“Hey Mori, I have to be honest. I went to [someplace] the other night and watched what we were told was the "final version" of the film. I called it a screening, because as you know, I didn't want anyone to possibly know where I saw it and get anyone in trouble. I am already reading however that the version I reviewed was NOT the final version. Apparently a couple scenes are different. The version we watched was dated just three weeks ago on the coding at the beginning of the DVD and let's just say it belonged to someone who would HAVE the final version and I'd like to only say that. But if my version is not the final version, I am completely fine with you removing my review from the site or whatever needs to be done. I stand by my review, but if it's not the final film (which I was told that it was), then I don't feel that my review is fair. I'm sorry that this was a screw up on my part. I hope you know that I've never done this in the past, and will MAKE SURE not to do this in the future. I'm sorry for this. Ford Fairlane”So while you guys were going apeshit in the talkback for that article... and rightfully so, based on my introduction... I was out seeing HALLOWEEN at the 12:01 show at the Topanga Canyon AMC 16, the closest place to my house where it was playing tonight. When I got home and saw what happened, I realized I’d need to address this, so I called a buddy of mine who I know had the workprint, and I asked him if he would come over with it so I could see the differences for myself. 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.
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
I AM FIST
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
I AM FIST
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:48 a.m. CST
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:49 a.m. CST
YEAH!!! HOW DOES IT FEEL, YOU SLAGS!!!
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:50 a.m. CST
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:50 a.m. CST
YEAH!! TAKE THAT, SASQUATCH!!!!
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:50 a.m. CST
YEAH!! TAKE THAT, SASQUATCH!!!!
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:51 a.m. CST
When the original still holds up quite nicely.
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:54 a.m. CST
and promise you'll call (bats eyelashes)
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:54 a.m. CST
I say that.
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:55 a.m. CST
MONEY. Now, join me. Lemme teach you the way of the fist.
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:56 a.m. CST
It's the classic "mad scientist" movie. He wants to destroy the world for no particular reason. I love the bleak ending. I'd just move to an island.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:04 a.m. CST
Jesus, Moriarty, I generally love your reviews but, dude, trim the fat!
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:07 a.m. CST
Because TCM remake made 80 mil on a 12 mil budget. And yeah - its all about the green.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:11 a.m. CST
Halloween will make all its money back this weekend, guaranteed. then, when it comes out on DVD in 3 months it will make a ton more dough.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:12 a.m. CST
by spud mcspud
...maybe even I would go and see it!<P> As it is, I think Rob Zombie's HILLBILLYWE'EN may be a bargain matinee movie on a wet Sunday for me, or possibly a wait-for-the-DVD. It'll be out on DVD by - hey! - Hallowe'en anyway.<P> Fuck HILLBILLYWE'EN. Another footnote in the long, long line of shit remakes. Though it CANNOT possibly be as bad as the remade FOG.<P> Can it?
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:14 a.m. CST
by C.K. Lamoo
Oh come down off the mountain, Moriarty. It's another schlock horror movie by another schlock director. You act as if this is a review of "Cries and Whispers" and Rob Zombie is Bergman. Here's what it's about. Killing as many teenagers as possible in as gory as manner as possible, especially girls, who represent the cute girls that won't go out with you but who will have sex with other guys. Yes, kill them all, using obvious phallic symbols just so they get the message. Really, Moriarty, the more you take this stuff seriously the bigger a poser you become. Grab some popcorn, sit back and stop trying to be the Judith Christ of Slasher Films.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:24 a.m. CST
I love this stuff but I know not to take it too seriously. This review is overkill. It's akin to disecting the nuances of a Smurf cartoon.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:30 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
...White Zombie back together and play some f***in' music again? Who the hell decided he was a film director anyway?
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:34 a.m. CST
Mori, I really think we are already there. Sad to say. But I have to ask, though: if you are going to make a Halloween 9, isn't it better to TRY to do something different, rather than another photo-copied sequel? Even if it DOES NOT work, I have to at least give Rob Zombie credit for ATTEMPTING to do something different. Enjoyed the review.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:35 a.m. CST
You just saved me $9.25!! Too bad because I love Devils Rejects and I actually held out some hope for this.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:36 a.m. CST
Personally I like long reviews which let off stream and go after the reasons a film didn't work...will certainly ensure I don't ever pay to see this POS...
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:36 a.m. CST
by C.K. Lamoo
And the takes a big dump on it when it comes out. Don't you realize you are 50 percent responsible for anyone who sees this turd?
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:39 a.m. CST
I don't think complaining about seeing Vader and Boba as kids, and the Death Star being built are good criticisms of the prequels at all. If you didn't want to see the history of those things, then why would you fucking watch the films to begin with? What did people expect? I know, they wanted sequels with an ageing Han, Luke and Leia. I bet if Lucas had made them instead people would have loved them no matter how bad they were.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST
by barnaby jones
Don't pay to see Rob Zombie take a shit in your local cinemas this weekend. Make a stand, you can put an end to this remake madness. All it takes is a flop of massive proportions and Halloween 07 could be it !! You can do it Americans, i have faith.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... it's not "bashing." It's an explanation of why some people simply don't like the prequels. It's a very real reason. It's a good reason. If you don't share that reason, that's fine. But dial the anger down a little, man. No one's attacking you personally if they feel that way, and I see a larger issue in that statement which directly relates to HALLOWEEN. It's not "unrelated," it's part of the point I'm making.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST
And I urge others to avoid. Hollywood has GOT to stop this. NO MORE REMAKES!
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:52 a.m. CST
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST
It's kinda odd that Lucas took Yoda's advise "You must unlearn what you have learned" and applied it to his storytelling. Worse is that other writers adopted it as well. There is definately such a thing as too much information in storytelling. You have to give the audience what they need in order to love/hate the characters, but you can easily flood them with so much useless information that it ruins the story. Using the original Star Wars, for example, we didn't reallly NEED to know anything more about how Vader became the evil bastard he was other than the info Obi-Wan gave us. After learning he was a whiny little bitch who got passed over for a promotion before becoming the terror of the galaxy kinda ruins the image. Same goes for Boba Fett. Sometimes mystery is what makes characters so appealing. Making the Star Wars prequels was tantamount to JK Rowling deciding to writer the story about Harry Potter's years living in the Cupboard Under the Stairs.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8 a.m. CST
"I don’t give a shit where the stuff I love comes from! I just love the stuff I love!" Wow. What a narrow-minded approach to art and storytelling. I'm sure glad Patton wasn't doing standup when Godfather II came out. "Do you like Don Corleone?" "Oh, yeah. What a great character. Such a badass..." "Because in the second one, you get to see him as a little kid!" "ARRGGHH!!"
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:01 a.m. CST
I love the halloween film's !I like all of them except 8 I had hopes for this not high hopes but hopes that myers possibly might be made actually scary once again .Instead it's a horrid piece of shit. To top it off hugely boring
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:02 a.m. CST
Maybe if he directed a film written by someone else he could help get the "monster kid" stuff out of his system.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:03 a.m. CST
Rob Zombie !Hopefully Bacon kicking some ass will make me forget about this http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/REVIEWS/70817018
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:10 a.m. CST
... for me, at least, is because he genuinely seems to want every film to work, and when they don't, he dissects them piece by piece, explaining in detail exactly why he felt they didn't. Really good read, and very well-written.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:13 a.m. CST
They always sound great on the surface, but they turn out to be tripe. Never really thought of it too much before, but Moriarty seems to have a point about Zombie not really giving a damn about the characters who are struggling against his 'monsters'. I have to admit though, being a BIG Marx Brothers fan, that I was very put-off by his naming most of the characters in his other movies after Groucho Marx characters (Rufus T. Firefly from "Duck Soup", Captain Spalding from "Animal Crackers", Otis Driftwood from "A Night at the Opera"). A tip-of-the-hat to older movies is one thing, but this is practically an ass raping.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:15 a.m. CST
...what does Carpenter think of this? have you talked to him about it? has he seen it?! is it even on his radar?
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:16 a.m. CST
by The Real MiraJeff
1. hell of a review... 2. can't wait to see Poughkeepsie, heard nothing but good things about it... 3. glad you spoke up about not being the biggest fan of Hatchet. It's not a very good film, but at least it's not ashamed of its B-movie status. i think in 5 years time, hatchet will have developed a cult following (which I won't be a part of) and i agree, halloween will be forgotten and left to idle on the DVD shelves and in bargain bins... we deserved better... would love to get a look at the work print-- how does a rape fit into the film in the place of that laughable prison transfer scene?
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST
To humanise it with real characters and some good old fashioned dialogue. People used to talk and communicate in horror films. It wasnt always just 30 second spooky camera pans to set up mood.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:22 a.m. CST
After "Escape from LA", I think Carpenter has forfit his rights to insult sequels/remakes of his earlier works (seeing as 'Escape from LA' was both remake AND sequel rolled into one).
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:23 a.m. CST
by Lou Stools
Coming from a guy named Rob Zombie!? Oooooo…scaaaary! What, was Frank Werewolf and Stan Mummy already taken?
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:26 a.m. CST
by Boba Fat
That's Mr Zombie to you. Rob to his friends or just plain old Ro Zo to his close family.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:29 a.m. CST
Danny Baldwin is supposed to be amazing. heh.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:30 a.m. CST
The first half of this movie is pure Rob Zombie, which isn't a good thing in my opinion. Why does anyone who wants to make something gritty and real, feel the need to drop the F-Bomb constantly? The first 10 minutes of this movie shocks and awes us with the word Fuck like it was the law to use it every other word. He uses it so much it's comical. But his version of Mikey's origins are so stereo-typical that it's laughable, Stripper Mom, Mom's abusive boyfriend/thing, sisters is an uncaring slut, and let's not forget Michael's innocent baby sister. Everything in the movie during the first half is unbelievably predictable. The second half of the movie changes pace and becomes an homage to the original Halloween, for the most part. The movie slows down considerably and while he could not have made Michael any more powerful and impressive looking in everything he does, the movie just lacks on every other level. It entertains, but does not compel. It does not draw you in, so you become a bored voyeur that travels with him from murder-to-murder. I liked this film better than his other movies, but that's not saying much in my opinion.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:53 a.m. CST
In the rape scene, the younger asshole guard and a buddy of his bring a teen girl who is a new inmate into Michael Myers' cell and rape her while he sits at his desk making another mask. It's only once they start fiddling with his masks that he snaps and kills the two before escaping.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:15 a.m. CST
You guys keep bashing great movies. It kind of lets me know what to go see. One thing you people forget to remember is that these filmakers are not making movies for MOVIE GEEKS, they are making them for people. You guys can go on nitpicking every little detail you did not like or you can learn to accept it for what it is and enjoy. The original Halloween was a classic and a great movie for fans of the slasher genre but most people will say it is boring. But yet we love it because it is a classic. Oh and yes rednecks going crazy and killing people is good fun. Hence why I have seen Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 so many times. Some of you may disagree which is my point exactly.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:17 a.m. CST
I've felt the same way about RZ for so long now. Zombie's been posing for a looong time. Mori's description of Zombie's cinematic malaise can be applied to his musical career as well. It's the same shtick over and over, chugga chugga chugga. Mori's been holding back on this movie (and the hollywood system), as have a lot of people, hoping for better. Again, though, we get what's expected. Way to unload!
