By flipping the point of view to Michael's side rather than Laurie/Loomis', it caused the movie to not just recreate the original film. Plus, like I said at the beginning of this post, the movie had more chances to do badly and it avoided that almost entirely. It's not a classic like the original, but it's silly to throw those expectations on it. I'd give it a 7/10 I guess.

Also, if you hated The Devil's Rejects and House of 1000 Corpses then don't bother with this movie. It's much different than the other two (mainly since this movie doesn't really glorify Michael at all) in certain aspects, but I think that this isn't gonna change anyone's negative opinions on him. If you do like him or are kind of half and half (I liked The Devil's Rejects, but thought that House of 1000 Corpses was pretty average) then I'd recommend giving it a look.

[Ron34]

0 - 7 on rotten tomatoes...

was going to see the midnight showing tonight with friends but now i really dont want to any more.

i think ill just rent the carpenters halloween instead.. lol

[CreeperBEATNGU]

From the opening frame of this movie, what I feared about it was realized in an instant.

The film is flooded with ridiculously over the top trashy, raunchy, vulgarity. Zombie doesn't show an ounce of anything remotely resembling subtlety and feels the need to beat the audience over the head with the fact that certain characters are assholes to the point where it's unintentionally comical.

The film is way too fast paced with almost no time to get attached to anyone before they're strangled, stabbed, bluggoned, etc...

Much like it felt very strange listening to Scream cues in H20, I got a simialar feeling from listening to Devil's Rejects cues slightly remixed in this one. Bates take on the classic themes were good, but too much of the score felt like a Devil's Rejects rehash (as did half of Sheri Moon's performance where she slips back into the Baby role).

I did really like the idea of what Zombie was trying to do. Giving us a slasher icon backstory presented in the way of a real life serial killer is a great idea, Zombie's presentation of it is just oscenely over the top in almost every way.

The few sections of dialogue that I really liked were Loomis' speech about black being the absense of any color and how it pertains to Michael, and the Strode family felt down to earth and likeable during the brief time that we see them.
The contrasts between the home and overall lifestyle Michael grows up in and the one Laurie did have a good loss of innocence vs. the preservation of it theme.

The performances were good, the cinematography captures the darkness to light contrasts in tone, and I love brutal, gritty horror, but Zombie's building of suspense is limited to little more than a few jolting jump scares.

Not a terrible film, but definitely a disappointing one. As for where it fits into the series, I'd say it's behind the original, Halloween, 2, Halloween 4, and Halloween 6.

[Cop No. 633]

I think Rob Zombie’s style has been defined by this point. From now on, I only expect to see hicks, tits, blood, body parts, campy dialogue, and that he gives his cinematographer some crack before they roll the cameras. Bringing this to the Halloween series could have been something interesting. I think the best bits of the Devil’s Rejects were in the banter between the family, mostly Sid Haig, but Otis worked too. Basically, what I’m saying is that now I wish Zombie would have made it more a twisted dark comedy than a horror movie. As a horror film this movie is a snooze inducing time. It has moments in between that work, but the whole film just felt gratuitous. This film could have helped if it was a little subtle. Everything had to be in your face at every moment.

I’m convinced the only thing Zombie really knows how to do well is film a killing scene. Why? Because that was the best acting I saw in the entire film. Many scenes just have awful lines and crappy delivery. Sheri Moon’s never been a good actress and she sticks out again like a sore on your toe. She just hangs there like mold. The best moment she could have had in the film would’ve been the scene when Michael kills the nurse and she tries taking off his mask. But Zombie drops the ball on such a dramatic moment by taking the sound out. That alarm sure was “disturbing.” I will give credit to little Daeg. He was about the only the good part of the first half.

But the rest of the film just drags because Zombie doesn’t have a clue to tell a story. The structure of this film is basically a waiting game. You’re just waiting for Michael to kill somebody. Not because it’ll move the story forward, just because. Literally, he goes through so many people in this film, it’s like you’re in an aborted Texas Crystal Lake Massacre. Thanks for making this Hall-ostel 3 with role playing as Michael. It got to the point where after the first two kills, you’re completely jaded and you just stop caring about whatever the hell is going on. Michael’s just killing people we don’t even know and we’re supposed to care? I thought he was going to stab the camera man at some point.

Tyler Mane’s not bad at Myers. He just has the unfortunate luck of being a huge son of a bitch. He played Michael naturally and he added somewhat a level of acting to the role. But the guy’s a behemoth. There’s no way people couldn’t have recognized him on the streets during the day or at night.

Loomis as played by Malcolm McDowell was hit and miss. I wanted to like him. Honestly, Loomis is the heart of the series to me, so I expected him to be handled in a proper way. I’m not asking for him to be Pleasence, but I’m asking the actor to be on the same level of quality. I figured McDowell would do something special, but I felt he didn’t bring anything extra to the part. There were moments of laziness: “I don’t know, but it’s not good.” There were moments of cheesiness: “It’s me, Samuel.” Loomis’ best moment was when he hugs Michael in the sanitarium. That was something I wish they could have expanded upon. His relationship with Michael… not the obligatory, “What are you thinking about?” I felt jipped when Loomis tells Michael he was his best friend. I wanted to see those moments. Loomis and Michael should have been the stars here. That’s pure drama right there man.

The film takes on the patented kill-slow scene-kill-sex scene-kill-slow scene pattern of horror films that gets worn out after the first two times. Every kill in the film is just to make it longer than it has to be. I probably might have liked it better if Zombie axed about five deaths or maybe six. It never leaves any time to get to know anybody.

Luckily the tit shots are complimentary on this ride. Though it never hurts to see any jugs on screen, it really sucks when that’s the only moment you can remember from a film that’s supposed to scare you. The girls are all beautiful, but sadly don’t have parts to play. Danielle Harris’ best moment was her death scene. She really took the gold medal on that one. Maybe it has to do with subconsciously seeing here as Jamie Lloyd getting killed, but luckily, you never see her “die.” Maybe she can come back for part two

Overall, I felt this movie had too many deaths. Too many cardboard characters. Too many paper thin scenes to fill the time. Too many actors… this is a horror movie, not a Shakespeare play…. give us only a few essential people to care about before you start the hacking. But the camera work looked great when I could comprehend what was going on. It also had too many reference shots to the original film. I expected Zombie to really deviate from the overall visual look of the first film, but he really used it as a safety crutch in the second half. I was disappointed with that. I would’ve given him points if he had been more original with that section. As I was laughing at the beginning with the banter between the Myers family because it was so over the top, I thought maybe I could like this film as it was. But then it tried to get serious and it never was able to pick itself up from where it started. It’s a very flawed film much in the same way that H6 was. It was ambitious, but it failed because it never committed to its goal and the foundation (the script) was extremely thin. I wish Zombie would have sucked it up and let somebody take a crack at the story because this film could have had a great story to tell. It could have done something unique with Halloween, but instead, this is the same old shit we’ve been complaining about with the Saw films, the Hostels, the boring Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes.

[yorrick brown]

i really want to see this.

creeperBEATNGU writes
The film is way too fast paced with almost no time to get attached to anyone before they're strangled, stabbed, bluggoned, etc...


cosmicpuppet

The film takes on the patented kill-slow scene-kill-sex scene-kill-slow scene
But the rest of the film just drags because Zombie doesn’t have a clue to tell a story

someguy
Once Michael got to the mental hospital, things started to slowly pick up. There was a better pace overall I guess

but it sounds like he zombie upped the violences

[Shockwave]

Exactly what i expected from Zombie. Both a good and a bad thing.


6-7/10.

[shoe1985]

Saw it at a midnight showing and wow this movie was terrible.

Breakdown:
Prequel: It started off well, Daeg was a great little Michael. He and Sherri are the only reasons to watch this movie. You feel really bad for Michael all the way through the movie, even when he goes after Laurie. Never a good sign, especially when we are supposed to fear him. Malcolm was cast perfectly, the problem comes with the role, he was on, and then he would go off. The performance was never bad, it was just that I never knew how I was supposed to feel about him. The scenes in Smith's Grove were good, but it really amounted to nothing.

Remake:
Meeting the 3 ladies turned out to be so boring. None of the stalking scenes worked for me. Oh my god there is Michael, and Laurie just acts like, "So what?" What was the point of Laurie's parents? They are here and gone in less than 5 minutes. When Lynda and Annie get their own scenes it is like the Strodes, what is the point? There is nothing for them. They have sex and then it is done and over with.

Tommy and Lindsey were actually good characters. They didn't have a lot to do, but they were actually interesting.

The violence and blood were not bad in this movie. I know people were worried, but it is really nothing to go crazy about.

The ending was good, I was happy to see it end.

I feel I need to say this, Scout was the worst casting choice for this movie. I never felt anything for her. Her acting was poor. Skyler Gisondo stole all the scenes he had with her, and he is still a little kid.

Overall the movie failed for me. Rob needs to get help writing his movies. They look very good, but the dialogue was ok one minute to "did they really say that?" Once you get used to a character, they will say something so out there that you don't know the character at all. One thing I read was how rushed the scenes were, mainly at the end, and it is so true. It was like introducing so and so, the next second Michael kills them. The movie is sorely lacking character development.

Like I said there is some good, the Daeg and Sheri scenes are the best things about this movie. I would have preferred a movie with them.

2/5

[Bourne101]

It is only at 19% on RT, but I have been reading great reviews from critics all over the web and in my newspaper. And a lot of the reviews on RT are like 6/10 and they are being considered rotten. I would think technically 6/10 (60%) would be considered fresh. So if you take that in to play it is really in the 50% range, which I would consider good for a horror movie on RT.

Anyway, enough of my rant, I'm going to see this today and I am fucking siked!

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Bourne101
It is only at 19% on RT, but I have been reading great reviews from critics all over the web and in my newspaper. And a lot of the reviews on RT are like 6/10 and they are being considered rotten. I would think technically 6/10 (60%) would be considered fresh. So if you take that in to play it is really in the 50% range, which I would consider good for a horror movie on RT.

Anyway, enough of my rant, I'm going to see this today and I am fucking siked!

That's what drives me nuts about Rotten Tomatoes. It puts 6/10 reviews as rotten when by definition a 60% means there is 10% more good than bad, which makes it not a rotten review.

[daddiefatsacks]

the first 45 minutes showcase the best parts, one scene i really liked was when lil mikey myers went apeshit on the nurse in the asylum, that was a well done scene

once mikey comes home, its a generic crapfest slasher, with characters NOONE cares about, and useless tit shots

4/10

[Cop No. 633]

Originally posted by LordSimen
That's what drives me nuts about Rotten Tomatoes. It puts 6/10 reviews as rotten when by definition a 60% means there is 10% more good than bad, which makes it not a rotten review.

Umm... no. If you apply the scholastic method of grading then 6/10 is 60% which is what... a D? You think that counts as fresh? Sorry, but 50% is an F so how would that be good in any way?

7/10 equals a C... and 8/10 is a B. That's how the grading system works. Unless you want to grade it on a curve, which I think would still leave this film at the back of the short bus. :)

[XCoRyX]

Gotta say, it let me down. Went into it with open arms and lowered expectations and it didn't work.

5/10 , being nice.

[mreeez]

I saw the workprint and thought the film was horrible.

If anyone has seen both versions, were the differences major/worth paying to see in the theatres?

[IronMonkey]

Cannnot wait til tomorrow!

Reasons:

I only find original Halloween an okay at best flick and except for Jaimie's charactor, I didnt care for anyone who got killed - so the complaints here about not caring about the charactors dont bug me.

I dont view the original as a masterpiece of horror.

I loved both Zombies pryor flicks, and think they trump Hallloween. All the Halloween sequels suck ass including the snore inducing part 2.. and I also have no problem with Sheri Moon as an actress.

[yorrick brown]

the new ending sounds great alot different to the workprint.

the end credits sound a little stupid

[MisterTwister]

Look's like I'll be the first person with a highly postive review.

I LOVED the first 45 or so minutes of the film. All the young Michael Myers was great IMO and I thought Sherri Moon did a fantastic job as Michael's Mom. Also Michael's little kiling spree in his house was badass.

The second half of the film works but I feel it's too rushed in spots and some of the charcters underused. But seeing Michael go apeshit on people was freaking cool. Tyler Mane kicked serious ass as Michael and was the best Myers since George Wilbur. Actually this film is 100 times better then ANY of the Halloween sequels after the great Halloween 4. The finale was great and I love the final shots where...

SPOILERS
Laurie blows off Michael's head with the gun and starts screaming and it cuts to home movie footage of young Michael holding her as a baby.

END SPOILERS

The performances were great and although I didn't like McDowell as much as I hoped he gives us a decent Dr. Loomis. And wasn't Scout Taylor Compton just so freaking cute? I really liked her.

The cameos were nice but after awhile they grew tiresome. Nice to see Trejo have a bigger role then I thought he would.

Of course I disliked all the shakey cam the film had but truthfully it's getting used so much these days im getting used it.

Not my favorite horror film of 2007, but I really liked it. It's good to see Myers back!

8/10

I plan on writing a bigger review later on

[Mr.HyDe807]

Review: 5/10 (SPOILERS!)

Seriously Rob, why? I had your back for this, due to the fact that it could be soemwhat decent and i was seeing a Halloween movie for the first time in theaters. Unforunately, it just seem that it was complete mess. I mean, i tried to get pass soem certain things, but they still stuck out like sore thumbs.

1. Meyer's upbringing: Okay, i tried to get pass this, but i just cant. I appreciate trying to change the way why Michael is evil, but having a stripper for a mom, a slutty sister, and a drunken stepfather is just by-the-books for Psycho Killer 101 in my opinion. Why couldnt it just be a simple middle class family, instead of soem cartoonish stepfather saying how hot his stepsister is and how hes gonna skullfuck everybody. Thanks, but no thanks. Which brings me to #2.....

2. Dialouge- Who mixed my House of a 1000 corpses script with my Halloween film? The opening lines themselves made me think i was back in that fucking movie. Dotn get me wrong, they were pretty funny, but it was soooooo out fo fucking place in this movie that i felt honestly confused. As the movie went along, i was bearing it, but at least every fuckign discussion was "sex, sex, seriosuness, sex, foreplay with a bagel?". Easy up on the sex and lay down some natural dialogue.

3. GET ON WITH THE MOVIE!: As the last act was going through, i was being pretty entertained, until there were scenes where i was just put mty hand on my head and was thinkign "ENOUGH! ON WITH THE MOVIE!" Jesus, i dotn want to see Meyers reenacting Jump Around by house of Pain and smashing up a house, you lost the tension 3 minutes ago. Move on and lets get some diifferent action going!

Im not trying to bring down this movie, these are just my gripes. There are other little things (Ummm, did Loomis die or not?), but im gonna say what i did enjoy about the movie.

For one thing, the bully scene was pretty harsh and uncomfrotable to watch, so ill give Zombie credit for making me uneasy like that. The scene where Michael kills Laurie's stepfather actually scared me (as opposed to the workprint version) I appreciate most of the actors in the movie (Kudos to Campton for not trying to be a Jamie Lee Clone), appreciated seeing Jamie Lloyd in a Halloween movie again (although i was confused why MIchael let her live?), and the midnight crowd i was tih was pretty fun to be with, applauding at certain scenes that brought the birth of Adult Michael Meyers wearing the mask, or the orignal kills that Zombie recreated. Lastly, although i was annoyed, im glad i got to see a Halloween movie in theaters for the first time. Yeah, i was disappointed, but i ahd a good time with my friend who just a loyal, but probably bigger loyalist to the franchise.

Anyways, overall, the movie fell short for me. I wanted to liek it, i really did, but the numerous bugs and the sort of by the numbers way it followed the original kinda brought it down for me. However, i will say this. If there is another halloween movie that comes out again, im seeing it. I grew up with thsi franchsie, and ill be loyal to it as long as it doesnt COMPLETELY fuck me over (*cough* Resurrection *cough*).

[visual_tension]

First of all, I have to mention how annoying it is to read a bunch of online reviews that have given this a score of 0. In order for a film to receive a score like that, it has to be completely awful in every aspect. To say that Halloween (2007) is that kind of film is baffling. Sure, it isn't perfect and comparisons are going to be made to the original but...a ZERO? Give me a break.

Now...onto the film itself.

I really respect what Rob Zombie was trying to do here. The backstory he provides to Michael Myers was actually pretty decent. In fact, everything that happens before the actual "remake" portion was much more interesting than the third act. This is where the film becomes a bit of a mess.

Once Laurie Strode and her friends are introduced, it's almost like...who cares? These characters, along with their boyfriends (whose faces we hardly even see), are annoying and offer nothing to the table. Tommy is a better character than these three. Most of the characters here pop up and then it seems like three seconds later, they get taken out by Myers.

Was there anything good here? Yeah, a fair amount. The cinematography is excellent. The film is really well-shot and through this, it can be very effective. There are also quite a few really cool moments sprinkled throughout (love the scene with Myers standing over Lindsay Wallace watching TV).

