Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here.

So at this point, I think a good half of the theater at the HALLOWEEN screening were AICN readers. I am not going to exert a lot of energy sputtering and griping about this one, because who knows? Maybe Rob fixed everything I didn’t like about the script. Maybe it works as a film in a way that it didn’t work on the page.

Or maybe it doesn’t at all. We’ll see.

But for now, here’s another handful of reviews, starting with this quick one:

Hello

I got a chance to see that New York screening of Halloween and I wanted to send in my thoughts.

Overall I thought it was very good, but It could be better. I didn't mind the focus on Michael, but I did feel they spent a little bit too much time on that. I think they should have spent a little more time on the classic part of the story with Laurie, the girls and that stuff. Scout Taylor-Compton does a really good job as do Danielle Harris and the other girl and I think something can be said about the classic slasher style of the teen girls in peril.

The acting was above average to great in this movie and Rob Zombie did do a really good job with the scares and overall style of the movie. The part with a topless Danielle Harris getting chased and brutalized by Michael is actually really scary and much more effective then you would think. It comes off much more intense and scary then it sounds. It's not just a naked girl to have a naked girl. It really has a dramatic point, and a effective result. Not so much for a out of place rape scene earlier in the picture. It doesn't match the tone at all. The violence is severe, and there are many kills. The whole movie is pretty in your face. Nowhere near as subtle as the original.

Anyway, I really liked the film, but I'm not sure it can be compared to the original. It's a good movie, in fact it is one of the better horror films Ive seen in awhile, and its much better than the last 4 or 5 sequels thats for sure. But the original is a classic.

sincerely,
Roycewriter

Seems like a mildly positive reaction. How about this next one?

Just wanted to send in my test screening review. Never sent in a review before, but I was at the NY screening with my girlfriend and I'm a huge horror fan and I just had to write.

Just call me "Barry's Fat"

I decided to wait to review Halloween to see what other people wrote. I like how people want to hate it, and try to nitpick..but can't help but like it in spite of them going in wanting to dislike it. Why do I like that? Well, because this movie is just that good. Seriously people. It's just THAT good.

Now before people start yelling PLANT and calling me a non-fan and all other such bull$@t, I do have to say this. Is it the original Halloween? NO, it isn't. Is it better? Well, that is opinion. What is it? It's Rob Zombie's Halloween.. it is not John Carpenter's Halloween. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I'm decidedly mixed on the Halloween series and Rob Zombie. I hated House of 1000K... well hate is strong. But I just didn't like it. But I LOVE Devil's Rejects.

As for Halloween lets go down the list:

Halloween: Great
Halloween 2: Good
Halloween 3: Huh?
Halloween 4: Fair, almost good.
Halloween 5: Crap
Halloween 6: Total crap.
Halloween H20: Fair, borderline crap.
Halloween R: Crap

Here is where I'm gonna get attacked... but I feel the comparison is valid. For fan screaming 'no remakes', your hero, John Carpenter himself was at the helm of a remake called "The Thing". His remake is classic in his own right. After making a hit with Halloween and a few other films, John decided to remake a film he loved growing up. After Rob Zombie made two films, he was asked to remake one of his favorite films, Halloween, and after a lot of soul searching he did. And like John, I think Rob has hit a home run. Is it the original film.. NO. because Rob is filmmaker with his own vision, like John was.

I'm not going to do a blow by blow of the story, I don't want to ruin the film for anyone. Plus everyone else already did anyway.

Everyone knows by now that the film focuses on Michael more than the town or the female trio of the original. That is a welcome change. To me it makes no sense to copy the first one directly. John Carpenter didn't do it with "The Thing" did he?

With this one major change he was able to create one of my favorite things about this new movie. The Michael/Dr. Loomis relationship. It's very different from the one in the original film. Loomis from the old film saw Michael as pure evil. Loomis in this film does too, but at the same time there is a weird friendship, a bond... maybe even a fatherly love. Dr. Loomis truly cares about Michael in this film, and in adding this Rob does what he does with all the characters, he creates emotion and deeper characters. Rob's Michael isn't a faceless killer, he becomes a faceless killer... but Dr. Loomis can see deeper. It's touching in a strange way. One of the reasons this works is because of the performance of Malcolm McDowell as Loomis. He just brings the character to life. Is he Donald Pleasence? Not at all... because he doesn't try to be. Why would he? Donald is a icon of the series, and he can't be touched. Rob knows this, we all know this. Leave that comparison at the door.

The cast is incredible. Scout-Taylor Compton slides into the role of Laurie Strode with ease. She is still a good girl like Jamie Lee, but it is 2007 and she has a more modern realistic flair. She isn't a buttoned up prude. She is alive, spunky and very realistic. Her character just pops of the screen with energy. Danielle Harris is equally good, creating a very modern and realistic Annie. She isn't little Jamie from 4 and 5 thats for sure. I could go down the list... the whole cast just pops of the screen. It was great watching them. I'll say this for Rob Zombie, he must be an actors director, because these characters are so real and alive, which is surprising because the movie moves along with such purpose and energy we hardly slow down enough to get to know them.... yet they still shine. It was great to see Dee Wallace Stone too... she still has it. She is THE movie mom. I can't belive I'm talking about actors and performance in a horror review, but it's simply a strong point of the film and one of the major reasons it works.

Don't worry though, it isn't all character study, the movie is violent as hell. It's intense and strong, it is fast and furious, and it doesn't let up. In this lies my only complaint. Its TOO fast. Doing Michael's back story, plus the plot of the original does make for a lot of story telling. Maybe it's a studio mandate to make horror films 90min, but this film is so rich and so interesting in could be almost 2 hours and still shine. I'd like to spend more time with these people, because unlike most horror films, they are interesting people. The speed also does tend to cut down on the slow burn suspense. While the film can be scary in that nail-bitting furious way, the slow build up of the original film is not here, and that may upset some.

I hope they have a longer cut on DVD.

In closing I just have to say bravo. This is one of the best horror films I have seen in a long time and its not even done yet. (I'm a big old school 70s/80s fan.. this new SAW stuff just doesn't cut it for me.) I do think it needs to take time to breath, but on the whole it delivers and it can stand proud, side by side with the original. It's not better, its not worse, but I hope like the remake of "The Thing" it will be a classic in it's own right. It deserves it. A dead franchise is reborn.

"Barry's Fat"