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:20 a.m. CST
Because I will never have an opinion of this film in the theater. And it's not even that I want to hate it - I just know I will. The one and only thing that made Halloween such a treasure was that it was SCARY. The blood and gore was minimal compared to other outings. But it had sound and tone and being alone. The Face came out of nowhere - you didn't expect him, you didn't know where he would show up next. He was DEATH. <p> DEATH doesn't have a childhood and DEATH doesn't need a reason. That is what makes it so fucking SCARY..
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST
Right after Des2ent....ugh
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
by Mr. Nice Gaius
Not only do I appreciate the review, but I'm glad to see you take the filmmakers and their execs to task. It's good to see you back in razor form.<P>In my opinion, this is a movie Zombie (or anyone else for that matter) should not have made. And I can't imagine any true fan of the genre was clamoring for this...there's just no need. It's right up there with the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake and other braindead "reimaginings". They seem to serve no other purpose than as a training ground for up and coming directors and apparent excuses to use modern filmstock and better practical gore effects.<P>Like I've said before in Talkback:<P>WHERE HAS THE HORROR GONE?!
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST
by Nate Champion
That's right, fuckers... THIS is what we think of your fucking shit-ass remakes, sequels, and mindless drudge week after week after week. Grow a pair and see if you can't find someone with something to say instead of a poseur like Zombie who thinks being a fan of horror movies makes him a filmmaker.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST
.....is this the way movie buffs are? I remember when 1000 corpses came out. I was so hyped I couldnt wait to see it, had to travel 2 hour to find a theatre that was showing it. Loved the movie, my friends loved the movie, heck eveyone I know loves the movie and we watch it every halloween for fun. But then I come home and look at this site and there is a review bashing it call it the worst movie ever made. I almost boycoted this site forever. I use to come here to read reviews and see if I want to see a particular movie but now I come here just to watch a bunch of fanboys bitch about this and that about movies. Most horror movies are bad thats why we love them some of the greatest horror movies ever made are also the worst movies ever made. Usually the ones you bash the most are the best(uhum TRANSFORMERS). They should change the site to yaintitcoolasme.com
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:07 a.m. CST
Bang on Mori. Summed up everything I was feeling, right down to the growing of the balls on the executives. God I hope this movie tanks at the BO, otherwise we're all doomed.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:34 a.m. CST
No fucking way! I didnt see that coming!!! <br> <br> *ends sarcasm*
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:35 a.m. CST
What's happening in the movie industry is exactly what happened in the music industry. We're getting prepackaged "art" devoid of any and all originality. Executives are more worried about making stuff that'll have kitsch value or that America will feel safe knowing about, and so we are left with an absolute overload of banality. Unless something can be (to quote "The X-Files" movie) programmed, categorized, or easily referenced, it's overlooked and shoved under the mat. To a large scale, the music and movie industries are saying, "Would you rather do something that the average American knows and loves, or would you rather take a chance at showing them something they just might not be comfortable with?" And sadly, we're traveling down that road that Mike Judge has predicted that we'd travel down in his film "Idiocracy". There's another example of good humor completely wasted by people who didn't want someone pointing out the shortcomings of this country. All these remakes, all these reimaginings aren't going to mean SHIT in a few years. When are people going to realize that classics are CLASSICS FOR A FUCKING GOOD REASON? The voices were original, they were groundbreaking, they were incredible. Instead, we're douched with rehash after rehash, and it's about time that someone kicked some ass "28 Days Later"-style. That movie, at least to me, revolutionized the way that horror films should be made - I know, it's a story as old as "I Am Legend" by Richard Matheson, about the survivors of some catastrophe locking themselves away from the terrors that abound beyond their walls, but at least there was something new and fresh about it. "Grindhouse" failed because America wasn't comfortable with the notion that two "Hollywood" directors could actually have fun and be themselves. American media has gotten so stale that we're just relying on what is known to make a quick buck. There's a song by Juniper Lane (local DC band) that talks about "prepackaged art defeating the artisan" - it could not be closer to the truth. I really wish someone would step up and knock one out of the park with some fucking balls!
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:45 a.m. CST
by Sledge Hammer
...that a site that blindly praises the uberhack that is Eli Roth can then turn around and bash Zombie for doing pretty much the same thing (only usually doing so to far better effect), something that they've been doing all the way along this one. just seems odd to me.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST
Here's what we've got so far, and all of this is just one man's opinion. <br> "House of 1000 Corpses" - Rob Zombie's first movie. It was a good horror film - felt a little like a student horror film from someone who wanted to be Oliver Stone, but the resulting imagery is some stuff that is not easily forgotten. The quick cuts between the film continuity and video footage to show what the Firefly family really was were put to good use, but at the same time, it's a family of hillbillies who cussed up a storm and did crazy shit. Someone mentioned above that they watch this movie every year on Halloween, and I while I don't get that, I think Wash from "Firefly" said it best: "Hey, some people juggle baby geese." I watched this movie opening day in the theaters and then once again on our then-new high definition television on HBO, and I found that while the effort was good, it just wasn't my thing. Not bashing it, just didn't like it. <br> "The Devil's Rejects" - A more straightforward entry for Rob Zombie, showing great promise and great execution. For someone expecting another sort-of "student film", I was very surprised by the maturity that Zombie put forth as a filmmaker. Still, it was a movie about crazy hillbillies who cussed too much. Great use of music, though. I appreciated this movie quite a bit, although I don't think I'd watch it every year for on Halloween, which brings us to our next subject... <br> "Halloween" - again, with the hillbillies who cuss too much. Can we say that Zombie's crazy-hillbilly routine is wearing a little thin? You can't explain three movies (one of them completely unrelated to the first two) the same way. It's like he's a one-trick pony who feels the need to shower the audiences in blood, gore, and relentless use of the word "fuck". This new "Halloween" should never have been made in the first place, because it basically tried all of the things that were great about the original and dropped gargantuan piles of shit all over it. The trouble is that this film is going to ruin the legacy that the original created for itself by dumbing down an iconic horror movie character, thus making it easier for audiences to process. I'm sorry, but it was GREAT not really knowing what drove Michael Myers to kill - he was every bit the "boogeyman" that lurked under your bed, waiting to jump out at you. But with this new version, we see that, whoa, kids who come from fucked-up families are going to turn out more fucked up than their parents are! Ooooh! <br> It's time to sack up and make something that audiences are going to appreciate again. It's like this movie was shat into existence and will probably wind up being a festering turd that will hopefully change the way we're supposed to do things, like... have a distinct voice with which to tell stories? <br> Then again, I'm just armchair quarterbacking.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST
I watched the workprint and wasn't really impressed at all. I had a feeling the finished version would be worse and not better. It's too bad that Rob seemed to feel that Laurie Strode meant nothing to the story. Personally, I could care less about how Michael became a killer. He was pure evil in the the was Dr. Loomis. The fact that he had no real reason for killing except that he was a psycho was what made him scary. Not anymore though. This movie will be a hit regardless because of name recognition and maybe we'll get more of Laurie's story in the next one and less of who Michael is.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:05 a.m. CST
Talk about eloquence man, I think you hit a new level here. Sorry it had to be such a depressing subject, but at least your writing itself is a pleasure to read.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:07 a.m. CST
That was a hell of an article. <br> <br> The thing I can't get over, after reading Halloween reviews, is that Zombie turned Michael's parents into child abusers. <br> <br> I know Mike's parents were only seen briefly in the original but weren't they normal suburban parents? <br> <br> I always thought that was the cool part about these films. <br> <br> Michael was a normal kid, with normal parents, in a normal neighborhood, with a normal (albeit slutty) sister - and he just snapped with no explaination. <br> <br> That's what made him scary.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:18 a.m. CST
by Darth Thoth
What's the name of it? Thanks.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:20 a.m. CST
That was the whole push behind Grindhouse. "These are movies nobody appreciated. blah-blah." All this is complementing him I'm sure.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:21 a.m. CST
by El Scorcho
Thank you for agreeing Mori. It's just so silly and bizarre that I love it.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:45 a.m. CST
Saw it a few weeks ago during a dub session. What a self indulgent piece of crap. The constant use of harsh static as a transition tool was annoying and sloppy. I did not buy into most of the "real life" interviews. I felt the actors were trying too hard to convince the audience of the horror on the tapes. And they are pretty gruesome and disturbing for the most part. some cool sequences. On the whole i think that movie feels its too smart for its genre. And i feel that it is one of the first horror movies that deserves the label of torture porn cause there is little else to the movie. Another thing that annoys me is the killer seems like a collage of a bunch of stories I read about in criminal psych textbooks.
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST
Is that the he wanted to see Darth Vader and didn't get to see Darth Vader. If this didn't have grown up Mike with the mask and knife killing people in it, you'd have a point. I'm so sick of this site trashing this film. They finally hire a director who respects the genre and character of Michael Myers(Zombie even spoke in the Halloween documentary). They hire him to give us a proper remake, which if you're going to do a remake it's the proper way to go. I'm not saying Rob Zombie can do no wrong, I'm just saying if you were trashing it because it was bad would be one thing. I have to agree with Massa on this one.
Aug. 31, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST
I've lived near Poughkeepsie all my life and now attend college across the river from it, so although the movie is not true, it'll be fun to catch that one when it comes out in the actual city.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST
*uhum * somebody shoot that kid.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:22 p.m. CST
A couple of things:<br><br> First, comparing David Lynch to what Mori is describing is way off. Lynch's style is to take an idealist setting and characters and show that behind closed doors there is a lot more seedier and evil going on. Buy doing so, he makes the familiar very unfamiliar. It would be like showing Ward and June Cleaver as SM swingers when the sun goes down.<br><br> As for the mask, it was explained in the original. It was just happened to be the mask that was there in the hardware store Michael broke into. Carpenter had no significance to the mask except to hide Michael's face. The only other movie Carpenter was involved in at all was Halloween II and that took place several hours after the original was set. Carpenter had nothing to do with the fact that all the other sequels decided to use the same masks.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:24 p.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
All over the streets of NYC for 5 bucks. This movie is totally fucked because I have already heard from 4 people that the DVD is crystal clear and the sound is of good quality.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:28 p.m. CST
First you bash people who trash this film who haven't seen it. Then you trash Mori for watching the movie and trashing it by using faulty logic. Then you claim you haven't even seen the movie. So how can you attack Mori for not liking the movie that he has actually seen because he is wrong based on your opinion without even see the movie? Hypocrite, thy name is Memories-of-Murder.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
The Last House on the Left. That type of shit is more his speed. If the upcoming Platinum Dunes produced "F13th" remake is better than this, it will just prove what a shame and wasted opportunity this was. Sure all the sequels were weak. And techinically "Halloween" was already remade with Part 4. But the reason this film was even made was to re-start a dead franchise and make more money. The film Zombie made is all over the place and lacks any sort of real mainstream appeal. It may not bomb completely this weekend. But the bitch has no legs. The thought of it making any sort of "Saw" like money is practically impossible at this point. And that's a fucking shame. Because the character of Michael Myers is better than Jigsaw and any bullshit torture porn Hostel movie. While I am at it Fuck Eli Roth. He gets too much love on this site. Back to Halloween, I'm just shocked at the downturn Zombie made from Rejects to Halloween. He needs to stick to directing. No more writing. Just direct. That's where the majority of his talents lie.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
seriously excellent reading. mori, you are the reigning champ of regular writers on this site. (neill cumpston aside, of course)
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
by Stalin vs Predator
That could become the new Talkback Fad of the Month. The Snakes on Everything, if you will. Oh, God, what have I just suggested?