Overall, this was a OK effort. This is Zombie's vision but it didn't really go together well in terms of structure and pacing. The film is good up until Myers returns home and then it just follows the same old path as the original for the most part. In that sense, despite all the carnage and destruction Myers causes, it just gets boring at that point. This isn't a terrible film by any means, but it's not a great one either.

6/10

[ToasT]

I just finished watching the film not but 30 minutes ago and I'm already to write a scathing review of this very disappointing film. But fortunately for me, many schmoes have done so already. So I bid you goodnight.

Too many kills.
Too gory.
Too much over the top dialogue (especially the teenagers).
Too much Laurie screaming.
Too much disappointment.

[Frank the Tank]

I haven't seen it yet, but I've been reading reviews and is this part as completely cheesy and stupid as it sounds:












there's a horrible scene about 20 minutes or so in where young Michael goes and sits on the curb outside his house because he's sad, and the song "Love Hurts" plays while cutting between his mom dancing at the strip club and young Michael kicking it emo on the curb.





Cause, that sounds putrid. Good lord, Rob.

[APzombie]

I saw the working print, and supposedly that is the better one... what an awful mess. I won't pay to see the theatrical release, but I'm posting Moriaty's review because he hit the nail right on the fucking head with this shit...

MORIATY'S REVIEW FROM AINT IT COOL

My review is for the theatrical cut of Zombie’s film, because that’s the only version that really matters, but at the end of this piece, I’ll address the differences for those of you who have seen the workprint. I’d also like to talk a bit about where we are with horror films in general, because I think this movie says a lot about the business in general right now.

ROB ZOMBIE’S JOHN CARPENTER’S HALLOWEEN is creatively bankrupt from the start. It is a fairly awful, leaden film, regardless of whether it’s a remake or a sequel or an original. It’s got huge structural problems, and there are stretches of the film that play like self-parody by Zombie, a real problem considering he’s only three movies into his career. When you start falling into bad habits that turn even your most serious scenes funny this early in a filmography, you could end up making hollow echoes of your work, trapped and unhappy as an artist. I think Zombie’s already in danger of that, and there’s a fine line between having a style that is your signature and being straightjacketed into a style that is an empty pose and nothing more.

What has become apparent over the course of his three films is that Rob Zombie prefers his monsters to his people. He is what is commonly known as a “monster kid.” I’ve met many of this in this industry... guys who grew up totally crazy about the monsters. I’ll bet you Rob Zombie had a subscription to Forry Ackerman’s FAMOUS MONSTERS at some point. I’ll bet you he had all those Aurora monster model kits, lovingly detailed. I know a lot of guys who grew up the same way, and some of them (like Daniel Roebuck) even appear in Zombie’s HALLOWEEN. When he talks about horror, he says all the right things. I don’t think he’s just pretending to like the genre... I just think that Rob’s particular fetishes cloud his judgment as a storyteller, and in this case, it works against the film.

Michael Myers is not a character I sympathize with. He’s not a character I want to sympathize with. He’s not misunderstood. He’s not just someone in need of some love.

The Michael Myers that has become a horror icon is, quite simply, a soulless killing machine. A shark. And by structuring his film the way he did, Zombie made a specific choice... he wants to make this the story of Michael Myers, with him as the hero of the movie. Laurie Strode is the main character in Carpenter’s original film. Here, she’s a footnote at best, a plot device. I think it’s quite telling that Laurie is “the good girl,” and she is easily the worst-written character in the film. It’s not even that the writing for her is bad; it’s just indifferent. Rob couldn’t care less about Laurie Strode. She doesn’t register as a person. Here, it’s the victims that are faceless blanks, and Michael Myers is this complex, multi-faceted character who has hopes and dreams and ambitions. Does this seem sort of batshit insane to anyone else?

There’s a great track on the new album by Patton Oswalt that’s all about his disappointments with the STAR WARS prequels, and I think it’s one of the most succinct explanations I’ve ever heard anyone offer. He doesn’t wail about his raped childhood or anything else like that... instead, he imagines a conversation with George Lucas circa mid-1990s, as he’s gearing up to write the stories.

“You say you’re a STAR WARS fan. Do you like Darth Vader?”

“I fucking love Darth Vader, man. The helmet and the cape… with the sword. That’s great, man! Is he in the first movie?”

“Uh, yeah. In the first movie, you get to see him as a little kid.”

Patton tries to take it in stride, but Lucas continues, telling him about the second film a bit.

“Well, hey, don’t worry, cause guess who shows up in the second movie. Boba Fett.”

“Very fucking cool! Boba Fett! Yes! With the helmet, and he’s a bounty hunter! That is so cool!”

“Yeah, and in the second movie, you get to see him as a little kid.”

You can sense Patton’s growing exasperation.

“I do not give a shit about that. I could not care less.”

“Well, in the third movie, guess what shows up? The Death Star.”

“Oh, that’s... what is it doing, George?”

“They’re just building it.”

And that does it. Patton just finally snaps, ramping up to the realization that pulls it all into focus for me.

“I don’t give a shit where the stuff I love comes from! I just love the stuff I love!”

Ding. That’s it exactly. This insane need to overexplain everything with prequels and requels and remakes and reimaginings... it’s bad in a general artistic sense. But with horror films, there’s an extra level to the way it complicates things. See, I think the moment you start making horror films with 2 and 3 and 4 after the title, you’re not really making horror films anymore. Horror films, by definition, are about scaring you, and the least frightening thing in the world is the familiar. The longer a movie monster hangs around, the less frightening it is. And I think Rob Zombie knew that Michael Myers is fairly worthless as an icon of fright at this point, so he decided he was going to try and make him scary by making him real.

But “real” in what way? Real in the sense that now he’s pretty much just a textbook definition psychopath, the victim of a bad home life and no clear male role models? Real in the sense that he escalates from small animals to people in the pattern that many serial killers follow? Real in the sense that he’s big enough in this film to be a credible physical threat to anyone he encounters? If it was Rob’s intention to make this the “real” Michael Myers, he certainly gave it a shot. He tries, and he makes some very distinct choices that make this his movie, no question about it. This is not just a retread of Carpenter’s movie.

And, look, it’s sort of a no-win situation. If it was a beat-for-beat retread, Rob would get hammered for it. This sort of wholesale reimagining doesn’t work, either, though. By working so hard to make Michael real, he’s made him less interesting.

Rob ties himself in narrative knots to introduce certain iconography and try to make it all mean something, but it’s like Patton said... too much explanation. I think it’s laugh-out-loud ridiculous to lay that much groundwork to why he’s wearing THAT specific mask and using THAT specific knife. It makes no real sense, and by trying to turn the white-faced Shatner mask into something so particular for Michael, it just points out how pointless the choice is. And dragging in the stuff about Laurie Strode being Michael’s sister not only makes it all a little bit of a yawn, it introduces the film’s biggest narrative hole. I always hated the retrofitting that started as soon as HALLOWEEN II, trying to fit Laurie and Michael together in some larger sense, but here, after Rob goes to such pains to set up that Michael is just an ordinary person, suddenly he gains some sort of super-psycho-sonar sense that allows him to track down his infant sister without hesitation, when even the people who adopted her don’t realize who she is. It’s a bizarre choice, and Zombie doesn’t even try to justify it. There’s no explanation offered at all.

But let’s step back... away from the minutiae of all this, away from comparisons to the infinitely superior original, away from even thinking of this as part of a series. I think the biggest mistake Rob made is something that became clear when watching this with a fairly packed theater tonight. That crowd showed up ready to love this movie. They were pumped. They wanted to have a good time and cheer and laugh and hoot at the crazy stuff.

That ain’t the film Rob made. I’m sure he thinks it’s subversive to have made a really ugly, unpleasant film as far as the violence is concerned, and you certainly can’t accuse of him of making it all seem “cool” or “glamorous.” But people don’t come to a HALLOWEEN film to be confronted with the ugly stinking reality of death and contemplate how fragile life is, Rob. By staging each death in this film as an exercise in brutality, you certainly have established that you have an aesthetic you’re going to carry from film to film now. The murders in this film belong firmly in the same cinematic universe as those in THE DEVIL’S REJECTS. And that’s where it goes most wrong. Because the audience tonight wanted to have fun. And the one time they seemed to really engage and get what they wanted from one of the kills in the film was the one kill that Rob directly lifts from Carpenter’s original, almost shot-for-shot. Bob getting stuck to the door. Worked like crazy tonight.

If you’re the sort of undiscriminating fan who finds yourself arguing continuity points about HALLOWEEN 6 and HALLOWEEN H:20 and who considers everything to be ongoing canon, then I’m guessing you’ll find things to enjoy about this film. Just seeing Michael march around killing people will probably be enough for you. And honestly, on a sliding scale, this is probably tied for third place out of the entire series. It’s just that the original HALLOWEEN is so far beyond anything else in the series that a comparison is unfair, and HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH is great whacko fun because it dared to reject the Myers story completely and just work as a creepy Carpenter-flavored paranoid thriller. I’d say this works about as well as HALLOWEEN II, and it suffers from many of the same problems as that film. It’s a little too sleazy, something that came as a shock after the cool elegance of the original, and it starts to give Michael Myers too much backstory, tying him into Laurie more concretely. And if all you want is another HALLOWEEN II, an excuse to see the character, then have at it.

Frankly, I’m depressed by the entire thing. I’m depressed by the months of coverage. I’m depressed by watching Rob Zombie spin his wheels at a time when he should have been working on something original. I’m depressed that this is the sort of fare that gets greenlit in favor of taking a chance on something new. And I have to ask... because it’s killing me now... but at what point do executives in this industry regrow their fucking balls and actually start doing their motherfucking jobs again? If you are a development executive, your job is not just to regurgitate the easiest answer over and over and over, pilfering the shelves of whatever studio you’ve got a deal with and remaking everything while you mark time until you go do what you “really” want to do. Your job is to develop material, to develop voices, to find stories worth telling and people who can do them justice. The only reason you fucking monkeys have films to remake is because someone before you... people who actually had the stones to make original material... did their jobs right and allowed these original stories to get made. We are in danger of creating an entire generation of movies that are simply retellings of someone else’s work. Is that really what we want to leave behind as the sum total of this decade of film?

There’s a very, very tiny movie that’s getting a limited release starting this weekend, and although I wasn’t a huge fan of it, comparing it to HALLOWEEN has suddenly caused my affection for it to skyrocket. Adam Green’s HATCHET is a no-apologies slasher film that Harry dearly loved last year. I admire the film for the simple reason that Green took a chance. He created his own iconic movie monster and he rolled the dice that people will be able to enjoy his film even if they don’t already know the killer. The reason the SAW films have been so big, in my opinion, is because they introduced a new movie monster into the pop consciousness, and now, love him or hate him, Jigsaw exists side-by-side with earlier fright icons like Freddy or Jason. If Rob Zombie had chosen to tell this exact same film story, but he had used his own character instead of Michael Myers, I’d still have some pretty big problems with the film, but I would respect it more. As it is, it’s like he sold out his own voice, and he has nothing to show for it. This isn’t going to be the monster runaway hit Rob needs to get the sort of freedom he craves. It’ll have a big weekend, and then it’s over. He made the worst thing any filmmaker can make: an insignificant film. This movie doesn’t matter. It won’t make 1/100th the impression on pop culture that the original made, and five years from now, it’ll be just another crappy HALLOWEEN film on a shelf, one of many. Neither fish nor fowl, it’s not entertaining enough to be fun for parties or gatherings. I can imagine a bunch of horror fans throwing on HATCHET to watch together, cheering at every bit of red meat, laughing at the way the film tweaks the genre but enjoying the sincerity of the whole endeavor. I can’t imagine horror fans getting together to watch this one. It’s just too dour. Everyone in the movie talks like one of the Devil’s Rejects. Note to Rob: it’s not good character work if every single person in your films motherfucking talks like Sid motherfucking Haig, constantly motherfucking saying the craziest cocksucking shit they can fucking motherfucking say. Rob’s got a tin ear for dialogue in this one, and you can feel him straining to make the white trash patter work in the scenes with Michael as a kid. I think Ken Foree got a laugh out of me, and that’s about it. William Forsythe is the most egregious of the over-actors in this one, and Shari Moon Zombie is also pretty bad. Her only effective moments are her quiet ones, but even there, Rob betrays her. His choice to score one particular scene to the ‘70s standard “Love Hurts” is laugh-out-loud funny, and it’s really, really not supposed to be.

There are films out there now that effectively explore some of the ideas that I can feel Zombie straining for in this one. JT Petty’s S&MAN is a documentary about the people who shoot fake snuff, and you can tell that everyone in that film understands all the backstory detail that Zombie heaped on Michael in this film, and they take all that knowledge of what leads to broken people and what they want and need and crave and they pour it into these disturbing underground videos that can only be described as art. It’s nothing I want to spend time watching, but there’s something about it that is undeniably cathartic for certain types. And if you want to see a great film about the pathology of a madman that never once asks us to sympathize as it attempts to make us understand, then check out THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES when MGM releases it next year. A mockumentary that leans heavily on the 2000-plus videotapes made by a serial killer over the course of his “career,” it is a chilling look at what a truly broken mind can accomplish over time. Both of these films are terrifying because they are set in the real world, with none of the rules of the slasher genre to hold them back. If that’s the direction Rob Zombie wanted to go, then it’s a shame he felt the need to use one of the icons of the slasher subgenre to do it.

The funny thing is, not only did Rob Zombie not release the best HALLOWEEN remake that anyone could have made, he didn’t even release the best HALLOWEEN remake that HE could have made. Looking at the workprint, and the specific scenes that he reshot, he ruined his movie. It was never going to be great, but the ending he had on it originally at least made thematic sense, and the escape from the asylum may have leaned on rape as a device (one of the laziest tools in the cinematic language of the scumbag), but at least it made more sense than the bizarre middle-of-the-night prison transfer in the final film. Letting Dimension push him to make these awful choices just cements the idea for me that Zombie was cashing in with this one. He should have fought for his ending. He should have stuck with his impulses. Instead, he made a monster, but it’s not the one he meant to make. He was hired to breathe new life into Michael Myers, but what he’s left with is a Frankenstein monster, stitched together, dead, misshapen, and he never found the key to bring it to life.

What a shame. What a sad, ugly shame.

REVIEW LINK (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33846)

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by CosmicPuppet
Umm... no. If you apply the scholastic method of grading then 6/10 is 60% which is what... a D? You think that counts as fresh? Sorry, but 50% is an F so how would that be good in any way?

7/10 equals a C... and 8/10 is a B. That's how the grading system works. Unless you want to grade it on a curve, which I think would still leave this film at the back of the short bus. :)

Yes. I count a D as fresh because a D isn't an F. An F, in case you didn't know, stands for failure. 5/10 and below is a bad grade. A 6/10 is not. It says there is some good in the movie that outweighs the bad.

[yorrick brown]

the more i read the bad reviews the more i want to see it lol.

i don`t care. if i can watch 'children of the corn part 4' and 'jack forst 2' i think i can enjoy this.

the ending sounds awesome.wish there was more laurie etc etc but oh well its myers movie.

[MisterTwister]

Originally posted by APzombie
I saw the working print, and supposedly that is the better one... what an awful mess. I won't pay to see the theatrical release, but I'm posting Moriaty's review because he hit the nail right on the fucking head with this shit...

MORIATY'S REVIEW FROM AINT IT COOL

My review is for the theatrical cut of Zombie’s film, because that’s the only version that really matters, but at the end of this piece, I’ll address the differences for those of you who have seen the workprint. I’d also like to talk a bit about where we are with horror films in general, because I think this movie says a lot about the business in general right now.

ROB ZOMBIE’S JOHN CARPENTER’S HALLOWEEN is creatively bankrupt from the start. It is a fairly awful, leaden film, regardless of whether it’s a remake or a sequel or an original. It’s got huge structural problems, and there are stretches of the film that play like self-parody by Zombie, a real problem considering he’s only three movies into his career. When you start falling into bad habits that turn even your most serious scenes funny this early in a filmography, you could end up making hollow echoes of your work, trapped and unhappy as an artist. I think Zombie’s already in danger of that, and there’s a fine line between having a style that is your signature and being straightjacketed into a style that is an empty pose and nothing more.

What has become apparent over the course of his three films is that Rob Zombie prefers his monsters to his people. He is what is commonly known as a “monster kid.” I’ve met many of this in this industry... guys who grew up totally crazy about the monsters. I’ll bet you Rob Zombie had a subscription to Forry Ackerman’s FAMOUS MONSTERS at some point. I’ll bet you he had all those Aurora monster model kits, lovingly detailed. I know a lot of guys who grew up the same way, and some of them (like Daniel Roebuck) even appear in Zombie’s HALLOWEEN. When he talks about horror, he says all the right things. I don’t think he’s just pretending to like the genre... I just think that Rob’s particular fetishes cloud his judgment as a storyteller, and in this case, it works against the film.