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:54 p.m. CST
Nice find... I lol'd... but that's because I haven't seen RHINO yet. Once my wallet is thinner, my laugh will be sadder too. Sneaking seems to be the only way, as far as I'm concerned.
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:57 p.m. CST
Aug. 31, 2007, 1:59 p.m. CST
MORIARTY: Look at all of the people on here talking about this fucking movie. It means something to them whether they liked it or not. It's the best freaking horror movie in a while, and definitely the best in the Freddy/Jason/Myers catalogue of recent years. It's one thing to ask studio execs to bring the original (i'm guessing you're finding hollywood a tough business right now as you get into its depths. and good luck to you!), BUT MICHAEL MYERS IS AN ETERNAL CHARACTER. WHAT YOU DON'T REALIZE IS THIS CHARACTER CAN'T DIE. THEY'LL BE MAKING MICHAEL MYERS MOVIES FOR AS LONG AS AMERICAN IS AROUND. So it's great that Zombie brought back the horror and brought it back anew. There's no reason to rip the guy like you just did. Bullshit man.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST
by Buzz Maverik
Homer and the kids are watching one of those endless senate scenes about tariffs and trade restrictions. Suddenly, an Imperial Walker smashes through the wall.<P>BART:"Alright! This is what I've been waiting for!"<p>The Walker takes a seat and joins in the debate.<p>Like the SOUTH PARK kids, Bart and Lisa head to Skywalker ranch to straighten Lucas out. In the end, Lucas sees the error of his ways.<p>LISA:"Where are you going, Mr. Lucas?"<p>LUCAS:"To the video store! I'm going back to ripping off old westerns and samurai movies!"
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST
theceure did not say transformers was the greatest movie ever. He said it was bashed the most on this site but yet it was very good movie. Just like everything else here. Damn does everybody here MISS THE POINT. deadshot07 you are an idiot and need to kill yourself for the good of all.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
How the fuck can you re-invent something.Once it's been invented thats it.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:07 p.m. CST
This is no way meant to be a bash, but I have to ask you a question. The original review was from a workprint, which obviously the reviewer shouldn't have had since he didn't know it was the final cut. Then after you saw if you asked someone to bring over a workprint so you could see the differences. Isn't this wrong? You have (rightly so) railed on people for piracy, most notably surrounding The Hulk. Really, how is this any different? Someone viewing something that they were not supposed to, because they didn't pay for it. I realize that you did go see it in a theater, but the second time you didn't. Since the reviewer didn't know it wasn't the final cut he obviously shouldn't have been watching it. And I know that you were curious about the differences between the theatrical version and the workprint, but that is no different than if I had seen it at a theater then downloaded a torrent of it to see the differences. Isn't what the reviewer (and you) did wrong? After all each viewing that you didn't pay for is money taken away from the studios.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:09 p.m. CST
None of this surprises me after reading the script reviews, and seeing the various clips and trailers. This movie looks like crap.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST
by Midol Boy
Damn you, Rob Zombie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:30 p.m. CST
Anyone remember what song starts the theatrical version? In the work print it's Monster Mash, but they changed it for the theatrical. Not sure why. Obviously, if I can't remember it, it's not as good. Thanks dudes!! It's killing me trying to remember
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:45 p.m. CST
Man, you hit a lot of targets dead on with this piece. I haven't seen the movie, so I can't comment about the specifics (although, if true, I agree with you 100%) but your commentary on horror in general, man that's true. A movie like Behind The Mask is left to a primarily DTV release while this is on thousands of screens? For that matter, even more obscure stuff like Altered or Toolbox Murders? Something is really, really broken in the movie industry.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:48 p.m. CST
My Halloween was already made. It already scared the living shit out of me years ago. This new killer is not the Michael Myers who gave me nightmares, that Michael is still hiding behind trees watching, waiting to kill, giving me goosebumps as i recall seeing his shadow and that stark white mask. Why do i need a new Halloween and a new Michael Myers when the one i remember was so embedded into my childhood. He was and still is the boogieman... i wish hollywood would stop fucking with perfection.
Aug. 31, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST
I agree with Darthflagg that the Patton Oswalt Prequel thing doesn't fit with Halloweens issues. I have no doubt that Patton didn't like the idea of going back and seeing the beginnings of the Star Wars mythos, but the choice to tell that story has nothing to do with the quality of the prequels- it's HOW the story of the prequels was told, not the fact that Lucas chose to tell that specific story that was the problem. Honestly I don't know anyone who didn't like the idea of exploring Star Wars' past. In fact, it was a much smarter choice then doing more sequels, because the original trilogy BEGGED to have it's beginnings told. Star Wars was SUPPOSED to have a history, Halloween (more specifically- Michael Myers) was not. I also disagree that Halloween 2 was a bad film and retrofitted the Laurie/Michael relationship. Watch the Halloween DVD with the extended cut- the sister connection was there from the beginning. Halloween 2 picks up right where Halloween left off, and does a pretty damn good job of keeping the mood set in the first film. Michael wandering the neighborhood as the news travels of his exploits is fantastic, and very much in-line with the first film- paced with a feeling of uneasiness. Not to mention there are a ton of threads and little connections that really make Halloween 1 and 2 a sold whole. Loomis sacrificing himself to stop Michael makes a lot of sense.
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:17 p.m. CST
Unfortunately, for a movie to be daring and completely original is a massive financial risk anymore. Look at Grindhouse. I saw it twice at the theater - both times the entire audience loved it... and yet a box office bomb. I will grab both movies on DVD, then the theatrical cut of Grindhouse when that is released next year, to do my part. But the wheels are spinning off this runaway train. The next generation of cinema goers will be weened on youtube skateboarders getting their nuts kabonged and not Scorcese or Kubrick. So let's all get ready to enjoy Ashton Kutchner in Taxi Driver 2010 - Travis Bickle Buck Em Down Yo!
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:18 p.m. CST
I don't see how anyone can defend that fucking disgrace of a summer blockbuster. Poorly shot action sequences where its hard to tell what's going on half the time or if you're looking at a robot's face or elbow. Metal mouth's that look like the devil's asshole. And that ridiculous GM commercial before the final confrontation. WHAT THE HELL DID THEY MOVE THE FIGHT TO DOWNTOWN LA WHEN THEY WERE RIGHT NEXT TO A FUCKING UNPOPULATED DESERT? Fuck Michael Bay.
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:19 p.m. CST
... the difference between the remakes that you mentioned (the ones that actually exist, I mean), is that those were remakes of films that were not regarded as classics works of cinema. In fact, hardly anyone had seen those films until certain directors looked at them and said, "You know, I think I can tell this story in a different way than the original approached it." In other words - there was an honest REASON behind remaking those films. You cannot use that same logic for remaking a film like HALLOWEEN, which is a. not that old, b. has been seen by many, many people and c. is regarded as a CLASSIC work of American horror cinema. Your argument just does not work.
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:19 p.m. CST
by Dr. Chim Richalds
this argument that Zombie did NOT try to explain Myers in the movie? If that were the case, then what's the point of the extended childhood sequence?
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:32 p.m. CST
Sure, some remakes were made of extremely prolific films (like in the case of THE SEVEN SUMARAI and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN), but as I said before, there was a very strong case for remaking the film - that of wanting to tell the same basic story but from a different perspective, creating a clear difference, even though the basic story is the same. I have not seen HALLOWEEN, so I really can't sit here and rip it to pieces fairly, but the reaction that most people had of being utterly revolted at the idea of remaking the film (before the film was even made) stems from the fact that there is absolutely no NEED to remake what is regarded as a classic modern film. Now, if someone in Japan decided to remake HALLOWEEN and fused the familiar story into Japanese cinematic conventions - THAT would be an example of a case for remaking the film.
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:32 p.m. CST
The fact is, we get remakes, we get Re-inventions, we get sequels, we get prequels, we even get remakes of sequels And get this, we also get originals. So we are all spoilt for choice and there is no frign way I got time to see every film that comes out every week. Which means we got choice and we cant see every film we want to see. If we think film makers are wasting time remaking a classic and should be making an original, the film makers dont think so, they have a passion for what they are doing so its up to them and obviously there is a marker otherwise they wouldnt be made in the first place. Personally, I generally hate the idea of remakes but I dont condemn it unless they are remaking something scene for scene and inferiorly so (ex psycho). Where am I going with this? Fuk knows. Just want to be 43rd on the talkback
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST
Is it based on Kendall Francois? He was arrested back in 1998 for killing prostitutes in Poughkeespie. He buried their bodies in his house. He told his parents the "smell" was from a dead racoon......
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:55 p.m. CST
Now Halloween has to pay the price for it. Wrong movie for him. http://tinyurl.com/ysumch
Aug. 31, 2007, 3:57 p.m. CST
Simply awesome. Thanks, Mori! P.S. Halloween 2007 sucks ass. The prequels are great! I'm out.
Aug. 31, 2007, 4 p.m. CST
I really like the movie but not as much as I did Devil's, hell I even liked house as a shitty color saturated 70's throwback that it was, stupid popcorn horror fun if you will. Anyway I thought Rob's point in the childhood of Michael was showing that there is nothing you can do, you are born a killer, I mean a loving mother and a therapist every day for 15 years, I assume an average person who got fucked up from a bad upbringing would definately improve if not cure after 15 years of treatment, yet Michael being the soulless killing shark was inpenetrable, you can even seen how hollow the kid is when he says he loves his mom, you know he doesn't mean it, he is jsut pretending to be normal. Sorry for a hige runon sentence, I don't right much anymore but I think my point kind of got across.
Aug. 31, 2007, 4:05 p.m. CST
I thought that scene was supposed to be funny? Everyone I saw it with thought it was meant for a laugh. I wanna ask rob, Not sure how Mori is positive it's not.
Aug. 31, 2007, 4:13 p.m. CST
I'm glad I'm not the only one who immediately made the Patton Oswalt Star Wars prequel comparison. Jesus christ I don't care to dwell on kiddie Michael or his Natural Born Killers re-tread family. The word "abortion" is tossed out so often these days, but I think it works here... maybe more stillborn... hmmm. I had to rant in my stupid blog last night about this foolish madness... grrrrr www.myspace.com/therobcat
Aug. 31, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST
This article needs a lot more apologizing for posting a review OF THE WRONG FUCKING VERSION OF THE MOVIE and a lot less kneejerk bashing of the movie for not being the version you would have created in your geniusness. It was a solidly entertaining movie, Laurie Strode was more sympathetic here than in the first movie where she had ZERO personality, and there were enough good ideas to elevate this past any of the Halloween sequels. You're all so desperate to be hipper-than-Rob and bash his work, you're not even paying attention to the movie you're talking about. I'd rather watch this than any of that SAW shit.
Aug. 31, 2007, 5:41 p.m. CST
For your kind words about my post. I agree with your assessments about most remakes... like The Thing, Magnificent seven etc... I think why so many people have gotten worked up over Halloween is simply because everyone who loves horror movies has such a connection with the original. Ask most people and they say what an impact it had on them. Myers was such a calculated mysterious bad ass. When i first heard of the remake to Carpenters "The Fog" (another one of my favorites) i was kind of excited.... until i saw it. When hearing of Halloween my first and only reaction was "how dare they!!!" NOT Halloween!! That movie accomplished everything it possibly could with me, that watching the remake would almost be like cheating on the original. Some movies you just get attached to, they become part of your growing up.
Aug. 31, 2007, 5:52 p.m. CST
by Birdys Piano Teacher
It's called *any* torrent site.
Aug. 31, 2007, 5:56 p.m. CST
by barnaby jones
i also like the prequel trilogy
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:09 p.m. CST
by Space oddity
comparison of this to Citizen Kane? Is it possible Rob Zombie is Memorie and maybe the inordinate amount of time he's spent pre-defending this film that he's supposedly never seen is the reason this movie sucks so hard?
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST
This flick is miserable next to Resurrection. I'll take Busta Rhyme's dropkick any day over Zombie's "reimagining".
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:39 p.m. CST
someone had to say it
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:42 p.m. CST
BUt I just wanted to add tha movie was a Sci-fi Abortion and Ive yet to hear a actual VALID reason why people think it was a good movie.
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST
it said "A Film by Rob Zombie"
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:56 p.m. CST
by Super Rabbi
The movie was shitty, but I think that's pretty much conveyed here. I hope Danielle Harris gets better roles in better movies after this. She's smokin!
Aug. 31, 2007, 6:58 p.m. CST
could you at least refrain from telling others why they disliked the movie and let their opinions speak for themselves. I didn't hate this film because it's supposedly cool - or 'geek dogma' - to bash Rob.I didn't hate this film simply because it's a remake. I didn't hate this film because I am such a fan of the original that I feel anyone who attempts to redo or "reimagine" it deserves an auto-da-fe in the town square. Put simply, I hated this film for one reason and one reason only: IT'S A BAD MOVIE. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it. All the elements that combine to make a good film are missing from this pile of festering dung. Writing? Terrible. Cinematography? Spastic. Characterization? Bad to nonexistent. Suspense/tension? Completely absent. Acting? Horrid. Dialogue? A fork on a blackboard would be more pleasant to the ears. As for Zombie "not playing it safe" and "taking chances" - Bullshit. This movie is as predictable and dull as they come. So please stop accusing everyone who dislikes this film to be guilty of groupthink. If you want a true example of groupthink, why don't you hop on over to Zombie's Myspace page (aka Simpering Fanboy Central.) P.S. Sorry for my longwindedness, but I had to vent a little.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:12 p.m. CST
by Geek Sodomizer
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning or whatever that fucking abortion of a movie was called. Same deal with that movie, Leatherface and all his pals slaughter EVERYONE in the movie. Sorry I don't see horror movies to root for evil psychopaths to win in the end.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:15 p.m. CST
by Blue Meanie 1138
I mean, really...what next? A remake of JAWS from the shark's POV? The original HALLOWEEN was a great piece of pop filmmaking...a perfectly calculated, tight little work that didn't waste a breath on anything unnecessary. And in the end, you can see the fun everyone was having with it. But over the years, geeks have turned it into some kind of holy relic of horror, and from all evidence of early word of mouth, it seems like Zombie has fallen into that trap. Instead of a good scary time, he put MM on the couch. What good is a little scare if you can't have a few laughs, too?
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST
Just saw it. Not since the first film, have I seen a Michael Myers as threatening as he is in Rob Zombie's Halloween. The Michael Myers in this is scary and deadlier than ever. I was first surprised by the beginning, the kid reminded me of Damien from the OMEN. And once he grows up and puts that mask on, Michael Myers was back! This film FEELS like the 1970's original at times and other times it remains very much a Rob Zombie film. The whole thing felt very realistic. Well done Rob.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST
Bullshit. The leaked workprint is dated May 2007. If he had a "final cut" that was 3 weeks old, it would not have had the rape scene, the ending he described, and it would have had more deaths and other changes. Fairline is lying to save some face.
Aug. 31, 2007, 7:53 p.m. CST
He didn't just find her. He found here the same way he did in the original. She came to the old Myer's home and he saw her. When she put the envelope in the mailbox, he picked it up and read the name on it and got the address. He followed her around after that you blind as hell haters.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:02 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... do you understand why that makes no sense? His baby sister's name was "Boo." That's how he knew her. Why would he see an 18-year-old named Laurie Strode and read the address on the envelope and think, "Okay, then, there's my baby sister." As Dourif makes clear in dialogue, it was a secret that she was adopted. No one knew who she was, so unless Michael's mutant ability is smelling his family members or tracking them by magic, it doesn't work.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:13 p.m. CST
I could still recognize someone that looks just like me. I know, cause I had a illegitmate sister!
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:16 p.m. CST
I think John Carpenter is letting all of his films be remade so people can look back and buy his newly restored dvd re releases and realize how much better his versions were. I think he is purposely making sure that the remakes are bad so he looks so much better. I am waiting to find out who is going to destroy the remake of a remake with The Thing, why not just sign on Uwe Boll Movement so at least we know its a joke.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:39 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
I couldn't agree more with Mori. What a fucking waste of film.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST
Thank you. For as smart ass as most readers here are, I was surprised no one got that. I loved this movie. I think it is one of the best horror movies I have seen in at least 5 years. Hostel? Not even close. Saw. Yeah, it was a neat idea, but it does not hold up with repeated viewings. I think Zombie nailed it here. He reimagined it. He told the same story, but from a different POV. Remember that game you played as kids in school. The one where the teacher whispers something in one kids ear, and they pass it on, and eventually the "secret" is all fucked up and different? Zombie tells a story here that has been told before. It is different than the original. Yet it stands on its own two feet. Watch the news in any city. Any big event is told over and over on each network. Essentially the story is the same, but each network has its own spin on the story. Zombie spun his story on Michael Myers, and I for one dug it.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
Great horror films lean more on the side of satire. This film was unpleasant and depressing as all hell, and I'm no prude.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST
by El Scorcho
They didn't take an iconic character and rape it for monetary gain.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:43 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
the film is great fun. I had a great time with it and will see it again. I think some people are missing a lot of the humour because I found parts of it hilarious and I didn't think it was unintentional. I really hope this makes a killing just to shut all you fuckers up.....but it won't.
Aug. 31, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST
While there are numerous problems with Zombie's film, the main problem is the writing: it stinks. The guy couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. That's not to say that the filmmaking was any good - the movie was horribly lit and was completely devoid of suspense. Whenever anything got violent, suddenly the movie plunged into the Blair Witch Project: shaky, jolting camera - a crystal clear sign that the director hasn't a clue what he's doing. And what's with all the gore all these reviewers who saw the early screenings were talking about? Bloodshed was nil, at best. Other than the bad Giannetto De Rossi rip-off throat-slashing, the gore was at a premium. I had very low expectations for this movie, and I think Rob Zombie is a hack, both as a "filmmaker" and a "musician," but I'm a poverty-stricken bitch who actually dropped money on this thing and I wanted it to be, at the very least, enjoyable - but the simple fact of the matter was that it sucked cold and hard. And what was up with the ending? The final 15 minutes were nothing more than Halloween: Resurrection, sans Buster Rhymes. And the finale? An almost shot-for-shot retread of "Final Exam" -- which, I guess is kind of cool - because "Final Exam" rules your ass!!!! Bottom line: I would have asked for my money back if it wasn't for Danielle Harris and her boobs. Yeah, I got a dyke crush on Danielle. And that Nazareth "Love Hurts" montage with little Mikey sitting on the front steps -- COME ON!! I'm actually happy Rob Zombie made this movie - because now his career is officially OVER! And he should go ahead and blow his brains out, too.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:01 p.m. CST
I would agree with you if this was a shot for shot remake. It is not. Not even close. If this would have been a sequel, I suppose it would have been ok to "rape" an iconic character.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:04 p.m. CST
how does shit like this get made? I took a player pass on hostel2 & Saw whatever, but saw this? The first 10 minutes were good/watchable and thats all I got to say. I'm pretty bummed on this film and Quint was right all along. I dont understand how shit like this gets made. Harry, any thoughts?
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:51 p.m. CST
The massive vitriol to which he has exposed himself, in remaking a horror classic that is so beloved as HALLOWEEN, is proof enough. It's clearly not irreverence that drove him to do it, as this new version shows ample respect for the original. However, this is definitely HIS take on HALLOWEEN, and it works wonderfully. He does not "over-explain" anything. He simply tells the story his way, and that includes a creepy, fiendishly fascinating foray into Michael Myer's childhood. I loved every minute of it. Scary as hell.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:53 p.m. CST
However, you forgot to discuss Malcolm McDowell's painfully shitty performance.