Michael Myers is not a character I sympathize with. He’s not a character I want to sympathize with. He’s not misunderstood. He’s not just someone in need of some love.

The Michael Myers that has become a horror icon is, quite simply, a soulless killing machine. A shark. And by structuring his film the way he did, Zombie made a specific choice... he wants to make this the story of Michael Myers, with him as the hero of the movie. Laurie Strode is the main character in Carpenter’s original film. Here, she’s a footnote at best, a plot device. I think it’s quite telling that Laurie is “the good girl,” and she is easily the worst-written character in the film. It’s not even that the writing for her is bad; it’s just indifferent. Rob couldn’t care less about Laurie Strode. She doesn’t register as a person. Here, it’s the victims that are faceless blanks, and Michael Myers is this complex, multi-faceted character who has hopes and dreams and ambitions. Does this seem sort of batshit insane to anyone else?

There’s a great track on the new album by Patton Oswalt that’s all about his disappointments with the STAR WARS prequels, and I think it’s one of the most succinct explanations I’ve ever heard anyone offer. He doesn’t wail about his raped childhood or anything else like that... instead, he imagines a conversation with George Lucas circa mid-1990s, as he’s gearing up to write the stories.

“You say you’re a STAR WARS fan. Do you like Darth Vader?”

“I fucking love Darth Vader, man. The helmet and the cape… with the sword. That’s great, man! Is he in the first movie?”

“Uh, yeah. In the first movie, you get to see him as a little kid.”

Patton tries to take it in stride, but Lucas continues, telling him about the second film a bit.

“Well, hey, don’t worry, cause guess who shows up in the second movie. Boba Fett.”

“Very fucking cool! Boba Fett! Yes! With the helmet, and he’s a bounty hunter! That is so cool!”

“Yeah, and in the second movie, you get to see him as a little kid.”

You can sense Patton’s growing exasperation.

“I do not give a shit about that. I could not care less.”

“Well, in the third movie, guess what shows up? The Death Star.”

“Oh, that’s... what is it doing, George?”

“They’re just building it.”

And that does it. Patton just finally snaps, ramping up to the realization that pulls it all into focus for me.

“I don’t give a shit where the stuff I love comes from! I just love the stuff I love!”

Ding. That’s it exactly. This insane need to overexplain everything with prequels and requels and remakes and reimaginings... it’s bad in a general artistic sense. But with horror films, there’s an extra level to the way it complicates things. See, I think the moment you start making horror films with 2 and 3 and 4 after the title, you’re not really making horror films anymore. Horror films, by definition, are about scaring you, and the least frightening thing in the world is the familiar. The longer a movie monster hangs around, the less frightening it is. And I think Rob Zombie knew that Michael Myers is fairly worthless as an icon of fright at this point, so he decided he was going to try and make him scary by making him real.

But “real” in what way? Real in the sense that now he’s pretty much just a textbook definition psychopath, the victim of a bad home life and no clear male role models? Real in the sense that he escalates from small animals to people in the pattern that many serial killers follow? Real in the sense that he’s big enough in this film to be a credible physical threat to anyone he encounters? If it was Rob’s intention to make this the “real” Michael Myers, he certainly gave it a shot. He tries, and he makes some very distinct choices that make this his movie, no question about it. This is not just a retread of Carpenter’s movie.

And, look, it’s sort of a no-win situation. If it was a beat-for-beat retread, Rob would get hammered for it. This sort of wholesale reimagining doesn’t work, either, though. By working so hard to make Michael real, he’s made him less interesting.

Rob ties himself in narrative knots to introduce certain iconography and try to make it all mean something, but it’s like Patton said... too much explanation. I think it’s laugh-out-loud ridiculous to lay that much groundwork to why he’s wearing THAT specific mask and using THAT specific knife. It makes no real sense, and by trying to turn the white-faced Shatner mask into something so particular for Michael, it just points out how pointless the choice is. And dragging in the stuff about Laurie Strode being Michael’s sister not only makes it all a little bit of a yawn, it introduces the film’s biggest narrative hole. I always hated the retrofitting that started as soon as HALLOWEEN II, trying to fit Laurie and Michael together in some larger sense, but here, after Rob goes to such pains to set up that Michael is just an ordinary person, suddenly he gains some sort of super-psycho-sonar sense that allows him to track down his infant sister without hesitation, when even the people who adopted her don’t realize who she is. It’s a bizarre choice, and Zombie doesn’t even try to justify it. There’s no explanation offered at all.

But let’s step back... away from the minutiae of all this, away from comparisons to the infinitely superior original, away from even thinking of this as part of a series. I think the biggest mistake Rob made is something that became clear when watching this with a fairly packed theater tonight. That crowd showed up ready to love this movie. They were pumped. They wanted to have a good time and cheer and laugh and hoot at the crazy stuff.

That ain’t the film Rob made. I’m sure he thinks it’s subversive to have made a really ugly, unpleasant film as far as the violence is concerned, and you certainly can’t accuse of him of making it all seem “cool” or “glamorous.” But people don’t come to a HALLOWEEN film to be confronted with the ugly stinking reality of death and contemplate how fragile life is, Rob. By staging each death in this film as an exercise in brutality, you certainly have established that you have an aesthetic you’re going to carry from film to film now. The murders in this film belong firmly in the same cinematic universe as those in THE DEVIL’S REJECTS. And that’s where it goes most wrong. Because the audience tonight wanted to have fun. And the one time they seemed to really engage and get what they wanted from one of the kills in the film was the one kill that Rob directly lifts from Carpenter’s original, almost shot-for-shot. Bob getting stuck to the door. Worked like crazy tonight.

If you’re the sort of undiscriminating fan who finds yourself arguing continuity points about HALLOWEEN 6 and HALLOWEEN H:20 and who considers everything to be ongoing canon, then I’m guessing you’ll find things to enjoy about this film. Just seeing Michael march around killing people will probably be enough for you. And honestly, on a sliding scale, this is probably tied for third place out of the entire series. It’s just that the original HALLOWEEN is so far beyond anything else in the series that a comparison is unfair, and HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH is great whacko fun because it dared to reject the Myers story completely and just work as a creepy Carpenter-flavored paranoid thriller. I’d say this works about as well as HALLOWEEN II, and it suffers from many of the same problems as that film. It’s a little too sleazy, something that came as a shock after the cool elegance of the original, and it starts to give Michael Myers too much backstory, tying him into Laurie more concretely. And if all you want is another HALLOWEEN II, an excuse to see the character, then have at it.

Frankly, I’m depressed by the entire thing. I’m depressed by the months of coverage. I’m depressed by watching Rob Zombie spin his wheels at a time when he should have been working on something original. I’m depressed that this is the sort of fare that gets greenlit in favor of taking a chance on something new. And I have to ask... because it’s killing me now... but at what point do executives in this industry regrow their fucking balls and actually start doing their motherfucking jobs again? If you are a development executive, your job is not just to regurgitate the easiest answer over and over and over, pilfering the shelves of whatever studio you’ve got a deal with and remaking everything while you mark time until you go do what you “really” want to do. Your job is to develop material, to develop voices, to find stories worth telling and people who can do them justice. The only reason you fucking monkeys have films to remake is because someone before you... people who actually had the stones to make original material... did their jobs right and allowed these original stories to get made. We are in danger of creating an entire generation of movies that are simply retellings of someone else’s work. Is that really what we want to leave behind as the sum total of this decade of film?

There’s a very, very tiny movie that’s getting a limited release starting this weekend, and although I wasn’t a huge fan of it, comparing it to HALLOWEEN has suddenly caused my affection for it to skyrocket. Adam Green’s HATCHET is a no-apologies slasher film that Harry dearly loved last year. I admire the film for the simple reason that Green took a chance. He created his own iconic movie monster and he rolled the dice that people will be able to enjoy his film even if they don’t already know the killer. The reason the SAW films have been so big, in my opinion, is because they introduced a new movie monster into the pop consciousness, and now, love him or hate him, Jigsaw exists side-by-side with earlier fright icons like Freddy or Jason. If Rob Zombie had chosen to tell this exact same film story, but he had used his own character instead of Michael Myers, I’d still have some pretty big problems with the film, but I would respect it more. As it is, it’s like he sold out his own voice, and he has nothing to show for it. This isn’t going to be the monster runaway hit Rob needs to get the sort of freedom he craves. It’ll have a big weekend, and then it’s over. He made the worst thing any filmmaker can make: an insignificant film. This movie doesn’t matter. It won’t make 1/100th the impression on pop culture that the original made, and five years from now, it’ll be just another crappy HALLOWEEN film on a shelf, one of many. Neither fish nor fowl, it’s not entertaining enough to be fun for parties or gatherings. I can imagine a bunch of horror fans throwing on HATCHET to watch together, cheering at every bit of red meat, laughing at the way the film tweaks the genre but enjoying the sincerity of the whole endeavor. I can’t imagine horror fans getting together to watch this one. It’s just too dour. Everyone in the movie talks like one of the Devil’s Rejects. Note to Rob: it’s not good character work if every single person in your films motherfucking talks like Sid motherfucking Haig, constantly motherfucking saying the craziest cocksucking shit they can fucking motherfucking say. Rob’s got a tin ear for dialogue in this one, and you can feel him straining to make the white trash patter work in the scenes with Michael as a kid. I think Ken Foree got a laugh out of me, and that’s about it. William Forsythe is the most egregious of the over-actors in this one, and Shari Moon Zombie is also pretty bad. Her only effective moments are her quiet ones, but even there, Rob betrays her. His choice to score one particular scene to the ‘70s standard “Love Hurts” is laugh-out-loud funny, and it’s really, really not supposed to be.

There are films out there now that effectively explore some of the ideas that I can feel Zombie straining for in this one. JT Petty’s S&MAN is a documentary about the people who shoot fake snuff, and you can tell that everyone in that film understands all the backstory detail that Zombie heaped on Michael in this film, and they take all that knowledge of what leads to broken people and what they want and need and crave and they pour it into these disturbing underground videos that can only be described as art. It’s nothing I want to spend time watching, but there’s something about it that is undeniably cathartic for certain types. And if you want to see a great film about the pathology of a madman that never once asks us to sympathize as it attempts to make us understand, then check out THE POUGHKEEPSIE TAPES when MGM releases it next year. A mockumentary that leans heavily on the 2000-plus videotapes made by a serial killer over the course of his “career,” it is a chilling look at what a truly broken mind can accomplish over time. Both of these films are terrifying because they are set in the real world, with none of the rules of the slasher genre to hold them back. If that’s the direction Rob Zombie wanted to go, then it’s a shame he felt the need to use one of the icons of the slasher subgenre to do it.

The funny thing is, not only did Rob Zombie not release the best HALLOWEEN remake that anyone could have made, he didn’t even release the best HALLOWEEN remake that HE could have made. Looking at the workprint, and the specific scenes that he reshot, he ruined his movie. It was never going to be great, but the ending he had on it originally at least made thematic sense, and the escape from the asylum may have leaned on rape as a device (one of the laziest tools in the cinematic language of the scumbag), but at least it made more sense than the bizarre middle-of-the-night prison transfer in the final film. Letting Dimension push him to make these awful choices just cements the idea for me that Zombie was cashing in with this one. He should have fought for his ending. He should have stuck with his impulses. Instead, he made a monster, but it’s not the one he meant to make. He was hired to breathe new life into Michael Myers, but what he’s left with is a Frankenstein monster, stitched together, dead, misshapen, and he never found the key to bring it to life.

What a shame. What a sad, ugly shame.

REVIEW LINK (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33846)

The theatrical ending is much better then the workprint IMO.

[Mentiroso]

The AICN crew are fucking morons. I wouldnt take his reviews seriously if I was paid to.

[APzombie]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
The AICN crew are fucking morons. I wouldnt take his reviews seriously if I was paid to.

Granted i only saw the workprint, but I agree with everything he says in that review, and this is from someone who doesn't usually care too much for Moriety or Harry.

[TornDaredevil]

I wanted to like it. I really did.

But it was fucking abysmal. The first half (young Michael) was decent enough and fairly unsettling. The use of the original score was good, too. Unfortunately the main theme wasn't used at all in the second half until the credits and that really hurt the film. I now know why there is no Tyler Bates score being released... because there would only be about 15 minutes of material for the disc.

There was almost no suspense, no build-up to anything, which is what MADE the original. Rob rushed through things and ALL of the characters, except Michael, were an afterthought. I honestly didn't give a shit about anyone. Michael being that tall didn't work, just as anyone with a fucking clue knew all along. Honestly, the dialogue was bad but it didn't kill the film. Everything else did that.

I have a feeling that Dimension (once again) fucked with the movie beyond belief and I would like to see Rob's original cut. I'm sure it still wasn't "good," but it couldn't be worse. The film was brutal and nihilistic to a point where it wasn't any fun. It wasn't working on dual levels like most great horror films do. Everything was in plain sight. Sorry Rob (and cast and crew), but you failed miserably. This is seriously one of the worst in the franchise and that is no small fucking feat.

Time to restart the series... AGAIN.

3/10

P.S. - Moriarty's review is fucking spot on.

[Duke Nukem]

SPOILERS...SPOILERS...




I need to say this now while my memory of watching this is still fresh(because it is quickly evaporating from my mind as I type).

What a waste of film. Not because it's the worst remake ever made. Not because it's the worst "Halloween" movie ever made. Not even because it's the worst movie in general ever made. Far from it. This version of "Halloween" had its moments but many of the other moments to be had were shot in the foot by Rob Zombie's directing/writing. The following statement you're about to read is completely ego-free, no matter how it sounds.

I am a better writer than Rob Zombie. My "Horror Talk" stories are better written than this remake. My 60 page "Halloween: The Blood of Michael Myers" script I did for the fifth season of my series was better written than this. I would even say that any of you are better writers than Rob Zombie.

The basic idea behind this movie - setting Michael in a trailer trash family and showing how he became screwed up - not a bad thought. If you're going to re-do "Halloween," I guess you have to change things around to keep it from being a carbon copy of the original. No matter how heavy-handed the first half of the movie was at times, it was the more interesting section.

The second half was mostly half-hearted. One aspect I appreciated was how Michael wasn't trying to kill Laurie, but keep her to himself, because she was the only family member to not be mean to him. He loved his baby sister and that's another nice alternate feature to separate this version from the original. However, this went nowhere for reasons I will reveal in a moment.

Another good aspect about the second half was some of the destruction by Michael as he tries to get Laurie - particulary the bit when he's destroying the ceiling with a piece of wood. That was thrilling, but a lot of the other destruction felt redundant. Clearly, Rob Zombie was trying to throw everything plus the kitchen sink when it came to Michael + Laurie + the Myers house, and it showed. But, due to his questionably direction, it didn't show all the time.

Now, here's what really grated me. I was willing to let Rob Zombie have his way with Linda and Annie (a la, introducing them briefly, then immediately throwing them Michael's way). The movie wasn't about them, it was about Michael. Knowing the original, we know how those characters are meant to be.

But what I couldn't get over was how piss-poor Laurie was in this. Her character didn't feel genuine and virginal (courtesy of Rob Zombie's inconsistant writing). And on top of that, whats-her-face was a terrible in the role. I'm not one to pick on acting. Unless it's really bad or really good, I consider most acting performances fine. Whats-her-face in this movie was an exception. It's my understanding that whats-her-face was supposed to be a good screamer, but that was really hard to tell apart from her lousy acting. Her constant screaming came off whiny and annoying to me.

Dr. Loomis, another shame. Malcolm McDowell was inspiring casting, but I get the feeling he was never inspired by the script. Some of the old Dr. Loomis' classic lines rang true, and some of the fresh "Dr. 'Samuel' Loomis and little Mikey at Smith's Grove" confrontations had a special ring to them. But even some of Loomis' lines were inconsistant in Rob Zombie's script.

Young Michael Myers, older Michael Myers. The actors to play both them did well. I would say that Rob Zombie's often inconsistant writing showed a little bit with young Michael Myers though.

Oh, and Sherry Moon Zombie, or whatever, I surprisingly had no problem with her portroyal as Michael's mother. Call me crazy, but thought her "tough love" acting showed conviction. She was better than whats-her-face/Laurie.

I've said enough about Rob Zombie's writing. His directing, I haven't though. I really, really hate quick-cutting/shaky cam and that's an aspect of the film that might have redeemed it a little bit. But ,oh well.

There's really nothing else to say. This wasn't a trainwreck and I wasn't expecting it to be. I already saw a trainwreck by Rob Zombie, and this was nothing compared to it. I was expecting, though, to get interesting incite on how Michael became screwed up because of trailer-trash surroundings and they did very little with it. It was one-dimensional.

In my mind, this whole thing was a waste. Apparently, the studio felt the last "Halloween" movie left the franchise in a dead end, so they thought a remake by a music video director would make it fresh. Well, this is even deeper in that dead end than that other movie.