Aug. 31, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST
I finally see some of the non haters coming on board. I still stand by this being a great movie. In fact, as I said earlier, it is one of the best horror movies in a while. What else have we had spoon fed to us over the past decade. Lots of PG-13 bullshit. This movie was raw and brutal. It is pure entertainment, and it will be one of those great horror films that gets better with age. This film will age well. I also feel that this film will develop a cult following, and not just Zombie fanatics.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:07 p.m. CST
by TORTURE PWN1
If you you don't want your movie to be compared to the original- don't do a fucking remake! It's that damn simple.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:08 p.m. CST
...but I, too, think that this film will outlive its critics. I think the cinema is a more interesting place with Rob Zombie in it. And I think there is room in the world for his version of HALLOWEEN.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:12 p.m. CST
Rob's Halloween was pretty inspired I felt. You stated that even the Strodes dont know about Laurie's true identity so maybe you missed the quick scene where Brackett tells Loomis that Mr. Strode adopted her after Brackett sheltered her away after the original murders. if Brackett knew her identity its fair to assume Strode did. This is irrelevant though and so is Michael's uncanny ability to track down his sister. Maybe the flick needed a couple of establishing shots or setups but I personally am annoyed at those types of scenes because they hurt momentum. I can fill in the blanks as to how he got to the truck stop or if he knew about Laurie somehow. Its a horror movie! It doesnt have to make perfect logical sense! Also, what is all the complaining about lack of character development? Like the original was fucking Hamlet or something! What? Did Annie not talk on the phone as much as you would have liked? Is that what you call character development? Besides, isnt it possible that a film can still be good and of a certain quality without fleshing out ALL of the characters? Youre right, it is all about Michael in this film instead of the holy trinity that Carpenter set up. Ive seen the workprint and the theatrical and I am realizing more and more how much I enjoyed both of them. The reason there is so much negativity towards prequels and remakes is that most of them SUCK! This one doesnt and it certainly restores Myers once again to iconic status. Some of the shots of him in this flick are reason enough to see this. Im just not seeing what alot of you are complaining about. I think we can all agree that its the best one since I and II although I have a soft spot for part 4... Give Zombie some credit will ya?! By the way, I respect all of you.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:14 p.m. CST
by fish tacos
I understand the harsh criticism it's getting, but I can't help but be won over by it. It's harrowing and bleak, the dialogue was rough at times, but I was convinced by it. Go see it with an open mind and a willingness to go along with some of the quirks and bad dialogue.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST
Cape Fear was mentioned, and I agree. There's also another really good horror remake, like The Fly, but for the life of me, I cannot remember which one I'm thinking of.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST
by blonde redhead
i don't always agree with your reviews but this movie sucked desperately. enough with RZ's fascination with manson, rednecks, and his notion of what their shitty dialogue should sound like. like, man, their CRAZY FUCKING CHATTER, MOTHERFUCKERS, YOU COCKBLOCKED MY MOTHER YOU PUSSY-EATING etc. whatever yawn yawn yawn. terrible, terrible film. and i *liked* devil's rejects.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST
I agree lonegun. I actually liked the white trash Zombie mark on this film, I hated the second half though. I do feel Zombie has promise and look forward to his efforts outside of this genre.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST
I agree lonegun. I actually liked the white trash Zombie mark on this film, I hated the second half though. I do feel Zombie has promise and look forward to his efforts outside of this genre.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:20 p.m. CST
"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." Underground horror is art? No-budget videotape rape/torture movies? Perhaps MOMA will create a video installation for an exhibition next spring......
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:21 p.m. CST
by Charlie Murphy
you're so absolutely fucking right. but it seems like everything that can be done with horror has been done. okay, here's some more blood and gore and people go see it. there's nothing left. comedy has been the same way. we could only hear the same PG-13 dick jokes so many times before someone finally said enough is enough. shit, it's taken like fifteen years for an R rated comedy to take off like "40 year old virgon" or "superbad" did, and now hopefully we'll see less "epic movie"s or "50 first dates" or "little man"s and more similarily themed R rated comedy powerhouses because it's being fucking proven that people want to see them. maybe we'll have to suffer through a few more years of japanese horror knock offs before writers and studio execs realize: a) PG-13 ain't scaring anybody, b) it takes a little more creativity than a couple buckets of guts to make a goddamn horror movie and c) the oldies are goodies for a fucking reason. who will be horror's judd apatow? i know joss whedon has a horror flick in the works, and this "hatchet" sounds promising, if of course, anybody goes to see it. i've lost sight of my point... what was it again...? hmmm... fuck
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST
Who are you to tell people that the reasons they dislike a film are flawed? People like what they like for the reasons they like it, you cannot come barging in proclaiming a person's OPINION to be wrong. 'Well the reasons were illogical...' What has logic got to do with it? Since when are people's likes and dislikes based on logical progression? Obviously not ALL remakes are shit, just the vast majority that are being released so far this century. That sticks with people when yet another remake is released and they say "Remakes suck". That is not meant as some sweeping blanket statement, but a reflection of the times. If we had to list the exceptions to every rule after we reference it, talkback's would be unreadable. That doesn't make a person's assertation that remakes suck wrong, it's merely a reflection of the state of cinema at the moment. Also, do you not think that if RZ had simply replaced the main character with one of his own creation, all of this shit could have been avoided? Why use the Halloween name and characters at all when the tone is going to deviate so wildly? Answer, to rake in some extra cash on the name value. It's extremely cynical, and probably why this movie has attracted so much ill-feeling. If it was his own character, Zombie may well have been praised for this flick. As it is, people have seen through the cynical bullshit exercise that it is.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:29 p.m. CST
by future help
classic atmosphere mixed with great tension and build. LIKE: Don't Look Now or The Tenant or Rosemary's Baby or Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's v.). IT has been a long while.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:30 p.m. CST
hole fighting for their lives aganst the Golum creatures. That got zero love, that Korean mess got mad love and, IMO, sucked ass. Zombie's seriously getting shit because he shows potential and for whatever reason that pisses people off. Sort of.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:31 p.m. CST
by future help
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:35 p.m. CST
Zombie something else to work with, outside of the genre. I didnt mind the white trash re-telling and thought that alot of young people do talk that way- no doubt, everything else was pretty lame. As other posters have mentioned, it's not really Zombies fault this film was made the way it was. I mean really, if it wasnt Zombie it would have been an equal or lesser hack. I'm giving him the benifit of the doubt and saying "50/50"
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:40 p.m. CST
That is all. This ain't Transformers, it's Halloween. I don't remember any Talkbacks being this crazy for another Halloween movie. It did what it was supposed to do and more. It's resurrected Michael Myers and put him ahead of Freddy and Jason.
Aug. 31, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST
and that's pretty much the vibe I was left with after this film. The only thing left for the "big 3" is porno, slasher porn. I'm pretty sure someone is already writting it as I type.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST
That's dollars, people. Amazing. Guess the necessity of using Clint Howard and Udo Kier to utter three syllables proved unfrugal to say the least.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
I was talking to my friends (in real life) how, if Myers had just had more support and love in his life, coupled with a little bit of medication, he wouldn't have been all that bad. Later on, I had this dream where that version of Myers (grown-up but not completely psycho) was the new guy at my job... I have nowhere to go with this, but if it wasn't for Rob Zombie, I don't think I would have ever had such a mundane dream featuring Michael Myers.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:32 p.m. CST
The latest starring vehicles for Hollywood's two hottest Jessicas has the name Chuck in their titles.
Aug. 31, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST
you know it's true. Zombie slammed this fucker home. It's what any good director would do with this property and it kicks the living shit out of Tarantino's Death Proof. If this thing was directed by Tarantino and not an outsider like Zombie all of these AICN reviewers would be sucking its anus. Fuck you Moriarty. You're going to give Shoot Em Up a better review when it's just a variation on Crank. Your career is going to die and Zombie's will flourish. You know why? The dude's an original. He doesn't give a shit what Carpenter's done. He's his own man and he's out to do horror for a new generation. Sad BUT TRUE>!!!
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:03 a.m. CST
OH LAWD CAN'T YOU SEE??! Rob Zombie is becoming a great horror director. All of these fucking squares either don't get what he's doing or detest him for showing too much gore. TOO MUCH FUCKING GORE IN A HORROR MOVIE. The motherfucker is bound to be a legend by the time this gets to DVD. He shocks his audiences and makes the girls squirm. Fuck that fake ELI ROTH BULLSHIT.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:08 a.m. CST
Bout time some other non-haters showed up.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... I guess that's all that needs to be said, then, TheDohDoh. I explained my point of view on the film, and did so without needing to insult anyone else about it. You decide to resort to personal attacks in order to make your points, which don't actually appear to be about the film, but just about someone who didn't enjoy it. <P>So be it.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST
by Turd Furgeson
That I think, was the best review you've ever written. I know exactly how the movie looks and feels now and how I will feel about it emotionally just from your review. Really nice work. You really should write for a national publication other than this site.. and BTW, Fuck You Rob Zombie! No soup for you!
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:20 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... we screened HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES at BNAT. We ran tons of interviews here for THE DEVIL'S REJECTS. Remind me again how we've always bashed Zombie's work. Go ahead. Prove to me that we've always been biased against him. Pull the links to prove that since day one, we've beaten up poor li'l Rob Zombie, and I'll be glad to admit it. But since you can't, and won't, I guess that makes you... oh, what's the word... wrong.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:38 a.m. CST
by blonde redhead
remakes only, of course. hmm. how about 'don't look in the basement'? it would be basically the same film, but they'd all be rednecks, (even the nurse) and he'd namedrop manson or have a character say something one of the family said. maybe after that he can remake 'devil times five', only they'll all be rednecks and he can namedrop manson and someone's mom will be a whore. then, he can do a 're-imagining' of 'snowbeast', only the snowbeast will be a corpse-fucking redneck and it won't take place in a ski lodge, it will take place at the manson family hideout, and it'll have a killer seventies AOR soundtrack. for the love of god people, stop defending this piece of shit movie. RZ is extremely one-note right now and it shows. and no, i don't like eli roth either. though i did like cabin fever. hey! RZ can remake that, only they'll all be rednecks, and the kids will be whores and idiots and...
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:45 a.m. CST
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:48 a.m. CST
Hi. I don't mean any disrespect here, just like you don't mean it in your reviews. All I'm saying Moriarty is that you guys--besides Massa--can't understand why this Halloween is a great one. I'm sorry, but I have left plenty of arguments for this film Moriarty! You are the one who slacks me off. Remember the time when you told everyone they were SICK for wanting to see "cool deaths" in a horror movie, b/c "you watched such movies to see the protagonists win" - IT'S JUST LIKE THAT. Dude, you've lost your touch with the communal experience of horror. Halloween was 30 years ago. Kids need new horror. You guys can all jock Death Proof, Planet Terror and the Hostels all you want. I understand your relationship to those guys. But man, I'm from the school that loves Jason, Freddy and wants to see Michael finally included in that bunch. And Zombie has given him just that. One of my friends on the Left Coast is writing an essay about this and I want you guys to read it. It runs deep and academic from what I've read so far. But Moriarty, again, this is Zombie making an icon his own. I get what makes Carpenter's so classic. YOU'RE EXCLUDING ZOMBIE FROM THE CLUB HERE. FROM THE AICN CLUB THAT INCLUDES ROTH, TARANTINO AND RODRIGUEZ, and PETER JACKSON. The dude belongs with them. Either lead, follow or get out of the way. Zombie is the new face of horror. He's releasing the horror flicks that people talk about. The real horror. He likes a little gore, but he also withdrew from using much gore in this film at critical moments. Moriarty, you post a review and back it when it criticizes the film for showing Michael in daylight and digging up a grave, scenes from the original. Not only did Zombie add to the story and finally make Michael a legitimate icon, he paid proper homage to Carpenter. YOU TREAT THE FILM LIKE IT'S DOGSHIT. And no, I'm not criticizing you. But YOU ARE IN THE FILM INDUSTRY. DEAL FUCKING WITH IT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. You are not one of us any longer. You have a kid and an industry gig. So if you're going to exclude Zombie's film and shit all over it and lead your Talkbackers to battle, so be it. BUT YOU COULDN'T HAVE DONE A BETTER HALLOWEEN, REMAKE OR SEQUEL OR HALLOWEEN III, BETTER THAN ZOMBIE DID. and that is my point Moriarty. The guy has style, ideas, attitude, "auteurism" and pinache that will take him a long way. THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT RAMONE HAD HIM AT HIS DEATH BED. HE LOVED HORROR MOVIES AND LOVED GOOD HORROR DIRECTORS. Time will tell Moriarty. But please make something to shut us all up when you drop tiny turds on his film for months and months, then release an unofficial review of the workprint ot satiate your following and then thrash into his film like Zombie is a gorehound without any care for the original.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:57 a.m. CST
That's what was bullshit. Rob Zombie's Halloween is original and brings fresh ideas to the table. It leaves the fucking toys at home and challenges what we have previously seen. It's fresh blood. Peter Jackson's King Kong remake was just a tired exercise. Old blood being lapped up by Harry Knowles.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:59 a.m. CST
by Homer Sexual
This doesn' disrespect the original, it throws in a lot of references for the avid and is accessible to the new generation. and some scenes look great, the houses, the mood. <p> But it isn't scary, it is actually a bit boring. Zombie can't do creepy, just sleazy and killer-celebrating. There is somewhat more gore, but mostly just more beating. He can't create a good suspense scene, for the most part. I will say the audience was drawn in the last twenty minutes. <p> Three scenes of females crying and dragging themselves helplessly before being killed is not cool with me. No girl power for Rob. He is bad with actors as well. Finally, why does every single male character excep Lauries dad sport long greasy white trash hair.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:02 a.m. CST
And you go on to say that's the worst thing a filmmaker can make - an "insigificant film." So explain to me Moriarty how that is NOT THE BIGGEST BASH YOU CAN GIVE A FILMMAMKER WHEN YOU SAY IT'S THE WORST THING HE CAN CREATE????! If it's so insignificant, please explain that when the next Halloween rolls around, it won't be 1/10 the fucking film this is if it's not directed by Zombie. The eight sequels were "INSIGNIFICANT" - THIS FILM IS FUCKING SIGNIFICANT MORIARTY. And btw: where's your signficant screenplay or film?! What's the age difference b/t you and Zombie?
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:05 a.m. CST
I rarely post here, but I hate to see trolls. I went to a midnight showing, and people were laughing at the movie and left. Your review was spot on. I've seen Zombie's movies, am a fan of his music, and even met him, and I'm totally shocked by how this movie turned out. With the ability to reboot the entire franchise he played it safe, when everyone including himself knew he could do better. This was a mess of a movie from beginning to end. The work print was actually great to check out because it showed that they didn't know what movie they wanted to make up until the moment they released it. TheDohDoh is just some obsessed zombie fan. I've been on the site for years and only post a handful of times, and I thought it was worth it to stick up for you and this review. There most definitely could have been room for biased reviewing given your situation, and you handled everything professionally and I think 99 percent of the people who see this movie will agree that your review is spot on.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:12 a.m. CST
It's terrific as it is, and well-rounded. I hope they don't do any sequels to this one. Very curious as to what Zombie will do next. I think he is an exciting director.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:12 a.m. CST
Just saw it. Liked it. Would have been better minus the hillbillyness and the over use of "fuck". I almost loved the way it was shot. I don't know, don't have too much to complain about, even Zombie's wife did a halfway decent job. I was really impressed with the kid, I had sympathy for him, and his scenes with Clockwork Orange were excellent, maybe the best thing in the entire movie. I didn't even think Lori's friends were that bad. I loved the quick cut to the title/credits roll, though like a lot of the film it could have just been slightly tweaked and made a whole lot better. I keep reading about lack of tension and scares... and I can agree with the absence of getting spooked, but I thought the tension level was at a nice pitch through most of the movie, starting with that first kill after school. I thought hillbilly step dad coulda died better, but still, only after a few minutes of it all ending, I feel satisfied. I was entertained. As far as tone goes, of course the original is far superior. Carpenter's felt like a dream, all orange sunsets and short days. They shoulda had Carpenter's version of The Thing playing on the TV though. Which leads me to one last thought. I'd really really like to see Zombie do something than just straight horror. Fuck I'd even be curious as to what he'd do with ANOTHER remake of The Thing, or at least work in a genre devoid of serial killers and white trash. I think he has a decent eye, and is improving with how he gets his actors to interact.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:25 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... you're obviously determined to make this personal. So I'll let you argue to yourself at this point. Go ahead. Insult me. Attack my work. Do whatever makes you feel better. You could simply accept that you feel differently about this than I do. But that seems to be beyond you at this point. Instead of just enjoying the film, you seem determined to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you. <P>And no one's made it personal except you. Rob Zombie's a big boy. He made his film (the first film of his I have given a bad review to here, despite your assertations that we've got something against him, something you seem determined to ignore), and I'm sure he can deal with whatever the reviews are. <P>Odd that you can't.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:31 a.m. CST
I sometimes agree and disagree with your reviews. I think you have a somewhat admirable take no shit from what a movie feeds you attitude. But when you delete someone's post, who's not being a racisist, or violent nutbag, you lose total fucking respect and reveal yourself to be a very small and insecure person. I know it's not my argument, but I just thought I'd offer the opinion of an unattatched third party. As fucking retarded as Harry can be, he usually doesn't try to silence anyone, no matter how much they may upset him. You can say all you want about not letting these arguments take away from the discussion of film, blah, blah, blah, but it really only shows you're afraid of something.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:33 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
If someone wanted to make their point and move on, that would be one thing. When someone repeatedly spams the same thing to every single talkback for the sole purpose of being an asshole, they lose their right to engage in the conversation. <P>Ultimately, repeating a slanderous lie nine thousand times in every talkback doesn't make a troll more right. It just makes them an obvious target for deletion after a point.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:37 a.m. CST
You're the one who doing the insulting. Why do I even bother man. Anyone who wants to view some of my points can head over the original "Rob Zombie and Harvey Sittin in a Tree" post or look around. AICN is behind the times. You guys won't give Zombie's film the time of day b/c you bathe in Carpenter's 30 year old masterpiece. It's sad.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:40 a.m. CST
you're forgetting what a troll is. It's someone pathetic enough to get a new screen name, and repeat the whole business of being a loser all over again. I think Harry's attitude has been more effective in dealing with that kind of behavior, because he either ignores it, or smiles his way out of it. Of course he lives in Candyland, but still, you unlike most of the other writers on this site seem to take that shit more to heart. And I guess what I'm getting at, what I'm trying to ask of you is... do ya need a hug? He's gone now, it's okay, it's just you and me. Come on, come here, big guy. ::embrace::
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:41 a.m. CST
What did you post that Mori deleted? Mori, I don't get how you get off criticizing people's work and then your website's fans can't ask you how you might make a film better and you get defensive and start deleting posts. (Not mine, but obviously others). You still cannot fess up that you carelessly posted a work-print review in support of your months-in-the-making opinion on this film. You call it "nonsense." PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US HOW ROB ZOMBIE'S HALLOWEEN IS WORSE THAN PETER JACKSON (AN AICN LOVER-BOY)'S DREADFUL REMAKE OF KING KONG?
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:45 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... hush. The grown-ups are talking now. <P>Snake, you make a fair point. The difference between someone like the oft-deleted BananafestWhatever and our vocal friend TheDohDoh is that, obviously, The DohDoh has been left alone to call me names, insult my work, and do whatever he needs to do in order to work out his own feelings about Zombie's film and my review. <P>We all have our own personal lines. Mine is slander. After a point, I'm not willing to just let someone use the talkbacks on this website to print demonstratable lies about me and the work I do.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:47 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... as the fans love to point out, Carpenter agreed to this and gave Rob his blessing. So if that's the case, shouldn't I just parrot that position? <P>I mean, he's got a financial stake in this film. So maybe I should tell everyone it's a work of genius that demands to be seen in the theater at full-price at least ten times. <P>Or maybe I just have my own opinion on the material, and I could give two fucks if Carpenter likes the remake or not.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:48 a.m. CST
I didn't post anything that McWeeny deleted (yet). I was talking about your lame shit. Which while serving almost no purpose other than to make the people reading it feel better that they're not as stupid as you, still has just as much right to be plastered on this site as anything Drew, ImpulseCaper, Harry, or (yes even) Herc has to say. What you gotta ask yourself Doh, is who the fuck really cares if Drew is full of shit or not? There's going to be people who buy what he says, and people who don't, but the retarded chanting of a douchebag (you), isn't going to sway their opinion. In fact, it will probably just cement it more since you sound like a nut with nothing better to do. I should know, I am one of those nuts.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:52 a.m. CST
By calling a director's work insignificant and then going on to say that that's the worst thing a director can make, "an insignificant film," please explain why that cannot be considered a huge bash against rob zombie's film? It's obvious that many people don't feel that it's a dreadful, unproductive outing as you do. instead of debating their and my points, you simply brush us off with "personal attacks." if i'm calling the blur between your hollwood career and your internet career into this debate, it has merit. internet journalism objectivity and so on. but that is not my main point. my my point is stated at the beginning of this post. You've had it out for this movie for a long time. For you to say the end product is as dreadful as you have feared is ridiculous.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:12 a.m. CST
Moriarty, I am sorry if I have offended you. My criticisms of your review are fire to match the critical fire you have aimed at Rob Zombie's Halloween for months upon months and now today. If you are going to put harshness on trial, then you should begin criticizing films as you would to the directors' faces. I don't feel my comments have been out of order. I am passionate about this film and more passionate about its reception for sometime here on AICN, a site I truly like and like to commen on. Good night all.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:17 a.m. CST
redneck families, cummings. Take Halloween, minus everything interesting and add preschool psychology into the mix and you have this remake.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:29 a.m. CST
BED" Are you high? Seriously.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:30 a.m. CST
by BJ Stumpz
JC's version is my favorite movie of all time, and I went into RZ's film able to disassociate myself with the original. But WOW, this film was bad. If you're going to provide an unnecessary backstory for Michael, at least SAY SOMETHING interesting. Instead, we get a half-assed, compromised first hour...and a rushed, blink-and-you-miss-the-references nostalgic last act. And to the poster above who called out the H8 ending sans Busta Rhymes, bravo. BTW, Jabber_Jaw had the most relevant post on this talkback for me, personally.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:38 a.m. CST
not much of a poster but having seen this film believe all those that love this film should qualify their beliefs with what they liked... if you loved transformers or even liked any bay film. how old are you? why do you really like this halloween? what makes it original? those that do not like this movie, myself included, seem to have taste and are probably a little bit older. we grew up on suspense and original ideas. movies did not cop out with sex or gore. suspense meant something. caring about those killed meant everything in the horror genre. if you hate the people being killed, where is the terror? terror terror terror!!! that means something. if i am a foul mouthed whore i defiantley would be killed, but if everyone is where is the morality? halloween in the suburbs meant something. typical girls from the last 44 slasher films mean nothing. this rant makes no sense, but i liked to be scared. this movie was absolutely banal. just voyeourism. i watched another guy kill other people. i did not care about the guy or his victims. what is scary there? the only anticipation was how he would kill his next victim. also i hate the fact that it felt nothing like halloween. show the leaves. show the fall. wheres the pumpkins and costumes? make some fucking atmosphere! scare me. please! the recent decline in the genre is responsible for the love of this film. fewer people have desire or knowledge for quality. i really cant see how an intelligent moviegoer can call this film good. you can have fun, but this crap is not good. its bad. its getting worse every weekend and those that ike this film are responsible for the crap in the future. you can say that i do not have to go see this shit, but at the same time, this shit takes away from an original idea that might have had a chance, or a remake made by a director that has something to bring to the table. and by the way, dialogue means something. what other "great" film can you say the dialogue is laughable? how can you say i thought the movie was great but know the writing was absolute shit? horror films do not get a pass. all genres should be held to a high standard. what other great horor film can you name, outside of another rob zombie picture, that had this bad a dialogue??? sorry for the rant, but this is terribly frustrating. you people who like this crap and other shit like tranformers are aiding the great decline in quality film. i hate you people. qualify yourselves. let me know what the industry is up against!