The sad thing is, there was more story to tell. They didn't have to start over. They could have had "Michael + his nephew + Haddonfield = a potential "Halloween" movie. Have it set several years after the "Dangertainment" incident and it's done. That's the basics of the plot and anything could have been done with it. Re-casting for Michael's nephew would have been easy. But, no. Now, it's too late for that. Too bad.

Halloween - **** out of 4
Halloween II- ***
Halloween III - **1/2
Halloween 4 - **1/2
Halloween 5 - **1/2
Halloween 6 - **1/2
Halloween 666/Producer's Cut - ***
Halloween: H20 - **1/2
Halloween: Resurrection - ***

Halloween (2007) - **

I have my reasons for enjoying every sequel, no matter their flaws. The remake, however, is the first to slip to average. So, what I said in the beginning of this post is mistaken. This is the worst "Halloween" movie I've seen. Though, still not the worst remake or movie out there.

[Moviefan02000]

I already know I'm going to get bashed for this...

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/dimension_films/halloween/_group_photos/malcolm_mcdowell3.jpg

It was well over a year ago that I heard about Rob Zombie remaking one of my favorite horror films of all time, Halloween. Usually, I would be upset that anyone would have the audacity to remake such a classic film, but I'm a huge fan of Zombie's work as a director and I had full faith in him. I followed the whole production closely, though casting, filming and post production and my expectations were outrageously high. Well, I'm happy to tell you my expectations were more than met. Every worry I had about the film wasn't there. Originally I was worried the three girls (Laurie, Annie and Lynda) wouldn't get enough screen time. There was more than enough, though Lynda is the one that gets the least amount of time. I thought the Smith's Grove sequence would be tedious and boring and probably the worst part of the film, and again I was wrong. It was interesting to watch and had many funny lines. I can't compare this to the original, I just can't. It would feel wrong to me. Even the remake portion is quite a bit different than the original film. I will say this though, there are some things I liked in this film more than the original (though the original is better). I like the relationship between Laurie and Tommy here. It was more like brother and sister, and it was really cute and fun to watch. I also enjoyed that she had a on-screen relationship with her mother and father. It was also nice to see that in this, Laurie isn't completely different than Annie and Lynda. There. Comparisons aside, on with the review. The scenes with young Michael were great and effective. The murder of his sister Judith was extremely intense, and definitely one of the highlights of the film. Sheri Moon-Zombie was great here, and I don't understand why some people are calling her performance bad, it's not. She portrayed an extremely sad character, and was great at it. Malcolm McDowell was also surprisingly excellent here. After the negative reviews about his performance, I was expecting to hate him. I actually enjoyed his take on Loomis more than Donald Pleasence. The acting from the three girls ranges from good to great. Kristina Klebe was good as Lynda, though not spectacular due to her limited screen time. It would have been nice to see a bit more of her character. I don't think she had more than ten minutes on screen. Danielle Harris was good as Annie, but like Lynda didn't have a ton of time on screen (though more than Kristina). The real winner of the girls is Scout Taylor-Compton. She was fantastic. I was worried about her performance because from the TV spots it seemed kind of lame and forced, but it flowed much nicer in the film and was believable. She was an excellent screamer as well. If there is a sequel, I hope she returns. Rob Zombie's direction is great here, being even better than his work in Rejects. He really knows how to work the camera, it was fantastic. Zombie made a wonderful horror film, and I don't know why if you went in with an open mind, why you wouldn't love it. Know what to expect, and you should walk out with a big 'ol smile on your face. This is a great movie, and one of my favorites of the year and the best horror movie of the year, and no doubt will it probably stay that way.

9/10 (A)

[movieme07]

I really didn't think I'd be liking the film this much but I do. I wish the character of the stepfather had not existed (he's really unnecessary, would anything lack in the film if he hadn't been in it) and Brad Douriff continues to unimpress, the sanitarium stuff is slow, but the movie is actually scary, the violence is horrifying, Scout Taylor Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon Zombie and Daeg Farsch are the best of a great cast, I really want to see a sequel to this.

8/10

[yorrick brown]

August 31, 2007
It's a Michael Myers box office bloodbath! HALLOWEEN w/$10.5M Friday & headed for $35M+ for New All-Time Labor Day Weekend Record; SUPERBAD targets 4-day of $17M; BALLS soft with $3.4M Friday and 6-day of $15.3M; DEATH SENTENCE limps to $1.6M opening day
by Steve Mason
Michael Myers has returned from the dead to slaughter all box-office competition. The all-new MGM/Weinstein version of Halloween has exploded for an estimated $10.5M on Friday, and it’s headed for a 3-day of $30M and a spectacular 4-day Labor Day weekend of $35.775M.

The success isn’t a complete surprise. Director Rob Zombie has scored successes with low-budget slasher flicks House of 1,000 Corpses ($12.6M domestic) and The Devil’s Rejects ($17M cume), and, after seeing the heavy metal rocker’s version of the 1978 John Carpenter classic, Bob and Harvey Weinstein signed Zombie to a 2-picture deal. Plus, as I reported in my Final Weekend Tracking column, Halloween opened with Total Awareness of 82% in the industry’s audience tracking, along with 36% Definite Interest and a First Choice of 13%. I suggested that this could be a four-quadrant hit since it opened the day with an 11% First Choice with Males 25-Plus and an 10% First Choice with Females 25-Plus. I wrote that, “There will be a wave of nostalgia, but it won’t be a tsunami.” I predicted $25M+, but there is now a tsunami warning in effect with this movie going much higher.

Halloween will easily become the All-Time No. 1 4-Day Labor Day weekend champion, but who could have guessed that it would come in 44% above previous record-holder Transporter 2?

TOP 10 4-DAY LABOR DAY WEEKENDS
1. Halloween - $35.775M (projected)
2. Transporter 2 - $20.1M
3. Jeepers Creepers 2 - $18.3M
4. Jeepers Creepers - $15.8M
5. Crank - $12.8M
6. The Wicker Man - $11.7M
7. The Constant Gardener - $10.9M
8. The Crow: City of Angels - $9.7M
9. First Kid - $8.4M
10. Hoodlum - $8.1M

This will easily be the best 3-day opening weekend of the 9-film Michael Myers franchise.

TOP 3-DAY OPENING WEEKENDS FOR MICHAEL MYERS MOVIES
1. Halloween (2007) - $30M (projected)
2. Halloween: H2O (1998) - $16.1M
3. Halloween: Resurrection (2002) - $12.2M
4. Halloween II (1981) - $7.4M
5. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) - $7.3M

Also as expected, Michael Myers has become the All-Time #4 grossing “Killer” franchise in modern box office history, surpassing Jigsaw from the Saw trilogy and trailing only Hannibal Lecter, Jason (Friday the Thirteenth) and Freddy Krueger.

TOP 5 GROSSING “KILLER” FRANCHISES
1. Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs - 5 films - $425.2M
2. Jason from Friday the Thirteenth - 11 films - $315.6M
3. Freddy from Nightmare On Elm Street - 8 films - $307.4M
4. Michael Myers from Halloween - 9 films - $250.5M (includes 4-day projection)
5. Jigsaw from Saw - 3 films - $222.5M

Overall, this will be a very strong holiday weekend. Superbad (Sony) has added another $3.5M, but after losing a huge bite to Halloween Friday, my sources say it will bounce back for a $13.5M 3-day weekend and a terrific 4-day of $17M.

Balls of Fury (Rogue Releasing) grabbed a decent $3.4M on Friday, bringing its 3-day cume to $6.3M. The poorly reviewed Christopher Walken comedy is headed for a 3-day of $10.5M and a 4-day of $12.4M. The Bourne Ultimatum (Universal) was fourth on Friday with $2.6M, and it’ll bank an additional $10M by the end of Sunday business and $13M by Tuesday morning. Rush Hour 2 (New Line) picked up another $2M, and it’ll finish no. 5 for the 3-day ($8M) and the 4-day ($10.2M).

Among other new releases, Death Sentence (Fox), from Saw creator James Wan, struggled to $1.6M on its opening day. That will translate to a long weekend of only $6.6M. The results were much better for the Spanish-language caper movie Ladron Que Roba a Ladron (Lionsgate). Debuting at just 340 locations, Ladron scored about $440,000 or a PTA of $1,300. Its 3-day has a chance to approach $1.5M and it could have $1.8M banked by Tuesday morning.

In the specialty film market, The Nines (NewMarket Films), a favorite from January’s Sundance Film Festival, opened on two screens and delivered almost $10,000. Riding excellent reviews, The Nines will likely finish the weekend with approximately $48,000 or about $24,000 per location. Thinkfilm’s Self-Medicated, on the other hand, limped to about $11,000 on 16 screens. That’s a PTA of only $680 for Friday, and the edgy teen drama will almost certainly finish the weekend with less than $50,000

[LordSimen]

Thankfully, with this and (hopefully) Saw IV possibly being a success, R Rated horror movies can stay around for another few years. :D

[yorrick brown]

Originally posted by LordSimen
Thankfully, with this and (hopefully) Saw IV possibly being a success, R Rated horror movies can stay around for another few years. :D

i`ll drink to that.sorry hostel 2 you dropped the ball (actually i liked it) lucky halloween was there to pick it up.

since this is a horror and its going to open at number 1.i would love to know how much off a drop it will take next week.horrors open big but by the second week they drop like hootie and the blowfish 2nd album.

[Bourne101]

Halloween - 7/10

Rob Zombie did an excellent job directing and the movie looked absolutely fabulous. Many great shots throughout. The acting was pretty good. The film had an excellent score, using many of the great songs from the original. This movie is extremely brutal and gritty which I loved and made the movie separate from the original. Yes, it is a remake, but Zombie definitely made it his own. I liked the ending better than the original. It possibly closed the door on any possible pointless sequels, which is great, because a solid movie like this doesn't need a sequel. This movie is very intense and suspenseful, though not quite as much as the original. The second half is a bit of a drag, but the first half makes up for it.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by yorrick brown
i`ll drink to that.sorry hostel 2 you dropped the ball (actually i liked it) lucky halloween was there to pick it up.

since this is a horror and its going to open at number 1.i would love to know how much off a drop it will take next week.horrors open big but by the second week they drop like hootie and the blowfish 2nd album.

Hostel 2's problem was when it was released, to think it could have competed with Oceans' 13 and Shrek 3 was insane on the part of whoever chose that date.

And yea, Horror movies don't have much staying power, but, with this movie having the potential of taking Labor Day Weekend's record with it, I think that's just fine if it drops next weekend. :p

[yorrick brown]

if it makes 35 mill.like they say it will(whoever 'the'y are) then its made its budget back 20mill but i don`t know how much the ads and prints cost.

anyway you look at it .there will be a part 2 or 9 ? lol

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by yorrick brown
if it makes 35 mill.like they say it will(whoever 'the'y are) then its made its budget back 20mill but i don`t know how much the ads and prints cost.

anyway you look at it .there will be a part 2 or 9 ? lol

All I hope is that Zombie isn't stuck doing a Part 2 and that the two picture deal he signed with Dimension is for two of his original projects.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by yorrick brown
if it makes 35 mill.like they say it will(whoever 'the'y are) then its made its budget back 20mill but i don`t know how much the ads and prints cost.

anyway you look at it .there will be a part 2 or 9 ? lol

Judging by the ending of Rob Zombie's Halloween, I would say 9 would be more likely. But you never know.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by LordSimen
All I hope is that Zombie isn't stuck doing a Part 2 and that the two picture deal he signed with Dimension is for two of his original projects.

In an interview Rob said that he wouldn't do a sequel.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Bourne101
In an interview Rob said that he wouldn't do a sequel.

Very true, but if you remember there was a point in time where Rob said that there wouldn't be a point to someone remaking a movie like Halloween and eventually he ended up getting the job for it. So you never know, you can never say never in the film world because sometimes ideas just hit you and when you know there's plenty of bank behind the idea it's kind of hard to stop oneself from going through with it. :p

But, I hope that doesn't end up being the case because I'd just love to see another original movie out of him. He made his remake. He made his pet project and it's sequel. Now let's see Zombie shine with some new projects!

[XCoRyX]

Originally posted by Bourne101
In an interview Rob said that he wouldn't do a sequel.

Money talks and his bullshit will walk it...I'm very high on expecting him to do another one already. And i'm expecting to bet let down like I was with this.

Hell, thinking it over, I find parts 3 & 5 better then this. 3 didn't even have Myers.

The random cameos were annoying because you could almost sense it was just "Hey look its Sid Haig,goodbye nice seeing you don't say anything remotely needed"... "Haha look its Micky Dolenz from the Monkees see ya don't talk much?".

Rob needs to worry about movies themselves next time around instead of the casting decisions. I love seeing familiar faces but I like seeing them being used moderately well.

I'll stick to his "Sunglasses at Night" , or "Take on Me"...its called "The Devils Rejects", one hit wonder.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by XCoRyX

I'll stick to his "Sunglasses at Night" , or "Take on Me"...its called "The Devils Rejects", one hit wonder.

Even if you don't like House or Halloween, at least know that he's only made 3 films thus far. For all we know, he could simply be a hit or miss director and his next movie could be on par with Devil's Rejects or better. He wouldn't be the first horror director to be hit or miss (I'm looking at you, Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

[FatSakHead]

Saw this last night with my brother and a couple of friends. Boy oh boy where do I start....

I have a lot of mixed feelings about this movie. Let me get the negative out of the way, which is a lot mind you:

-The first half of the movie with Zombie as a kid was uninteresting and completely useless to the character. All it did was turn Myers from a soulless killing machine to another bland abused and bullied kid-turned serial killer.

-Every character in the movie (including Myers)with the exception of Dr. Loomis is one-dimensional and underdeveloped. Laurie felt like a pointless secondary character

Now on with the good:

-Dr. Loomis steals every scene he's in and is pretty much the only saving grace of this movie. He's the only developed character that you actually care about. He was very well-acted by Malcolm McDowell.

-The last 30 minutes of the movie are surprisingly entertaining and suspenseful. Too bad everything that came before it was a bore.

All in all I'd give it a disappointing 5/10

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by XCoRyX
Money talks and his bullshit will walk it...I'm very high on expecting him to do another one already. And i'm expecting to bet let down like I was with this.

Hell, thinking it over, I find parts 3 & 5 better then this. 3 didn't even have Myers.
You liked this better than Halloween 3? Now that's a statement.

I have never seen all of the third, but what I have seen is absolutely laughable and others have told me it's one of the worst movies ever made.

For me, Zombie's movie was at least semi-interesting, and better than any sequel since #2.

[gyro_44]

By the way, did Zombie's use of the song Love Hurts make anyone else crave a shot of Gatorade?

[dellamorte dellamore]

He's not doing a sequel , bwahahahahahahaha , who is he kidding , they are prob prepping the contract as we speak . What he meant was , if the film bombs , he won't be hired to do a sequel , prequel , quel , reimagining , reinvention , or whatever they call these films these days . He will be directing the sequel , now that the numbers are in .

[franky4fingerz]

This movie was bullshit.The paceing was dead slow. Who gives a fuck about him as a kid and in the ward? This movie was just pointless.I went into it thinking that it could be good but mr. zombie hasnt changed in my book. Zombie has a great passion and respect for the horror genre and it shows in his movies, the only problem is his movies are unwatchable.I'll be nice and give it 5/10. What everyone should do is get up and see death sentence witch is a perfect 10/10.

[XCoRyX]

I also don't enjoy how he turned so much of Haddonfield into white trash redneck types. It now seems like Haddonfield is around the area Deliverance was shot at. Before,when it was good ol' times of Halloween, the characters were somewhat developed,and showered. You know,you CAN be an asshole father-figure and slap around your kid or be an alcoholic without having to be so white trash.

[IronMonkey]

Originally posted by ToasT
I just finished watching the film not but 30 minutes ago and I'm already to write a scathing review of this very disappointing film. But fortunately for me, many schmoes have done so already. So I bid you goodnight.

Too many kills.
Too gory.
Too much over the top dialogue (especially the teenagers).
Too much Laurie screaming.
Too much disappointment. Oh my gosh!

Too many kills, gore, violence, over the top shit and screaming in a SLASHER flick! Oh the humanity! :rolleyes:

[Worthystevens]

8/10. Surprise, surprise. I loved it.

Young Michael in lockdown at Smith's Grove was extremely well done, in my opinion. Daeg did a tremendous job with his role, as well as Sheri. You really had to feel for her character, despite some bad judgments and choices she makes. The woman is trying left and right to keep her family together, and when *the* night arrives, it's crushing to see the aftermath.

Now when we get to Haddonfield, it starts off well. But it becomes EXTREMELY rushed. I loved that Rob put nods to the original throughout, but some ideas (such as the mentioning of Ben Tramer) probably should have been left on the cutting room floor.

As for what else I didn't care for in the movie, there were some unintentional laughs throughout the latter half. *SPOILER ALERT* Such as when Laurie finds Annie and Paul. The acting was a bit melodramatic, even under the circumstances of the scene. *END SPOILER*. Some of the dialogue was a bit hammy too, but nothing to the extreme where it just becomes groan-worthy.