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:50 a.m. CST
I disagree with your review. I also get a chuckle out of the posters getting all excited about your review. I have not trashed your review yet. But it is kind of funny that you have created, in my mind, an insignificant review of, in your mind, an insignificant film. My only propblem with your review, Mori, and all of your reviews, is the fact that most of us here see them coming from a mile away. Go back and read all of your comments on various flicks. I bet most of us here could write down on a piece of paper what your review will be like, seal it in an envelope, and save it until after your review is posted. Then pull a Penn and Teller Superbowl halftime show magic trick and open the envelope. I can 99% of the time predict if your review will be positive or negative. And get this. Harry, if he ever posts a review of this, will be much more positive than the rest of the reviews posted here. Kind of a good cop bad cop thing. Now, I am not saying that you do not review these films with an open mind. It could all be chance. I guess I was just surprised at how negative your review was. I really do think this was one of the better horror movies of the last 5 or so years. It was not sugar-coated. It was not intended for a PG-13 audience. It was a mature flick. And I thought you of all people would have respected that. Now, with all that said. I do not think because I disagree with your review that I should have a negative feeling about you personally. Movie discussion is great. I enjoy bantering differences about various flicks. I like to read and discuss other people's POV. Ahh, to hell with this. I going to go watch Hellraiser, its on Skinamax, or Stars or some shit right now.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:58 a.m. CST
than most bullshit. You were ready to hate this film since day one. You even admitted to it in the chatroom. You didn't give it a chance and you were incapable of looking beyond your own preconceived judgments as was most of the other fans and die hards. If only it was a sequel. Maybe just maybe and heres a stretch for ya. Laurie looked like someone in his family and that led him to believe that surely she was his sister. Fuck my Sister looks a lot like my Aunt. So fuck you buddy! Also Bob's death was the worst one in the theatrical version (Yeah I seen em both I like the WP myself)---------I mean here we go again watching the same fucking death we saw in the original only now it's extended a tad. This death need I not remind you is the only improbable death in the original by the way. A knife doesn't go that deep nor is it that strong too hold a body fixed too a wall. You say john not spelling it out made the original so great, and you cite that 3 year old fucking Patton Oswell shit. If Lucas told a better story it wouldn't matter what age Vader origins story was. You say not spelling it all out is better- Well maybe Laurie looked nearly identical to someone else Myers knew in his family. Or maybe you need that spelled out for you. Go make another masters of horror something. Your last one suck cock better than you dick fucks pussy!
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:01 a.m. CST
So mad I can't spell. again Your last one sucks cock better than you dick fucks pussy!
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:02 a.m. CST
"Your last one suck cock better than you dick fucks pussy!" no need to qualify this
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:05 a.m. CST
Dead Silence, The Messengers, The Hills Have Eyes 2. These are but a few of the shit spots for horror the past 5 years. Hell, the past decade. I am not saying this movie is Oscar worthy. But it is no where as bad as Mori made it out to be. And to discredit your "We must care about the victims" bullshit, I mean really come on. Most of the victims in horror movies are NOT CARED ABOUT. The no name sex crazed camp staff at Crytal Lake. The no name teens in most of the Elm Street series. I mean how old school are you? Suspense and drama are not needed in a horror movie in order for it to be good.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:15 a.m. CST
yes, horror has sucked recently, and truth be told has always sucked, but just because one film doesnt suck as much as the worst films of the past 4 years does not mean we need to heap praise upon it. film should be viewed historically, not just based on the past few shitfests. why cant we call for something better, not just better than "The Fog" great horror films are great films, period. the best films ever are not just drama. they are a mix of drama, comedy, action, and horror. great films are great films. this halloween is the equivallent of calling "I Am Sam" a great drama just because there was not a great drama that year.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:17 a.m. CST
Now That I've had time to think about it. That sounds about right.. Surely I'm kicked, but hey... The truth hurts, don't it.... How fortunate that a guy like you can still work on movies and TV films and have a respected opinion after that last floating log you dropped. You live in a glass house. Be a reviewer or a filmmaker- Don't be both you look like an asshole doing so.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:43 a.m. CST
There are quite a few changes between the two versions. Lines from the WP are gone and new scenes during the reshoots are added. The new ending it 10 times better, and some of that rushed feeling and zero transitioning was in place. I miss the WP version of the opening credits. I thought that was very effective. Anyway, the theater was packed, and the audienced loved the shit out of it. Lots of screaming (when appropriate) and I heard many people saying how much they loved it when it was over. This is a critic proof movie and an audience pleaser. It's going to make a nice cash in and I hope it really pisses off all of these critics who bashed it. Especially, the wannabe writer ones.
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:12 a.m. CST
DOHDOH is just rob, i traced his ip. Rob, chill out dude. you suck.
Sept. 1, 2007, 6:42 a.m. CST
by slappy jones
that this thing has made a ton of cash. one because I want to see zombie make more films and two I want to see all the guys ragging on it go fucking crazy about how the public are idiots etc etc...... what can I say i loved this film as I have his first two....but I have always hated his music for the record because have noticed that if you happen to like all of zombies work your opinion is automatically discounted. but for me this film was fucking great.....
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:16 a.m. CST
His prequel story about how the Wicked witch of the West became evil is one of the rare exceptions where that concept works at demonstrating that alternate point of view, and the origins of someone who is demonized. Now its being ripped off for prequels and remakes like this Halloween remake, Hannibal Rising, etc. But, the Wicked Witch really wasn't all that bad...she never really kills anyone. So all this sympathizing with murderers really is kinda twisted. Yeah, it can be a method of helping understand how a monster becomes a monster, but if done improperly, or by someone mentally deficient, it can walk on the opposite side of that line and justify that monster's actions as an adult, negating responsibility, and trying to evoke sympathy.
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST
They are beginning to remake movies that were made in our generation. They are setting themselves up for this kind of backlash. Like someone pointed out in an earlier post, whats next? Jaws? Raiders of the Lost Arc? I personally wish they would leave the great films stand. Halloween was a brillant film in its day. I like Rob Zombie's films, and i wish him success with this one. But come on. I wouldnt care if this movie was getting rave reviews (which its not) from every major film critic in the world. Its still weird that they chose to remake such a hallmark movie in the horror genre. Im not going to comment on some of the things mentioned here like the mask and how he knew laurie was his sister... everyone knows how the mask came about in the original, simple lack of a budget... improvising something scary.. and it worked like a charm. it sounds like Zombie even has to over explain the mask, instead of something stolen from a hardware store to disguise his face. Its like a painting, if you keep dicking with it, adding things, messing around with it, you are liable to screw it up. I have not seen the new one, but it sounds like Rob really has thrown a bunch of paint on a piece of work that was already perfect.
Sept. 1, 2007, 8:27 a.m. CST
I didn't hate the movie as much as Moriarty does, but I agree with Moriarty nonetheless. I think that most of our initial reactions to this production were correct -- it shouldn't have been done. Zombie defeats his purpose here because clearly he knew that the only thing he could offer a remake of "Halloween" was to fill in the blanks and try to explain Michael Myers, but even he admits that, approaching Myers as if he were a real person, there is no explanation -- he's a born psychopath -- so it really makes all the stuff about his childhood and treatment in Smith's Grove really superfluous. I think this is why Carpenter's film chose to be ABOUT the victims / heroes and not the villain, not just because it would make the villain that much more frightening (which is obvious if you put the audience in the victims' POV) but because there simply is no rational, engaging explanation for what someone like Michael Myers does and an audience is going to instinctively know this. It's sort of like how writer Joseph Stefano detoured from the book and made PSYCHO about Marion instead of Norman.
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:17 a.m. CST
I just have to say I haven't seen a slasher movie I've enjoyed this much in a long time. I'm pretending that this wasn't a Halloween movie and that might be what let me enjoy it.
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:24 a.m. CST
..you praised that piece of shit that was H3: season of the witch. The only saving grace in that turd of a film was the late Dan o' heily(?)can't remember his last name off the bat but whateva.> As bad as Rob's remake was,it far surpasses that sequel in which Busta Rhymes karate kicks Myers ass.I bet Jamie lee (Curtis) opted to get killed off after reading that script.It appears that Zombie isn't the only rocker getting movies made, Glen Danzig (best known for the Misfits and not that cheesy band; Danzig) is working on geforge based on his verotik comic. IMHO Rob should have focused on Shewolf of the SS being made into a movie instead of that shit.
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:28 a.m. CST
It seems like a lot of the reviewers here at AICN review the movie they wish they saw and not the one they did see. Case in point, Halloween. How many times in that review does Mori say "a blank shouldn't be blank it should be blank!" Why saddle the movie with your concept of what it should be when it is a perfectly fine example of what it is? I didn't think it was the greatest thing ever, but Mori is grandstanding when he calls it worthless. Why can't we just see this remake as a one shot graphic novel that takes established origins and embellishes or adds to them. How is Halloween any different thematically than Batman Begins? Do we need to know how Bruce Wayne became Batman in this much detail? Can't he just be Batman beating up the Joker and solving crimes? I thought what Rob did with Michael was interesting. And his experiments with graphic violence and the fragility of the human body were frankly, inspired. Far beyond Hostel, which gets so much love here. Maybe Rob should have made Halloween an allegory for The Iraq War or our cultural bloodlust? Would that have made it better? I know you wanted to have fun, but honestly, I liked the fact that Rob pulled the rug out from under people expecting a laugh. It was a subversive move from a director who is increasingly more interesting with each picture. There was a lot that went right with Halloween Redux and it is extremely short-sighted and narrow minded to dismiss it as Mori's done.
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST
by Mister Man
Yet, indiscriminate. My lesson for the day, from AICN, no less.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST
One gets dragged into anther room. Wooh. Be still my heart.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:08 a.m. CST
"The fucking kid is sitting there dressed like a clown in the gayest suit ever, this little angry kid who is way too old for this shit" - Umm, he's supposed to be six. Which is also how retarded this movie is. Zombie cast a kid who's approaching puberty to play a six-year-old.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:12 a.m. CST
by Internet Thug
Fuck Mori you got pull dude..I mean who wouldn't get off to being able to call up a "buddy" with a workprint of Halloween to come to your house at 3 in the morning so you can compare differences to the theatrical version..you roll in style Biatch <rolls eyes> Hey when is the next Matinee with Mori column coming out???