As for the other actors, every one of them stepped up to the plate. And as far as I'm concerned, and I'm gonna get lynched for this, Kristina outdid PJ. In her limited amount of time we get to spend with her, she lights up the screen and has a very unique style to her.

The cinematography was just beautiful to look at. The movie had a dark and foreboding look to it, and was given that much more a brutal feel to it.

Overall, I was extremely satisfied with the movie. Zombie didn't exactly knock this one out of the park, but it still is a damn entertaining movie, and is his best effort to date. Kudos for pulling this off Rob.

[poopontheshoes7]

SPOILERSS!

There is going to be the fans of the original that just wont be able to except the fact that Halloween has been remade. But if you just go in with an open mind you might just be suprised.

Believe me, I had my reservations about this movie like the rest of you, but while I was watching it something amazing happened, I was digging it. The prologue with young Michael work much better than I thought it would be. I have to admit when Michael was going to kill the bully and the ever so famous score started playing I got goose bumps. The score hasnt sounded this great since the original. The killing of his sister was done suprisingly suspensful and I loved the twist Zombie gave to the mask. I dont see how poeple are saying the film lacked any kind of suspense because the massacre scene when he knocked off everyone in the house was incredibly suspensful and tense. The Smiths Grove scenes were great as well, I loved seeing Loomis and Michael interacting with each other, it gave their relationship more meaning.

Also, the suicide scene with Mikes mother was powerful and sad, you really felt for her. You could really see the pain and helplessness in her face. I also like the fact that Michael likes to hide his face behind masks instead of just wearing one just to be scary. The Smiths Grove escape was great as well, I loved Danny Trejo's part in the film. The cameo's didnt bother me like it did other people, because I was drawn into the story.

Now we hit the Haddenfield section where we meet Laurie and her friends. I will say this: I find Anne and Linda in the original to be annoying as fuck. I couldnt wait for Anne's annoying ass to get it in the original and Linda's constant repeating of the word totally is nerve grating. Here is where I think Zombie surpassed the original. The girls. They were all likable. The dialog felt a little forced at times but overall the three teens were alot better in this version. I also like how Laurie wasnt the complete innocent square but she wasnt like Anne or Linda either. She had a playful bubbly personality that I really liked. Tommy doyle was also an improvment over the original. His relationship with Laurie was cute and I actually felt afraid for them.

Michael was dangerous again. He was a complete badass. Tyler Mane is the best Myers since Nick Castle hands down. He's big and hulking but also fast and silent.

Now for negatives:
I didnt like the stepfather character. Someone else stated he felt completely out of place and I have to agree. Some of the dialog was a little forced but nothing completely cringe worthy. I do wish Linda and Anne had a tad more screen time as well. And Im not sure if I like the fact that Loomis died either.

8/10, way better than expected. In my humble opinion, zombie did not disgrace the original, there was no fucking retarted Thorn cult, or ninja rappers to fuck everything up this time around.

Halloween 1978 9/10
Halloween 2 8/10
Halloween 3 3/10
Halloween 4 5/10
Halloween 5 4/10
Halloween 6 4/10
H20 7/10
Halloween Resurection 3/10
Rob Zombies Halloween 8/10

[Cop No. 633]

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Oh my gosh!

Too many kills, gore, violence, over the top shit and screaming in a SLASHER flick! Oh the humanity! :rolleyes:

Yeah, maybe if Zombie got his head out of his ass, he might have realized that characters and plot are much more important than having 20 murders in a film. Every new death only made this film get continually more boring. Zombie proved yet again that he has no grasp on suspense either. He's a gore hound who wets his pants at the sight of any blood... I prefer to wet my pants over good peformances, good directing, a good script... a better film in general. I think Zombie's finished at this point. I imagine his next film another pastiche of violence, hicks, clowns, and lots of blood. Here's hoping he never tries to remake another film again. I'd rather see the director's cut of this film which consists of Rob Zombie renting the original Halloween, going to his home, and then proceeds to shit on it for the next hour and a half.

[NuclearMisfit]

I took my mom to see it and I thought bravo!! 9/10, I thought it easily equaled the original and surpassed it in many ways. I read a review stating this movie was a piece of shit, and that there was too many plot holes to the film. That reviewer must have seen the leaked to the internet version because that one didnt have all the final cuts in the film.

I really dug how much of a big son of a bitch Michael was in this, I loved when he was sitting in the room and Loomis was talking to him and the chair looked so dwarved compared to him.

I couldnt believe how hot Danielle Harris has gotten, when I was younger I always had a thing for her in Halloween 4 and 5. Woohoo. Hot!

All in All, this movie rocked. Gave us a reason for Michael to be so fucked up. No need for remake sequel like that piece of shit Texas Chainsaw Massacre. nice slice of horror gold!

[Jig Saw 123]

Halloween: 10/10
Halloween 2: 8/10
Halloween 3: 2/10
Halloween 4: 6/10
Halloween 5: 4/10
Halloween 6: 4/10
Halloween H20: 6/10
Hallloween Resurection: 5/10
Rob Zombies Halloween: 1/10 ( OMG this movie sucked I cant believe people liked this shit. I mean I felt Rob raped Michaels character than sat down and then got up and raped him again)

[yorrick brown]

i don`t get why people say its to gory,to many kills and to much screaming?.

its a horror movie isn`t it.

[Jig Saw 123]

And another thing that made John Carpenter's Michael Myers so scary he didnt have a reason why he did what he did, he just was pure evil. Not a hillbille with a fuck up life...

[Cop No. 633]

yorrick, the reason why people compain is because the film hardly had any redeeming qualities. Honestly, how many deaths do you need in a horror film to be satisfied? This film was jam packed with kills that were extremely pointless. Did we really need to see Danny Trejo die? I thought Michael was trying to escape, what's he's doing hanging out at the asylum? That's just stupid. Not to mention, no living Mexican person would ever attempt to cuff a fucking maniac as big as Michael... Trejo's character would've left as soon as he saw dead bodies and then Michael, "Write me a post card Mikey!"

I judge every film the same... I didn't even try to compare this to the original. I judged it on its own and it failed miserably.

Those who say this film surpassed the original just tarnished your own claim that you're a fan of film. Sorry buds, but this was like the trick question on the pop quiz... the answer was very obvious.

What's sad is that considering the general intelligence of the public (I mean we are the country that voted for Bush twice -- not me, thank you very much), I bet this movie will be a success and many people will prefer over the original.

[NuclearMisfit]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
And another thing that made John Carpenter's Michael Myers so scary he didnt have a reason why he did what he did, he just was pure evil. Not a hillbille with a fuck up life...

Well John Carpenter did give the go ahead for Zombie to remake it maybe the blame should have been with the director of the first film if many of you guys didnt like it.

Oh and CosmicPuppet, I respect your opinions on the film. But I love the original nothing can deter me from loving it, even if you call me an idiot for thinking that the remake was equal to and had elements that surpassed the original, I didnt realize it takes so much intelligence to watch a goddamn horror movie now a days. Too much violence and gore? Might as well made this a disney flick.

Would you have prefered another shit sequel staring the Wu Tang Clan or a simple remake that has probably been the best of the remakes so far?

[Cop No. 633]

hey, don't bring the Wu-Tang Clan into this... they're respectable artists who actually make some great music. To compare them to Bustah Rhymes is like comparing this remake to the orignal. Same genre, big difference in quality. :)

See, that's my problem with this new generation of horror movies. They believe what makes horror movies is simply gore. They couldn't be anymore wrong than that assumption... it takes talent, good performances, believable characters put into a distressing situation where the last thing you want is for the main people to get killed... in this film, you don't care for anybody, therefore, it's a stupid movie meant to entertain people who get off simply by watching somebody get killed. Wow... that takes so much talent to do. I have no problem with gore if it's tasteful and done by a director who knows how to handle it like David Cronenberg. Now that man makes intelligent gory horror films... Zombie could learn a lot from him seeing that his Fly remake was actually a good horror film.

Even Hostel 2 had better writing than this garbage and I didn't even think much about that one. Eli Roth at least knew that people wanted to enjoy the film, so he put bits of comedy that worked... Zombie wanted to play it straight and made one of the most boring films i've seen this year. The only time I laughed was at the unintentionally horrible delivery... "It's me Michael... Samuel." And the Love Hurts scene was the most cheesiest use of the song in a movie of all time. What the fuck was he thinking? I guess Zombie never heard of the word subtle.

As far as being the best remake, I disagree... if we're talking about horror films of recent times... i'd say Hills Have Eyes beats this film in a land slide victory. It had more suspense, surprises and better acting than this one... you actually felt bad for the family once they get attacked in the halfway point. This film, you couldn't care less about anybody who died. Oh, and another remake that surpasses the original would be the Manchurian Candidate of 2004. It was a thriller that not only had suspense, but it actually had something to say about current politics and how they're little more than puppets for corporations. It had great performances by everybody involved.

Halloween definitely to me is one of the most boring, dull experiences I've had in a movie theater this year. I'm just glad it was free. Otherwise... boy I would've been mad I contributed to this mess of a film.

[LordSimen]

http://www.britfilms.tv/v3/user_files/Image/HalloweenPoster.jpg

Halloween (2007)

Rob Zombie's Halloween is a flawed but extremely enjoyable film about the life and death of Michael Myers. From start the finish the film never lets up with engaging us with Michael's psychology and personality. Michael as a child is something that no director has ever explored before, and in my book, Zombie did it extremely well. I loved the chemistry between Michael, His Mom and Dr. Loomis. The first half of the movie which set place in Michael's Childhood was probably highlight of the film and the most engaging because it was where Zombie's heart lied, and you could tell.

The reason Halloween is flawed mainly comes from the fact that movie attempts to combined two seperate movie ideas into one. The first movie it attempts is the origin of Michael myers leading up to the psychology of why he does what he does. The Film concludes in this section that Michael is not simply a product of his environment as much as he is a product of a child with a horrible psyche fused with a bad environment.

The second and (less engaging) film it tried to be was a semi-direct copy of the original movie, starting from Michael's escape and leading up to the finale of the film with Laurie Strode. Thankfully, while this second half is lesser than the first, it is saved by the fact that the performances from Laurie, her friends, Dr. Loomis and Michael himself are all top notch. Laurie is incredibly like-able and I was incredibly happy with how Zombie wrote her. I also like how his writing style changed between who he was writing, definitely showing the difference between Michael's home life and Laurie's.

However, what Zombie managed to accomplish was still a enjoyable and fun Halloween film. Probably the best Halloween film since the original, on par with Part 2. In the end, I'd say I'm glad that this film was given to someone like Zombie with a true vision of a movie, it's just unfortunate that he was torn between his own vision and trying to completely remake the original.

8/10

[Jim H]

I had relatively low expectations for Zombie's Halloween. They weren't met.

I'm not going to complain about the number of kills or even the plot holes. More importantly, the entire introduction and childhood sequence of Michael was pointless and dull. The writing was poor. It ended up feeling like a waste of time, and added zero insight into any of the characters.

Further, when we get to what feels like the "real" movie, Myers killing people with a white mask, there's not really any buildup to it. It just sort of happens. There were a few OK boo scares, but no suspense at all. The kills were just OK. McDowell's version of Loomis is also dull. Nothing wrong with his performance really, it is just a poorly written part. His character adds nothing to the movie except for a gun, in the end. And what the hell is he talking about with failing Michael and the references to Laurie? It didn't make any sense to me. On top of that... Laurie also has zero development, and is very dull.

Dull. That's what somes up the movie best. Just plain dull.

4/10.

On the positive side, it was nice to see RIchard Lynch in there as well as the other cameos.

[psycheoutsteve]

I haven't seen any of Rob Zombie's previous flicks, but I enjoyed his take on Halloween. The movie was incredibly brutal, graphic, and disturbing, but added a welcome psychological background to the character of Michael Myers. Zombie mixed his unique vision with bits of homage to Carpenter's slasher classic and the result was mostly satisfying. I thought the biggest flaw of the film was that it couldn't make me care for the character of Laurie Strode or her friends. From the moment they appeared on screen and started babbling out lines like, "OMG TOTALLY!!!!" I wanted Myers to off them quick. It didn't help that almost every bit of dialogue delivered by Laurie and her friends was in an annoying high pitched tone. Thankfully the rest of the film made up for these awful characterizations.

The first half of the film was probably the most interesting, seeing young Myers become the epitome of evil. Zombie certainly designed a believable foundation for Myers' future acts of violence. This film actually made you sympathize with Michael from time to time. I still prefer Carpenter's take on Myers because it was so much more cryptic. In the original, Michael appears to live in a normal house with a caring family, which makes it all the more jarring when he murders his sister inexplicably. The new version definitely gives Michael more of a motive for his killings.

Despite some annoying characters, the character of Dr. Loomis was actually done very well in this film. I enjoyed the actor who portrayed him in this version more than Donald Pleasance's interpretation. Brad Douriff's Sheriff character was also enjoyable to watch, but he had very limited screen time. The actors who portrayed young and adult Meyers were very good in this film as well.

Overall a 7.5/10

[silentasylum]

this is a very entertaining horror movie. very well-made.


8.5/10

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
Halloween: 10/10
Halloween 2: 8/10
Halloween 3: 2/10
Halloween 4: 6/10
Halloween 5: 4/10
Halloween 6: 4/10
Halloween H20: 6/10
Hallloween Resurection: 5/10
Rob Zombies Halloween: 1/10

Wow you liked Halloween 3 more than this? Resurrection more than this? It's just my opinion, but there is something seriously iffy about that. Hearing the original score itself is better than watching Halloween 3.

[Jig Saw 123]

Well Id rather watch a movie that doesn't feature Michael Myers at all then a one that is raping his character.

[psycheoutsteve]

I think some people might dislike the film for the same reason people didn't enjoy Hannibal Rising, because they thought the backstory demystified the character.

[Worthystevens]

Here's my standings:

1. Halloween (always will be)
2. Rob Zombie's Halloween
3. Halloween 2
4. Halloween 4
5. Halloween 3
6. Halloween 5
7. Halloween: H2O
8. Halloween 6
9. Halloween: Resurrection

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
Well Id rather watch a movie that doesn't feature Michael Myers at all then a one that is raping his character.
I'd rather watch someone at least attempt an interesting take on the character (even if it pisses off the devoted purists who would whine no matter what) than some piece of shit about KILLER HALLOWEEN MASKS, or a movie featuring Busta Rhymes going all ninja on Myers' ass.

Resurrection was a complete embarrassment.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by gyro_44
I'd rather watch someone at least attempt an interesting take on the character (even if it pisses off the devoted purists who would whine no matter what) than some piece of shit about KILLER HALLOWEEN MASKS, or a movie featuring Busta Rhymes going all ninja on Myers' ass.

Resurrection was a complete embarrassment.

I would say Zombie's Halloween is a better movie than Resurrection on most levels, but I found Resurrection more entertaining because of how incredibly stupid and bad it was.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by gyro_44
I'd rather watch someone at least attempt an interesting take on the character (even if it pisses off the devoted purists who would whine no matter what) than some piece of shit about KILLER HALLOWEEN MASKS, or a movie featuring Busta Rhymes going all ninja on Myers' ass.

Resurrection was a complete embarrassment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Ms.MetalMenace]

Originally posted by CuatroDiablos
I saw it and I was laughing all the way through it...YUCK! And there's a disgusting rape scene , Zombie needs to stop making movies.

They maybe should have left that in the final cut, because watching this honestly made me fall asleep. I expected nastier, more demented excitement coming from Rob Zombie.

While the plot and everything was good, the killings were weak and the tits were tiny lol.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by Ms.MetalMenace
They maybe should have left that in the final cut, because watching this honestly made me fall asleep. I expected nastier, more demented excitement coming from Rob Zombie.

While the plot and everything was good, the killings were weak and the tits were tiny lol.

Did we watch the same movie? The killings were extremely brutal and disturbing from what I saw...

[silentasylum]

maybe they have ADD.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Ms.MetalMenace
While the plot and everything was good, the killings were weak and the tits were tiny lol.

Minor Spoilers


Are you serious? This movie has some of the most brutal killings ever put to film. If you think the scene where young Michael brutally beats the fuck out of the bully with the stick is "weak" I really don't know what to think.

It's your opinion, and I respect everyones opinion, but this isn't exactly an opinionated subject. The killings were brutal as hell, and you couldn't name me many more killings from other films that were as brutal as some of the killings in this movie.

And as for the tits, they were fine by me.

[Lazy Boy]

Spoilers


I think Michael taking the bat to the boyfriend's head was the most brutal killing, to me -- first, because you don't see the impact, only hearing it, and secondly, the metallic "ping" noise when he first hits him, in combination with the guy's legs twitching on the kitchen floor, was really disturbing to me. So, to his credit, Zombie accomplished some good kills (it got a little repetitive near the end, which sort of diminished it)>

[Jig Saw 123]

Originally posted by gyro_44
I'd rather watch someone at least attempt an interesting take on the character (even if it pisses off the devoted purists who would whine no matter what) than some piece of shit about KILLER HALLOWEEN MASKS, or a movie featuring Busta Rhymes going all ninja on Myers' ass.

Resurrection was a complete embarrassment.


As do I but you dont bascially make people feel pity for the serial killer thats what made John's so unique is there was no reason for Michael's killings he was just pure evil not a boy who grew up in the ghettos with a stripper mother and an abusive step-father. I mean I would honestly would have liked Eli Roth to had direct this movie. I mean Zombie made all these promises that his Michael would be the scariest and he was bringing the horror back to the frachise. All he brought was more gore and sex. Atleast there probably wont be a sequel since he killed the man that really mattered.

[silentasylum]

I have seen a lot of horror movies and this ranks right up there. this movie is one of the few that has actually lived up to the hype. I have no quarrels with it and everyone I know who has seen it is liking it as much as I did.

[silentasylum]

Eli Roth?

did you see Hostel 2? plus, he likes comedy with his movies. dont think it would work here.

[I Am Legend]

SPOILER ALERT


You can add my name to the growing list of people who disliked this movie. Like others on here, I felt the beginning of the movie completely demystified the Michael Myers character, rendering him into nothing more but a hillbilly with a cleaver.

The dialogue was dull, the characters were dull the story was weak. I mean, the sherrif says he gave Michael's baby sister to a family and left it out of the police report, so how the hell was Michael Myers able to track her down? Simply idiotic.

And as long as Zombie keeps including his wife into his films, he will continue to be a second-rate hack.

This was only slightly better than crap like Stay Alive or See No Evil.

3/10

[Rick-James]

Pretty good flick, not Zombie's best nor the best Halloween film.

1. HALLOWEEN (#7 ALL TIME FAVORITE MOVIE) 10/10
2. HALLOWEEN 2 - 8/10
3. ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN - 7/10
4. HALLOWEEN 4: RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS - 6/10
5. HALLOWEEN 3: SEASON OF THE WITCH - 6/10
6. HALLOWEEN H20 - 6/10
7. HALLOWEEN 666 - 5/10
8. HALLOWEEN 5: REVENGE OF MICHAEL MYERS - 3/10
9. HALLOWEEN RESURRECTION - 1/10

[Jig Saw 123]

Originally posted by silentasylum
Eli Roth?

did you see Hostel 2? plus, he likes comedy with his movies. dont think it would work here.


Yeah and it was bad but he still has more of a creative mind then Rob Zombie. I'm glad didnt feature some of the stuff that was in this movie like the rape scene.

[NightStalkerGtx]

Seeing this in about 50 minutes or so.

[echo_bravo]

What an abomination of trash this film was. All of my friends and I hated it so much. I kept looking at my watch all the way thru because it was so frickin boring.

The dialogue was truthly awful and rivaled Hostel II's bad dialogue...yeah, that bad.

The only good thing was Malcom McDowell. That guy can do no wrong.

3/10

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
Yeah and it was bad but he still has more of a creative mind then Rob Zombie. I'm glad didnt feature some of the stuff that was in this movie like the rape scene.

So you didn't see the final cut? It probably won't make a big difference in you liking it as you gave it a 1/10, but the rape scene which I hear is awful and overly disturbing, is not in the final cut.

[Worthystevens]

To those who are saying the dialogue is awful, is that because of the cussing, or did you genuinely find the lines in the movie to be bad?

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
To those who are saying the dialogue is awful, is that because of the cussing, or did you genuinely find the lines in the movie to be bad?

no because its fucking shit!

[Lazy Boy]

Yeah, the dialogue was pretty bad, he still hasn't improved in that aspect -- Brad Dourif says a line "I may have been born, but I wasn't born yesterday." One example I can think of that struck me as pretty tin ear.

[Bourne101]

The dialouge is actually quite realistic. I've been around families like the Myers family, and it doesn't matter who the fuck is around, they will say whatever the hell they want and they say some crazy shit. And the dialouge in the second half of the film when Michael escapes, is no worse than any other decent slasher flick I've seen in a while.

I couldn't name too many lines in this movie that aren't all that realistic. Maybe harsh, vulgar or stupid, but still quite realistic.

[Superplasmatron]

loomis was so sucky in this version, and i love malcome macdowel, i guess i was not payed enough.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Yeah, the dialogue was pretty bad, he still hasn't improved in that aspect -- Brad Dourif says a line "I may have been born, but I wasn't born yesterday." One example I can think of that struck me as pretty tin ear.

But that line is realistic, and people say it all the time.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care if dialouge is all fancy and perfect, I just want it to be realistic.

[Lazy Boy]

Really? Never heard that before in my life. And, even if it is realistic, it's still pretty dumb/bad, which is what I was commenting on.

[Mentiroso]

Enjoyed it much more than the original. I would give this version a 7/10, the original a 5/10. Worth a matinee ticket price.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
Enjoyed it much more than the original. I would give this version a 7/10, the original a 5/10. Worth a matinee ticket price.


your joking right?
or your just trying to start another argument?

the original is a masterpiece

[Worthystevens]

As much as I disagree with them, not everyone thinks the original is a masterpiece.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
As much as I disagree with them, not everyone thinks the original is a masterpiece.


but still zombies is a turgid pile of crap in comparison, and carpenter wrote directed and scored his film, zombie seems like he was forced to make his, there is no way that his version is better.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Bourne101
But that line is realistic, and people say it all the time.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care if dialouge is all fancy and perfect, I just want it to be realistic.

BITCH I WILL CRAWL OVER THERE AND SKULLFUCK YOU is so realistic to me :)

[FatSakHead]

Yea, Zombie is so witty with his dialogue. Sometimes I think he tries too hard to be Tarantino. I rolled my eyes at that line. I mean, only Zombie can warn you of the suckiness of his movie within the fist 15 frames.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
but still zombies is a turgid pile of crap in comparison, and carpenter wrote directed and scored his film, zombie seems like he was forced to make his, there is no way that his version is better.

It would all depend on your opinion. I loved the original and I loved this. But many people dislike the original as they find that it moves at too slow a pace and is quite boring. I will disagree with them all day, but they don't give a shit.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by someguy
BITCH I WILL CRAWL OVER THERE AND SKULLFUCK YOU is so realistic to me :)

I know it sounds unrealistic, but if you've ever been around a fucked up family like the Myers family that line is nothing compared to some of the shit they say.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Really? Never heard that before in my life. And, even if it is realistic, it's still pretty dumb/bad, which is what I was commenting on.

Um... you've never heard someone say that they weren't born yesterday? In context like you make a comment about something obvious and they say "I wasn't born yesterday."

Nice avatar by the way!

[IronMonkey]

Originally posted by Jig Saw 123
Well Id rather watch a movie that doesn't feature Michael Myers at all then a one that is raping his character.

Yes, we get it, your childhood has been raped and a charactor ruined by Rob Zombie..its too bad ya dont have the original to watch....er...wait a sec...

[dman476]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
Really? Never heard that before in my life. And, even if it is realistic, it's still pretty dumb/bad, which is what I was commenting on.
Yeah, I haven't heard that line ever either.

[silentasylum]

its hard for me to compare this to the original. I think Zombie took this and made it his own(what good writers do). it can stand on its own

I like both and plan to watch Zombie's version again.

[Lazy Boy]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Um... you've never heard someone say that they weren't born yesterday? In context like you make a comment about something obvious and they say "I wasn't born yesterday."

Nice avatar by the way!

You misunderstand me, I know "I wasn't born yesterday," that cliched phrase has been used in my family. I thought you were talking about the "I was born, but.." prefix that begins the line...that I've never heard in front of the standard line. He should've just left the "born yesterday" part alone, it sounded like it was trying to be faux Tarantino but just went clunk.

Thanks for the compliment!

[ilovemovies]

I've only seen a little bit of the movie and I think it's the middle portion of the movie I saw. I also don't know if what I saw was the theatrical version or the work print version.

Whatever I did see, it was really awful so far. It was like watching a really bad, amueterish imitation of the first film. And I'm not even a huge fan of the original. It was a decent movie but hardly the masterpiece everyone claimed it to be. But while watching Rob Zombie's shitfest, it makes me appreciate Carpenter's original all the more.


I was going to go see the rest of the movie at the theaters, but what I saw was so bad that I'm afraid to. I'll just have to hope that it somehow gets marginally better. I doubt it.


Oh, and watching this movie really made me appreciate Donald Pleasance's wonderful and great performance all the more. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but good god, his dialogue is hilariously awful. Admittedly, Pleasance also had some silly things to say yet somehow he managed to say it with much more conviction. Then again, the writing in the original Halloween was nowhere near being this awful.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
It would all depend on your opinion. I loved the original and I loved this. But many people dislike the original as they find that it moves at too slow a pace and is quite boring. I will disagree with them all day, but they don't give a shit.

Well I can't see any point in this version, of course I realise other people have different opionions to me, but I really think that remakes are mostley pointless wastes of time, John Carprnters 'The Thing' being an acception, so why zombie kept using clips of the original thing to somehow say originlas can be improved on is behond me.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Lazy Boy
You misunderstand me, I know "I wasn't born yesterday," that cliched phrase has been used in my family. I thought you were talking about the "I was born, but.." prefix that begins the line...that I've never heard in front of the standard line. He should've just left the "born yesterday" part alone, it sounded like it was trying to be faux Tarantino but just went clunk.

Thanks for the compliment!

I see what your saying. The "I was born part" I never really thought about, but now that you mention it, I've never heard that before either.

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
your joking right?
or your just trying to start another argument?

the original is a masterpiece


The original is in no way a masterpiece. One of those movies that was good when it came out and got elevated to god status because of shitty sequels (2 is the best btw the rest just suck). The RZ version of Halloween is much better than the original. The original had shitty acting, shitty dialogue, and was pretty much boring except for like the last 20 minutes at best. This one at least ups the action. I admit the dialogue is still shitty at times and the acting has not improved much but it is still a better movie.

[ilovemovies]

Jaime Lee Curtis is WAAAAAAY better than the actress playing Laurie Strode in Zombie's flick.

And Donald Pleasance is WAAAAAAAAY better than Malcolm McDowell is here too.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
Jaime Lee Curtis is WAAAAAAY better than the actress playing Laurie Strode in Zombie's flick.

And Donald Pleasance is WAAAAAAAAY better than Malcolm McDowell is here too.

I agree that Jamie Lee Curtis was better than the new Laurie Strode, but even though I love the original film i always thought Donald Pleasance kind of sucked as Dr. Loomis. Malcom McDowell gets my vote for a better performance.

[echo_bravo]

Originally posted by FatSakHead
Yea, Zombie is so witty with his dialogue. Sometimes I think he tries too hard to be Tarantino. I rolled my eyes at that line. I mean, only Zombie can warn you of the suckiness of his movie within the fist 15 frames.

Agreed. Also Roth is guilty of this too.

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by psycheoutsteve
I agree that Jamie Lee Curtis was better than the new Laurie Strode, but even though I love the original film i always thought Donald Pleasance kind of sucked as Dr. Loomis. Malcom McDowell gets my vote for a better performance.
Not to be blasphameous, but I kind of agree. I just rewatched Carpenter's Halloween the other day, and Pleasance really seemed to phone it in. Plus, he has maybe 15 minutes of total screen time. In James Berardinelli's review he was saying that Loomis was "brilliantly played" by Pleasance. I beg to differ. Of course I like Pleasance, but more than ever now his performance looks like he was bored to tears, and he spends the entire second half of the movie waiting outside the Myers house for something to happen.

I thought McDowell gave a better performance than Pleasance. But Zombie did have some trouble with the Loomis character.

Now as for Laurie Strode, Jamie Lee is waaaaay better than the new girlie they have here. Jamie Lee kicks ass.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
The original is in no way a masterpiece. One of those movies that was good when it came out and got elevated to god status because of shitty sequels (2 is the best btw the rest just suck). The RZ version of Halloween is much better than the original. The original had shitty acting, shitty dialogue, and was pretty much boring except for like the last 20 minutes at best. This one at least ups the action. I admit the dialogue is still shitty at times and the acting has not improved much but it is still a better movie.



Halloween's fame as a film is nothing to do with it being francised, If anything the sequals have hindered not bolstered the films appeal, It's stutus is due to John Carpenters ability to craft low budget well made b movies, his direction, scores and scripts for his early films were all wonderfull. The original halloween is tence, atmospheric and well paced.

Halloween 2 is an ok film quite fun, but not a patch on original, 4 is pretty fun but silly and plesance and paul rudd make it a better than average horror sequal.

Zombies, is a porely scriped, porely soundtrack, gross out hillbilly cliche fest like all his movies, but its ok, but no where near as good as Carpenters,

It's still better than the remakes of The Fog and Assult on Precinct 13, but it's still shit.

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis

It's still better than the remakes of The Fog and Assult on Precinct 13, but it's still shit.

Cant argue with that.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by gyro_44
Not to be blasphameous, but I kind of agree. I just rewatched Carpenter's Halloween the other day, and Pleasance really seemed to phone it in. Plus, he has maybe 15 minutes of total screen time. In James Berardinelli's review he was saying that Loomis was "brilliantly played" by Pleasance. I beg to differ. Of course I like Pleasance, but more than ever now his performance looks like he was bored to tears, and he spends the entire second half of the movie waiting outside the Myers house for something to happen.

I thought McDowell gave a better performance than Pleasance. But Zombie did have some trouble with the Loomis character.

Now as for Laurie Strode, Jamie Lee is waaaaay better than the new girlie they have here. Jamie Lee kicks ass.

Another "couldn't have said it better myself," from myself to Gyro.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by someguy
BITCH I WILL CRAWL OVER THERE AND SKULLFUCK YOU is so realistic to me :)


I love that line. :D

[teenkiller]

I must be the only one who thinks Jamie Lee isn't all that great. I prefer Scout in the role. At least she actually looks like a girl. I found Scout very cute, likeable, and convincing. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis

It's still better than the remakes of The Fog and Assult on Precinct 13, but it's still shit.


I beg to differ. I liked the Assault on Precinct 13 remake a lot. Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke were awesome in that movie as were Gabriel Byrne and Currie Graham as the bad guys.


The Fog remake did suck, but I think Zombie's Halloween sucks even more.

Unless it gets better when I finish it in the theater. Then I'll eat my words. I'm just going by what I've seen so far. I suppose it's possible that when I see the movie in it's entirety my mind will change. But I highly doubt that.

[ilovemovies]

Originally posted by teenkiller
I must be the only one who thinks Jamie Lee isn't all that great. I prefer Scout in the role. At least she actually looks like a girl. I found Scout very cute, likeable, and convincing. Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

I actually agree that Curtis wasn't all that great. She was merely just adequate. But, while Scout is certainly better looking than Curtis was/is, her performance is still far worse. Really it's like finger nails in a chalk board.


And I disagree with those who say Donald Pleasance phoned in his performance. Pleasance I thought was just about perfect in the Halloween flicks. He was by far my favorite part of the first Halloween. He was badass.

Malcolm McDowell is generally a good actor but he sucks here. It's not entirely his fault though. Some of the dialogue he's given is so bad it's outright hilarious.

[Derek237]

I saw it this weekend...here are my thoughts:


Rob Zombie's Halloween is such an awful film, such a profound failure of gigantic proportions, that I am confident there will be people labeling this as brilliant, or even a masterpiece. It is an assault on the senses, an assault on good taste, an assault on good bad taste, and the fact that it is an abomination of a beloved horror classic is a mere footnote on the list of all things wrong with it.

A large factor that irked me about the movie was the fact that it always seemed to be on a boil: never on simmer, never having any breathing room. Rob Zombie doesn't know how to create suspense, nor do I think he really wants to. Instead, I think his intention was to make a movie that scars and deeply disturbs the audience, which I feel he was unsuccessful in doing. Zombie is quite successful, though, at forcing loud noises to make the audience jump, shaking the camera in order to make nightmarish, nauseating imagery, and showing brutal, disgusting killings.

The first half of the movie plays out a lot like a prequel, and attempts some hackneyed "portrait of a psychopath" motif. Michael Myers is a product of his environment: a stripper/prostitute for a mother, a slut for a sister, and a bad-natured, alcoholic father. Michael is very much the star of the movie, as opposed to any other Halloween movie where he is the antagonist, and all of the attempts to explain Michael or even get viewers to sympathize with him pretty much fall flat, as the profile of this killer always seems to take second place to his actual killings, especially in the second half. Zombie's biggest mistake is trying to be something more than a dead teenager movie, and failing at it by compromising and trying far too hard to be disturbing, not to mention the painfully simple-minded explanation as to why Michael becomes a killer. Sure, the original 1978 film was very vague with the explanation of Myers being "purely and simply evil," but vagueness proves to be much more disturbing than half-assed social commentary. If Zombie really wanted to make an assessment of the lower class, he should have focused the film on the character Laurie, how in willfully creating a monster of himself, Michael Myers, through his inadvertent altruism, creates a beauty out of his sister, Laurie, and salvages her innocence. There are some hints that the movie is trying to head this way, as if it were an idea in the air (consider the colour spectrum conversation as a possible metaphor of Michael, being black and nothing, and Laurie, being white and everything), however, to draw that kind of conclusion from the things we actually see in the film is really, really reaching.

Kudos to Rob Zombie for creating one of the most accurate depictions of teenage girls: they talk fast, giggle at their own stupid jokes,are the centers of their own universe, and have little substance. And, coincidentally enough, resemble pretty much every girl in the theatre audience where I saw the movie (thanks to Canada's 14A rating- yes, our ratings board is a joke). The only good performance in the movie is Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis, who really holds a candle to the great Donald Pleasance. There were even one or two moments between Loomis and Michael I found to be actually kind of moving. None of these little moments help the movie, though. Rob Zombie wanted to bring his unique vision to this story, but did it all so badly, and made so many miscalculations that I was just repulsed by it. It's a trashy film that's deluded into thinking it's deeper than it really is. Even the very worst of slasher films at least have no delusions about what they really are, and I find them more enjoyable than Zombie's disgraceful remake of Halloween.

When you get right down to it, Halloween is a despicable movie about despicable people, and its cynical insight of the world makes me pity its writer/director for expressing such thoughts and ideas to tell a story. I hated the movie, but at least it had the energy to provoke me into hating it. Many directors don't seem to mind when people hate their movies, as if they'd want any reaction other than indifference. I doubt Rob Zombie would lose any sleep if he read this review, but then again, neither would Tom Green after reading reviews of Freddy Got Fingered.

My rating: 1/10

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Derek237
And, coincidentally enough, resemble pretty much every girl in the theatre audience where I saw the movie (thanks to Canada's 14A rating- yes, our ratings board is a joke).

I heard about that. That is a fucking joke. This is probably the most brutally violent movie to come out in a while, and they throw a 14A at it? They gave I Know Who Killed Me an 18A, which has a few violent moments, but nothing special.

[Mr.HyDe807]

Funniest Line (next to the "Skull fuck" line)

MICHAEL! WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

:Loomis's reaction when Laurie gets pulled out of the car:

Damn, i was crying in my seat:p

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
Funniest Line (next to the "Skull fuck" line)

MICHAEL! WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

:Loomis's reaction when Laurie gets pulled out of the car:

Damn, i was crying in my seat:p

According to Zombie, that was Malcom's actual reaction. He wasn't told when Michael was going to burst through. :D

[Derek237]

Originally posted by Bourne101
I heard about that. That is a fucking joke. This is probably the most brutally violent movie to come out in a while, and they throw a 14A at it? They gave I Know Who Killed Me an 18A, which has a few violent moments, but nothing special.


Yeah, especially when something like Kill Bill gets slapped with an 18A, which obviously is satirical and cartoonish with its overindulgence in violence. Halloween though, portrays very realistic violence, and even glorifies the killer by getting the audience to identify with him. Not to mention all the nudity, which wouldn't be too bad on its own I guess, but the way Zombie associates sex and brutal deaths will surely fuck up some 14-year-olds.

[someguy]

I'm also confused over the 14a rating, but they might re-rate it for all we know (they had Silent Hill as a 14a when watching it via dvd screener but when seeing it in theatres they changed it to 18a).

[gyro_44]

Originally posted by Mr.HyDe807
Funniest Line (next to the "Skull fuck" line)

MICHAEL! WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

:Loomis's reaction when Laurie gets pulled out of the car:

Damn, i was crying in my seat:p
Agreed. I pretty much lost it there.

And Halloween is rated 18A in my Canadian city. If it's rated 14A somewhere else, it's a mistake.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by gyro_44
Agreed. I pretty much lost it there.

And Halloween is rated 18A in my Canadian city. If it's rated 14A somewhere else, it's a mistake.

It is 18A in every province except Ontario.

[MisterChristian]

yet Death Sentence was 18A here...

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by MisterChristian
yet Death Sentence was 18A here...

18 is that how many people went to see it.

[veddhead83]

First half was great. Second half not as great, but still worthy. Killings were sweet and I was surprised by one of the deaths. Zombie gets better each time out.

Halloween: A-

[screamer581]

Originally posted by ilovemovies
I beg to differ. I liked the Assault on Precinct 13 remake a lot. Laurence Fishburne and Ethan Hawke were awesome in that movie as were Gabriel Byrne and Currie Graham as the bad guys.



Agreed. Assault was a lot of fun.

[gyro_44]

Damn this one divided people. From scanning through this thread I see about 15 favorable reviews, maybe 18 negative ones. Quite a mix.

[Worthystevens]

From the announcement of the remake, it was bound to divide. The original is the perfect horror movie in my eyes.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
18 is that how many people went to see it.

If you're trying to be funny, it's not quite working considering this movie owned the box-office this weekend.

[someguy]

He's talking about Death Sentence which did not own the box office this weekend.

[IronMonkey]

Originally posted by Mentiroso
Enjoyed it much more than the original. I would give this version a 7/10, the original a 5/10. Worth a matinee ticket price.

We're pretty close in our numbers. The original just doesnt hold up and has its fair share of lame dialogue and poor scripting, as well as the orginal Nightmare on Elm Street, 7/10

I give the original a 6/10 and Zombies version an 8/10

Zombies Halloween is bar none the cream of the crop for a slasher with a back story horror movie! It aint perfect, hence the 8/10 - buts its damn good!

Zombie's Halloween - 8/10
Carpenter's - 6/10
Halloween II - 4/10

The rest - 0 - 3/10

Rob DA MAN Zombie! Once again, hitting another outta the park!

Devils Rejects - 9/10
House of 1000 Corpses - 8/10
Halloween - 8/10

[mreeez]

Originally posted by IronMonkey
Zombies Halloween is bar none the cream of the crop for a slasher with a back story horror movie!

You really think so? That's a pretty strong statement.

Count me in the Thumbs Down category. I really wanted this film to be great but in the end it just struck me like a typical slasher film. Admittedly I am not a huge fan of Zombie's other films, I thought they were OK but nothing great, and I thought he could really bring a unique vision to this material but he just ended up being all over the place.

Maybe he wanted to to too much here but it seems that the film loses focus and doesnt know what it wants to be.

[Worthystevens]

I just saw the workprint, and man there were some great scenes that should've been included in the theatrical cut.

*SPOILERS*









Alot more stalking done by Michael, like when he follows Laurie home and watches her and her mom outside decorating for Halloween. There was also an alternate angle cut that actually showed Michael watching the girls walking home (the part where they see Mike and start shouting at him).

There was also an extended scene with the death of Mason Strode. He sees Michael walking up to the house, gets frightened and thinks Mike's a grown up trick-or-treater, and after Michael gets to the house the rest of that scene commences.









*END SPOILERS*

[ScaryFreak1827]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
I just saw the workprint, and man there were some great scenes that should've been included in the theatrical cut.

*SPOILERS*









Alot more stalking done by Michael, like when he follows Laurie home and watches her and her mom outside decorating for Halloween. There was also an alternate angle cut that actually showed Michael watching the girls walking home (the part where they see Mike and start shouting at him).

There was also an extended scene with the death of Mason Strode. He sees Michael walking up to the house, gets frightened and thinks Mike's a grown up trick-or-treater, and after Michael gets to the house the rest of that scene commences.









*END SPOILERS*

Here's hoping for an extended cut!

[bourahioro]

I've been a pretty big fan of the big horror remakes that have been coming out for the past few years (with exception of the Fog, that shit was inexcusable), I loved TCM, The Hills have eyes, Dawn of the dead, etc, etc.... So it was no shock to me, that I loved Halloween. I wasn't all up at arms when I heard it was being done, especially after who I'd heard was directing it.

Halloween was fucking brilliant. Not just okay, not "...well, I'd see it again", it was fucking great. Rob took a horror classic (and cult fave), and made a monster out of a kitten. See, as much as I love the original Halloween, I always thought that it should have been a little something more, but couldn't quite figure it out.....then Rob did it for me. Us.

No complaints at all about this one.

9/10

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
If you're trying to be funny, it's not quite working considering this movie owned the box-office this weekend.

death sentence is the for which I place the jibe not halloween, maybe if you had read the comment for which I passed said Jibe you would not have to leap to the defence of this monsterous remake, but I accept you appology in advance ;)

[I Am Legend]

Having read feedback on several Web sites, it strikes me as odd that some people will label any drivel that Zombie does as “genius”.

I saw this a few years ago as well, back when George Romero released his crapfest Land of the Dead. So many Romero fans refused to condemn the clearly horrible movie, instead praising Romero’s “masterful grasp” of the genre and his “subtle references” to society as whole --- when the reality is that these same people would have completely trashed the film if Romero hadn’t been involved in the project.

Being a fan doesn’t you have to love everything that director does. People screw up sometimes and usually learn from their mistakes.

I’m still waiting for Zombie to learn from his.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by I Am Legend
Having read feedback on several Web sites, it strikes me as odd that some people will label any drivel that Zombie does as “genius”.

I saw this a few years ago as well, back when George Romero released his crapfest Land of the Dead. So many Romero fans refused to condemn the clearly horrible movie, instead praising Romero’s “masterful grasp” of the genre and his “subtle references” to society as whole --- when the reality is that these same people would have completely trashed the film if Romero hadn’t been involved in the project.

Being a fan doesn’t you have to love everything that director does. People screw up sometimes and usually learn from their mistakes.

I’m still waiting for Zombie to learn from his.


You will learn that this forum has very few people like a bad word said against any of theses trendy directors. Also they will try picking you up on your typos as if if to sujest how could anyone have a valid point if they have not taken time to proof read what they are commenting.

I agree with you, I think that this film is an over thoughout out pile of carp whcih is not even a good horror let alone a good remake, Zombie clearly has some good ideas, but instead uses cliche after cliche resulting in another boring gore fest. Well at least it's not as shit as his music or even as bad as Hostel 2. This film is shit but its not as bad as Kill Bill.

[Worthystevens]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
You will learn that this forum has very few people like a bad word said against any of theses trendy directors. Also they will try picking you up on your typos as if if to sujest how could anyone have a valid point if they have not taken time to proof read what they are commenting.

I agree with you, I think that this film is an over thoughout out pile of carp whcih is not even a good horror let alone a good remake, Zombie clearly has some good ideas, but instead uses cliche after cliche resulting in another boring gore fest. Well at least it's not as shit as his music or even as bad as Hostel 2. This film is shit but its not as bad as Kill Bill.

It's not gory. Bloody? Yes. Gory? Fuck no. Aside from a couple of graphic scenes, this is certainly no gorefest.

[Superplasmatron]

Definitions of gore on the Web:

Vice President of the United States under Bill Clinton (born in 1948)
coagulated blood from a wound
a triangular piece of cloth
wound by piercing with a sharp or penetrating object or instrument
cut into gores; "gore a skirt"
bloodshed: the shedding of blood resulting in murder; "he avenged the bloodshed of his kinsmen"

[Derek237]

From now on if I want to see a gorefest I will watch An Inconvenient Truth.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by IronMonkey
We're pretty close in our numbers. The original just doesnt hold up and has its fair share of lame dialogue and poor scripting, as well as the orginal Nightmare on Elm Street, 7/10

I give the original a 6/10 and Zombies version an 8/10

Zombies Halloween is bar none the cream of the crop for a slasher with a back story horror movie! It aint perfect, hence the 8/10 - buts its damn good!

Zombie's Halloween - 8/10
Carpenter's - 6/10
Halloween II - 4/10

The rest - 0 - 3/10

Rob DA MAN Zombie! Once again, hitting another outta the park!

Devils Rejects - 9/10
House of 1000 Corpses - 8/10
Halloween - 8/10

Please tell me your joking? The original Halloween was 10 times better than this was. That movie had something called character development. It built everything up instead of introducing a character for about a minute then kill them the next minute.

What was the point of having any characters in the remake half besides Michael, Loomis, and Laurie? There is none, they are just there to add more deaths.

This movie had a good 1st half, but once the remake part comes in, the movie fell apart. I guess with how horror movies are made anymore, people will love it. They prefer little story and lots of action. I prefer getting a good build-up of characters, and actually feeling bad for them in the end. This movie was all about feeling bad for Michael, which is the total opposite of what Rob wanted. He wanted to make him scary again, well I saw this movie twice and nobody screamed once.

[Moviefan02000]

shoe1985, please tell me you're joking! There is thing thing called an opinion.

[Cop No. 633]

Yeah, but some opinions can lose all credibility. I'm sorry, I don't believe everybody's opinion is right especially nowadays. We're living in an era where mediocrity reigns supreme in all mediums of art.

But if you guys want to see Zombie's film for free, its on Youtube. Somebody cut it up and it's so much better now... I wish I had seen this on the big screen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxI83FQ0gW8

[chinton]

See this is what bothers me about horror remakes. I haven't seen Zombie's yet, but even if you're not a fan of the original you have to admire what a touchstone movie it was and how it was able to create suspense on an almost nothing budget with mood and lighting and atmosphere.

I'm not saying that people aren't entitled to like the originals, but it seems like especially with young people they don't really seem to realize or get what landmarks some of these originals are. I saw the same thing with the TCM remake in the original was brushed aside but hordes of teenages (at least the ones I know) simply becuase it didn't fit in to their modern thinking of what scary is while completely ignoring what that film meant to the horror genre.

[Mentiroso]

I still dont understand why anyone considers the original anything more than a good b movie slasher flick at best. It just is not scary, doesnt keep a good pace (unless you count SLOW) and the acting is nothing to brag about. Sure Jamie Lee added a bit more to the character than someone else would have but besides that, the original is just nothing to brag about.

[FatSakHead]

Originally posted by I Am Legend
Having read feedback on several Web sites, it strikes me as odd that some people will label any drivel that Zombie does as “genius”.

I saw this a few years ago as well, back when George Romero released his crapfest Land of the Dead. So many Romero fans refused to condemn the clearly horrible movie, instead praising Romero’s “masterful grasp” of the genre and his “subtle references” to society as whole --- when the reality is that these same people would have completely trashed the film if Romero hadn’t been involved in the project.

Being a fan doesn’t you have to love everything that director does. People screw up sometimes and usually learn from their mistakes.

I’m still waiting for Zombie to learn from his.

THANK YOU!! You don't know how long I thought I was the only one who thought Land of the Dead was nothing more than a dried up cinematic dog turd. How the hell this movie was universally acclaimed by critics and fans is beyond me. No offense to you Romero fans, but were you people on drugs when you watched this movie? I can't see any other possible explanation for somebody actually ENJOYING this boring, dry, uninteresting, unoriginal shitfest. This movie had some of the most unenthusiastic acting in any horror film I've ever seen. The lead character was a boring dolt with no personality who looked half asleep throughout the whole running time. The story sucked balls too. The whole "film" felt nothing more than a gorier than usual straight-to-DVD/Sci Fi TV movie of the week.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by shoe1985

What was the point of having any characters in the remake half besides Michael, Loomis, and Laurie? There is none, they are just there to add more deaths.

What's the point of having side characters in any story? To keep the story going and add some sort of element to the story. The deaths are there to show Michael's viciousness and what he has become as a person.

Why are they not developed as much as Michael? Because the movie's not about the rest. It's about Michael. He's the main character in this movie.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
death sentence is the for which I place the jibe not halloween, maybe if you had read the comment for which I passed said Jibe you would not have to leap to the defence of this monsterous remake, but I accept you appology in advance ;)

I actually have read all of the posts beforehand, I just misinterpreted it and for some reason forgot that Halloween was 14A (not hard to forget considering this movie should be 18A without a fucking doubt).

No I do not apologize at all with this snitty little comment that I am quoting that you wrote.

You are right about it being monsterous, as it is kicking mucho ass at the box-office!

[IronMonkey]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
It's not gory. Bloody? Yes. Gory? Fuck no. Aside from a couple of graphic scenes, this is certainly no gorefest.

I agree. And who can take someone serious that says its shit - just like KILL BILL? Sure its an opinion - nad in My opinion - a LAUGHABLE one

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by Moviefan02000
shoe1985, please tell me you're joking! There is thing thing called an opinion.

I agree with people having an opinion, but Mentiroso sounds like he is a teenager with his reply. His opinion sounded like younger people today who were raised on movies that are all about action with little development.

Horror movies today have turned into lots of violence and blood, this movie didn't have a lot of blood no matter what anyone says. The violence didn't even bother me in this movie, it was overdone in some scenes, but nothing to get me upset about.

Maybe growing up with movies that took their time to develop the characters, and the scares, is why I didn't like this movie.

Hell, H20 had more character development from all the characters except Michael, and that was about a half hour shorter.

Originally posted by LordSimen
What's the point of having side characters in any story? To keep the story going and add some sort of element to the story. The deaths are there to show Michael's viciousness and what he has become as a person.

Why are they not developed as much as Michael? Because the movie's not about the rest. It's about Michael. He's the main character in this movie.

I am all for side characters, but there was no point to have them in this movie. They are worse than bare bone characters.

I understand he wanted Laurie to himself, but the 2nd half was over and done with before it started. That is my problem with this movie. It should have been a straight prequel. I respect that Rob tried to do something new with the remake part, but the problem is that there was no suspense, or anything.

I am not thrilled about having a movie about Michael, it took too much away from him being scary at all. I actually felt bad for the kid. Seeing where he grew up, how he was treated, and you wonder why he snapped? His mom was the only person that could love him. Laurie was too young and that is why when she didn't want anything to do with him, he wanted to kill her.

Giving a villain a backstory were you feel sorry for them, is never good, especially for a horror movie. These are people you want to root against.

Scout gave a terrible performance. Her screaming was annoying, and her voice was annoying also. Poor casting.

Annie and Lynda were casted well, but they had no parts. They were there just to be victims, they could have just been offscreen deaths that Laurie could have found.

Malcolm didn't do a terrible job, but he didn't do a great job as Loomis. He was on one minute then off the next. I didn't care for him.

Michael was portrayed pretty well by both actors. I thought Daeg did an incredible job as young Michael.


Now I enjoyed the first half. It was really interesting, at least to me. If it had stayed prequel, I think it could have been a great movie. It could have been a good way to start the original movie with Laurie and company.

[Worthystevens]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
Definitions of gore on the Web:

Vice President of the United States under Bill Clinton (born in 1948)
coagulated blood from a wound
a triangular piece of cloth
wound by piercing with a sharp or penetrating object or instrument
cut into gores; "gore a skirt"
bloodshed: the shedding of blood resulting in murder; "he avenged the bloodshed of his kinsmen"

Yes, but when gore is thought of, guts and the like are usually what come to mind.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
Yes, but when gore is thought of, guts and the like are usually what come to mind.


But the dictionary defination of Gore is. Blood; especially, blood that after effusion has become thick or clotted.

Maybe you are confused with the term guts and gore?

I'm not being a smart ass I'm just stating facts. Gore means bloody.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by IronMonkey
I agree. And who can take someone serious that says its shit - just like KILL BILL? Sure its an opinion - nad in My opinion - a LAUGHABLE one

Gore means bloody, thats a fact and kill bill maybe good, if you have not seen any of Japaneses or Chinese films it directly quotes or in tern have any knowledge of Japanese culture, maybe if you were to have watched a strayYasuharu Hasebe, Seijun Suzuki or a Chia-Liang Liu, you might find it a detestable waste of time too, I like Tarantino, Jackie Brown is a fantastic film, but a 3 hour collage of his favorite cult Asian movies, it a bit dull to any serious cinema fan, so you can laugh all you want but when you dispute a dictionary definition of a word, well I just don't know.

[fooknasty]

5/10

It was just so bland. I could go into the obvious plot holes, but I won't. The acting was bland, and the ending sucked. I hated the whole last 20 miniutes or so. Just so bland, and rehashed.

The acting was pretty mediocre. The only bright spot in the movie was McDowell, and even some of his lines seemed forced and out of place.

This movie really added nothing new to the genre except for the unnecessary back story, but it did keep me enterrtained during the middle, and with some of the deaths.

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by shoe1985
I am all for side characters, but there was no point to have them in this movie. They are worse than bare bone characters.

I understand he wanted Laurie to himself, but the 2nd half was over and done with before it started. That is my problem with this movie. It should have been a straight prequel. I respect that Rob tried to do something new with the remake part, but the problem is that there was no suspense, or anything.

I am not thrilled about having a movie about Michael, it took too much away from him being scary at all. I actually felt bad for the kid. Seeing where he grew up, how he was treated, and you wonder why he snapped? His mom was the only person that could love him. Laurie was too young and that is why when she didn't want anything to do with him, he wanted to kill her.

Giving a villain a backstory were you feel sorry for them, is never good, especially for a horror movie. These are people you want to root against.

Scout gave a terrible performance. Her screaming was annoying, and her voice was annoying also. Poor casting.

Annie and Lynda were casted well, but they had no parts. They were there just to be victims, they could have just been offscreen deaths that Laurie could have found.

Malcolm didn't do a terrible job, but he didn't do a great job as Loomis. He was on one minute then off the next. I didn't care for him.

Michael was portrayed pretty well by both actors. I thought Daeg did an incredible job as young Michael.


Now I enjoyed the first half. It was really interesting, at least to me. If it had stayed prequel, I think it could have been a great movie. It could have been a good way to start the original movie with Laurie and company.

I definitely am with you that the movie should have been a straight prequel. As I mentioned in my review the biggest flaw of the film is that it tries to be two movies at once instead of just focusing on one.

I disagree though that giving a horror villian a backstory is a bad thing. I don't mind horror movies that make their villians pure evil (the original Halloween is one of my two favorite films ever, remember?) but I also love horror movies that make their villians a little more three dimensional and with a purpose. This is why I prefer the current Hills Have Eyes over the original because it gave so much more purpose and character to it's villians rather than just making them Texas Chainsaw Massacre clones with no real motive other than to kill.

It all depends upon the type of movie you want to make. Some horror movies have you rooting for the villian, others have you rooting for the hero. Some can have a sympathetic character while still having you root against him.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
I actually have read all of the posts beforehand, I just misinterpreted it and for some reason forgot that Halloween was 14A (not hard to forget considering this movie should be 18A without a fucking doubt).

No I do not apologize at all with this snitty little comment that I am quoting that you wrote.

You are right about it being monsterous, as it is kicking mucho ass at the box-office!


oh so when i was responding to a post saying death sentence was and 18, and i said is that how many people went to see it, you misunderstood that, how? And its kicking ass at the box office has nothing to do with its merits as a film, its due to hype created by boards such as this, its a crap film. The original was great, but this is just a waste of an opportunity .

[chinton]

Why does everybody love this film.

I have to admit the family stuff in the beggining was fine. Not great just fine. The rest of of the film though starting in the hospital and going all way to the end was so dull. It's just one kill after another all shot competently enough. The last 30 minutes where the original is repeated but sped up is a joke. It has none of the atmosphere or mood of the original. Its just more blood and kills. Then there's the endless chase scene at the end with Laurie and Michael. Dull dull dull. The ending is partucuraly anti-climatic and certianly doesn't touch the haunting ending of the original. Also Malcom McDowell who I usually like is terrible.

I didn't despise it it's just forgettable and dull.

4/10

[LordSimen]

Originally posted by chinton
Why does everybody love this film.

I definitely see a lot more hate than love, my friend. =\

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by chinton
Also Malcom McDowell who I usually like is terrible.





I found this hard to fathom too, all I can think is he did not believe in the script or film and was just doing it for the green backs. Bu then come to think of it the last film I saw him in that I truly loved was gangster no1

[chinton]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
I found this hard to fathom too, all I can think is he did not believe in the script or film and was just doing it for the green backs. Bu then come to think of it the last film I saw him in that I truly loved was gangster no1



Its too bad I was actually excited about McDowell playing Loomis but it just didn't work at all.

[Worthystevens]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
But the dictionary defination of Gore is. Blood; especially, blood that after effusion has become thick or clotted.

Maybe you are confused with the term guts and gore?

I'm not being a smart ass I'm just stating facts. Gore means bloody.

I do know what it means, but when gore is being described, it's usually in the 'guts-and-severed-heads' context.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
I do know what it means, but when gore is being described, it's usually in the 'guts-and-severed-heads' context.


I means coagulated blood as result of a wound, usually a stab wound, if you choose to claim that this word is often usually misused, I have to disagree, why on earth would one used the term guts and gore, I have never heard anyone misuse the term gore before, I am finding it quite curious as to why you are still challenging what is true.

her is another

4. gore - the shedding of blood resulting in murder; "he avenged the bloodshed of his kinsmen"


an when used as a verb (an action)

Verb 1. gore - wound by piercing with a sharp or penetrating object or instrument

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by chinton
Its too bad I was actually excited about McDowell playing Loomis but it just didn't work at all.


I think Brad Dourif was wasted too, but then that's th estory of his career, though he was one of the best things about the bores of the rings films

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
And its kicking ass at the box office has nothing to do with its merits as a film, its due to hype created by boards such as this, its a crap film. The original was great, but this is just a waste of an opportunity .

It's box-office has almost nothing to do with hype from boards.

It's a crap film "in your opinion" so maybe state that. I say it's a great film, but that is just my opinion.

And as for your argument on gore, movies that are rated R for strong violence/gore, are usually movies that have a lot of blood letting and guts, while movies that are just rated R for strong violence, tend to have less bloodletting. Look up defintions all you want, but most people think of gore as severe blood and gut letting. If a person was stabbed and there was little or no blood shown, I would not consider that gore.

[Worthystevens]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
I means coagulated blood as result of a wound, usually a stab wound, if you choose to claim that this word is often usually misused, I have to disagree, why on earth would one used the term guts and gore, I have never heard anyone misuse the term gore before, I am finding it quite curious as to why you are still challenging what is true.

her is another

4. gore - the shedding of blood resulting in murder; "he avenged the bloodshed of his kinsmen"


an when used as a verb (an action)

Verb 1. gore - wound by piercing with a sharp or penetrating object or instrument

Again, I know that is the definition of gore. I don't know how many times I've said that. I'm not disputing that.

What I am saying is that when gore is being talked about, it usually involves severed limbs, guts, etc.

Nothing involving the *actual* definition of the word.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
Again, I know that is the definition of gore. I don't know how many times I've said that. I'm not disputing that.

What I am saying is that when gore is being talked about, it usually involves severed limbs, guts, etc.

Nothing involving the *actual* definition of the word.

Yep.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
It's box-office has almost nothing to do with hype from boards.

It's a crap film "in your opinion" so maybe state that. I say it's a great film, but that is just my opinion.

And as for your argument on gore, movies that are rated R for strong violence/gore, are usually movies that have a lot of blood letting and guts, while movies that are just rated R for strong violence, tend to have less bloodletting. Look up defintions all you want, but most people think of gore as severe blood and gut letting. If a person was stabbed and there was little or no blood shown, I would not consider that gore.


once again you have misread what has been written he said that it was bloody not gory, I was just trying to pint out that gory means bloody if you want to help him dispute the dictionary and therefore dispute the English Language then so be it, if anything what you have written above is wining my point, he was saying it was bloody not gory, so yeah everything you have said is agreement of what I said to begin with.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
once again you have misread what has been written he said that it was bloody not gory, I was just trying to pint out that gory means bloody if you want to help him dispute the dictionary and therefore dispute the English Language then so be it, if anything what you have written above is wining my point, he was saying it was bloody not gory, so yeah everything you have said is agreement of what I said to begin with.

Um... no actually, I think you are misreading. Did I say anything about the film Halloween? No. Did I say anything about agreeing with him? No. I was simply stating that your definitions of gore are not how people would usually interpret them.

[BadCoverVersion]

McDowell was laughably hammy...how does that happen?

And it was GORY, end of story.

[LordSimen]

This movie was definitely gory. Not extremely gory, but gory nonetheless.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Um... no actually, I think you are misreading. Did I say anything about the film Halloween? No. Did I say anything about agreeing with him? No. I was simply stating that your definitions of gore are not how people would usually interpret them.


my definition of gore is the dictionary one which is blood, and he said that bloody and gory were not the same you said


"movies that are rated R for strong violence/gore, are usually movies that have a lot of blood letting and guts,"

All I have been saying is that the definition of gory is bloody therefore your statement above is contrary to the statements made by Worthystevens, ok?

[Danger^Cart]

Originally posted by Moviefan02000
shoe1985, please tell me you're joking! There is thing thing called an opinion.

Stop it.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
my definition of gore is the dictionary one which is blood, and he said that bloody and gory were not the same you said


"movies that are rated R for strong violence/gore, are usually movies that have a lot of blood letting and guts,"

All I have been saying is that the definition of gory is bloody therefore your statement above is contrary to the statements made by Worthystevens, ok?

Verb 1. gore - wound by piercing with a sharp or penetrating object or instrument



Not exactly the best definition to be giving to explain gore.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Worthystevens
Again, I know that is the definition of gore. I don't know how many times I've said that. I'm not disputing that.

What I am saying is that when gore is being talked about, it usually involves severed limbs, guts, etc.

Nothing involving the *actual* definition of the word.


Gory means bloody, and people use the word gory to mean bloody, its that simple, and of cause guts are gory as they are, when removed from the body gory, therefore saying something is bloody but not gory is an Oxymoron, It's that simple, just because it would seem people tend to misunderstand words in the English Language, there is no reason to say it's acceptable. When people rate films on terms of gore they are well aware of what the word means, possible because they can use a dictionary.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Not exactly the best definition to be giving to explain gore. that was just one of many, I was just pointing out that the verb was used as I was fed up of stating that the word gore means blood, plain and simple, this is not a competition or even an argument, I was simple responding to another persons contradictory statement made in reference to my saying that Zombies film was a gore fest,

You have got involved in this because I believe that zombies films is not a very good one and you disagree so are trying to make alleys with someone against on a matter of diction. You were not even in disagreement with me over this matter and therefore you involvement in the first place was not necessary. I am being made to look like a ranting bastard when all I had to say was that gore ment blood, and that box office numbers do not have anything to do with the merit of this film, which I regard to be not very good.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
When people rate films on terms of gore they are well aware of what the word means, possible because they can use a dictionary.

That's nice talk. :rolleyes:

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
that was just one of many, I was just pointing out that the verb was used as I was fed up of stating that the word gore means blood, plain and simple, this is not a competition or even an argument, I was simple responding to another persons contradictory statement made in reference to my saying that Zombies film was a gore fest,

You have got involved in this because I believe that zombies films is not a very good one and you disagree so are trying to make alleys with someone against on a matter of diction. You were not even in disagreement with me over this matter and therefore you involvement in the first place was not necessary. I am being made to look like a ranting bastard when all I had to say was that gore ment blood, and that box office numbers do not have anything to do with the merit of this film, which I regard to be not very good.

Just because I am not "in" an argument, doesn't mean I can't give an opinion. And I did not get involved because you dislike Halloween. You just seem to think that because you think it is shocking that someone could possibly like this movie.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
That's nice talk. :rolleyes:


Ok I did not like Halloween you did, why is that a reason for your consistent hostility towards me, why did you get involved defending someone on the grounds of diction, when they were in the wrong, so you could use condescending smilies?

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
Ok I did not like Halloween you did, why is that a reason for your consistent hostility towards me, why did you get involved defending someone on the grounds of diction, when they were in the wrong, so you could use condescending smilies?

Consistent hostility? You basically just told a guy that he was stupid for Christ's sake.

[Bourne101]

.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Just because I am not "in" an argument, doesn't mean I can't give an opinion. And I did not get involved because you dislike Halloween. You just seem to think that because you think it is shocking that someone could possibly like this movie.

It was never an argument.


I never anywhere stated that, all I said was that I did not think it was very good, I said that It was a lot better than the fog remake and the assault on precinct 13 remake, I also said they child who played the young Michel was great and that the first half of the film was very good, but that the second half was average, I also stated that I found Zombies love of clichéd Hillbilly's was quite annoying, I also think that they way Michel got his Uniform was unnecessary and came off across as very cheesy, I made a shit joke about Death sentence(which I actually really want to see btw) and you got on my back from then on, so please stop.

[Superplasmatron]

Originally posted by Bourne101
Consistent hostility? You basically just told a guy that he was stupid for Christ's sake. No I did not. Your taking this all awfully personally, when all it is is a Horror remake were discussing.

[Bourne101]

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
No I did not. Your taking this all awfully personally, when all it is is a Horror remake were discussing.

Originally posted by Roy L Dennis
When people rate films on terms of gore they are well aware of what the word means, possible because they can use a dictionary.

Now what exactly would you call that?

[Superplasmatron]

when someone repeatedly ignores the fact that the meaning of a word is define by the dictionary and not by missuses of a word, is that my fault? Just because you have decided to dislike me simply because, I think that overall this film is not very good, has nothing to do with the forum. If you could please just except this and move on.

[shoe1985]

Originally posted by chinton
Its too bad I was actually excited about McDowell playing Loomis but it just didn't work at all.

I was happy to hear he was playing Loomis too, but he was wasted. The scene were Michael breaks the window in the car and takes Laurie was such a terrible performance by Malcolm. I heard he wasn't told when Michael would break the window, and it seemed so fake, like you knew he wasn't ready for it, but it didn't feel right.


Are people actually fighting over what gore means? Ok ladies and gentlemen, take a deep breath, now go outside and enjoy the sun. This is the stupidest discussion I have read in a long time. It was bloody, but nothing to get upset about. It seemed realistic too me with the violence.