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:14 a.m. CST
"Usually the ones you bash the most are the best(uhum TRANSFORMERS" You said it, friend. And maybe the reason that people are missing your point is the fact that you're a God awful writer.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:19 a.m. CST
..with all the negative publicity you started giving it from day 1? <br> <br> Thats okay, we didnt expect you to like it either ;)
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:26 a.m. CST
by Internet Thug
what happened to my rolls eyes comment at the end of my last post?..fuck you douchebag.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:24 p.m. CST
First of all, I'm a long time reader of these posts, and enjoy reading them when time permits. I've been a Halloween fan as long as I can remember, and knowing what negativity and bad reviews preceded me seeing this remake, went in with low expectations. What I got after seeing the film was such disgust I had to view some of Carpenter's original to cleanse the filth I witnessed on screen yesterday. Zombie should stick to music - I never liked any of his films and tried to be unbiased, considering my love of the original. What got me was that even the kids who attended my screening with their "pussy liquor" t-shirts left the theater shaking their heads. That tells you a lot there. This movie will add to the pile of dreck that is populated by "The Hills Have Eyes", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning" (Not a remake, but I did like Nispel's 2003 release.) "Black Christmas" "The Omen" and other pieces of shit. As this movie will soon be forgotten by Halloween 2007, when it would have done better financially had it been released then, let's hope that the younger viewers who don't remember Carpenter's classic original don't view this as the way the true Michael Myers story should be presented. Other random thoughts: McDowell's lines were terrible, I love cameos, but this one played like a "Zombie's Super Spooky Variety Show", featuring Clint Howard, Udo Kier and many more!...Brad Dourif was underused...why is it that any Zombie film character that is utterly nasty seems to be a guaranteed victim......I could go on and on..I'm sure Rob's a nice guy, good to the fans and all, but Rob, you should have lobbied to do the remakes of Texas Chainsaw or The Hills Have Eyes...they're the more "dirt under your fingernails" movies he's know for.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:26 p.m. CST
Some people just shouldn't be filmmakers. Simple.
Sept. 1, 2007, 12:33 p.m. CST
Success is by no means the measure that a film is good, but Rob Zombie finally gets the opening he fucking deserves. EAT YOU HEART OUT ELI ROTH. AND MORIARTY, YOU AS WELL. THE PEOPLE ARE GETTING THE FUCKING HORROR MOVIE THEY WANT. YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH VIEWERS. STAY AWAY FROM HORROR. Michael Myers is back suckers and Busta Rhymes career is fucking dead.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:04 p.m. CST
by Mr. Nice Gaius
The "people" have spoken. And they want remakes. You're absolutely brilliant in this assertion. Hollywood will never have it so easy.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:13 p.m. CST
Fuck off. It's great that Halloween is widely successful. It means Rob Zombie can keep making films exactly how he wants. He's a fucking exciting director. Hollywood won't ever lay off the remakes, Halloween's success didn't matter. You're a fucking snob.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:16 p.m. CST
This movie is worse paced than anything I've ever watched. The only reason its no the worst movie I've ever seen is because it isnt the Omen remake. Robert Cummings fans: you dont have to like this movie just because you're a fan of that song Thunderkiss '65.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST
Yeah, be proud of that.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:30 p.m. CST
by Mr. Nice Gaius
Over a goddamn HALLOWEEN remake?! You fucking right about that!
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:32 p.m. CST
I love the character. I want him to live on forever. I love seeing him on screen killing people. I even watch the shitty sequels at least once a year. That said I feel that the sequels were getting a bit tired and it did need a fresh start BAD and got one thanks to Rob Zombie. Michael Myers is character worthy of reinvention. Last time I checked they still make original horror movies too, Mori acts as if they don't. Why can't there be room for both? As long as they continue to hire good directors who care about the genre and are able to give us proper remakes as well as original stories all is well.
Sept. 1, 2007, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Mogwai Democracy
i seriously could not believe what i was seeing when i watched that. i have never seen a more clumsy attempt at filmaking! i got the impression the film was made by a fucking metalhead teenager. the dialogue (ALL OF IT) was a joke. the pacing of the entire film was completely off. the editing was crap. the shaky cam was completely out of place & calling attention to itself. there was NO suspense to any scene in this film at all. the cinematography was shit. hollow characters. ridiculous & unbelievable scenarios<br><br>as i was watching this, i could not believe that anyone would think this garbage was suitable to show anyone. it looked like a fucking student film. people, the man who made this film should NOT be making movies! i have never seen a more leaden excuse for a film that was so completely lacking in a grasp of the most basic aspects of cinema<br><br>Rob, i am completely serious when i say you should NOT be let anywhere near a typewriter or a camera ever again. you do NOT have it in you to be making films. go back to music.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST
It's moronic halfwits who can't string coherent sentences like you who give horror fans a bad name. Why don't you do toddle off and go watch WWF or listen to some Slipknot or something -- that seems to be more your style. I really don't want someone as fucking dumb as you claiming to represent my segment of the audience. As for the film, it was unmitigated shit, poorly directed with one of the worst scripts of the year. Zombie can't write, nor can he direct actors, as every performance was uniformly awful. Within six months, this remake will be forgotten. At least until the razzies roll around.
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST
What was with the blatant continuity error when Myers kills Loomis? First there's a ton of blood, and then it's gone. Wow. Can Zombie do ANYTHING right?
Sept. 1, 2007, 2:30 p.m. CST
Have you seen this yet? I am interested to hear your take. Go see it tonight if you have not yet. Give me your paypal address. I will give you 10 bucks. JK.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:19 p.m. CST
I've heard mostly crap about this, and I still think Dimension owes me one after I paid for two tickets for Halloween: Resurrection (my g/f at the time wanted to see it too).
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:20 p.m. CST
...and is expected to make $30 million for the weekend.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST
Mori says once it get familiar it gets less scary. I disagree. Horror and sequels go hand and hand. Always have, always will. If they would have never made a third Friday the 13th movie, Jason would have never dawned the iconic Hockey mask.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:49 p.m. CST
I haven't seen it but what is so original about that premise? Moriarty said Hatchet takes a chance by trying to create it's own movie monster, but if he's the same as any other slasher what is so new and original about that? The 80's were full a crappy knock-off slasher movie monsters. Only the good ones survived and got sequels.
Sept. 1, 2007, 3:57 p.m. CST
by Shepard Wong
and the killers names was not Michael Myers, it still would have been a wretchedly bad movie. The scenes of Michael's troubled childhood are laugh out loud bad. There wasn't one solid moment of suspense. Worst of all, it was boring. I checked my watch at least 4 times in the second half of the movie. I was glad when it was over.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:04 p.m. CST
And come right out and say up front you have absolutely zero barometer for quality. You say "the kids need horror" and "you come from the age of Freddy, and Jason, and Myers". Well I come from that age too, but you obviously dont have a modicum of respect for what they stood for if you wish for their return to the big screen at any cost. And did you actually use the phrase "The kids need horror" as an excuse? So what is the follow up to that sentence? "The kids need horror....so it's perfectly ok for studios to continually bastardize the entire genre just because thats the brand of horror the kids want." That is certainly the implication. I also find it funny that much of the argument that has been thrown down over this film is about the logistics and plot holes of the film. This is the wrong fight. What we should be talking about is that the entire flick is just filled with the most inane shit hilariously bad dialogue, not just bad actors but annoying unlikeable actors, and lacks any atmosphere whatsoever. The latter of which automatically dooms a horror film. There is no point in scuffling about logistics when the entire tone is so god damn off. You can't argue with anyone who actually think garbage like this is quality, because quality is an intangible amorphous myth to people like DohDoh. They are the current American moviegoer. Filled with fast food and hopped up on energy drinks there is no excusing or reasoning with them. Instead of arguing a direct point they will blatantly change subjects and twist arguments. Look how many times with Transformers someone said "Its based on a stupid cartoon!!" after that argument couldnt have possibly been deconstructed more completely. Same thing with this. They are, in a word, idiots. And I know I know its so taboo to throw a word like that around, but in an increasingly apathetic cinematic landscape what other conclusion can one come to? You say its the studios job to make better films? Well yeah, but its at least as inexcusable for the public to be going to the films that are now coming out. You have to attack the fool AND the fool who follows it. And as for attacking Mori's work on Masters of horror, fuck you. Now I'm certainly no Moriarty kiss ass, but both those episodes, from a writing and idea standpoint, where really fucking cool. Keep in mind those things are shot in like 7 days with a lame Canadian film crew and less that spectacular actors and no budget. Cigarrette Burns I would LOVE to see made into a full length feature with a great stylistic Fincheresque director. Both that and Pro-life are both inarguably more original than anything that has come from the pen of Rob Zombie.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:22 p.m. CST
So unless you are prepared to say that THAT is a brilliant Halloween film, you have to admit that B.O. gross means nothing to the quality of this film. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:23 p.m. CST
sorry to say, but i enjoyed the hell out of it last night!
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST
My only complaint was that it was way too short. If you watch Halloween, Halloween II, and H2O, it makes for a fun trilogy. Obviously only the first Halloween is worth your time, but still.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:29 p.m. CST
The first half was terrific. the second half is more of a retread. A solid effort overall. Great soundtrack too.
Sept. 1, 2007, 4:34 p.m. CST
... this is pretty much guaranteed to be number 1 at the box office this weekend, not that it says anything about quality. Even I plan to see this this weekend just out of morbid curiosity...and there's really nothing else worthwhile coming out this weekend. But clearly it appears this wasn't the film he was suited to remake...if they remade "Last House on the Left"...that would have been more up his alley.
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:18 p.m. CST
It always amazes me how two people disagreeing quickly dissolves into personal attacks. No one is wrong for hating this film, and no one is wrong for loving it. It's called "opinion". What I'd like to know from other people is: What is more important? Critical response, or box office return?
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:20 p.m. CST
Couldn't help but kind of agree with Impulse's post. To be a writer, whose work is out there for the viewing public to see and critize, and then review others work leaves you so open to getting hammered, regardless of what points you make about the film. Although, Ebert wrote a terrible, terrible piece of shit, and no one cares about that.
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:21 p.m. CST
But will Zombie follow his usual lying tactics and now declare that he's never heard of the Razzies? Will he state that he's not reading any of the hundreds of critics who slammed the film? After all, this is the guy who blatantly LIED about not reading Quint's review after he'd already responded to it on his MySpace page. This is the guy who said he hated remakes and saw no point whatsoever in remaking classic films. This is the guy who was forced into reshoots after terrible test screenings and then said that "the studio liked it so much that they just opened their pocketbooks for him to shoot any extra scenes he wanted." Seriously, the guy's a sellout, a hypocrite and a liar. People give Eli Roth a lot of shit for some of the dumber statements he's made, but at least Eli doesn't consistently lie and contradict himself in interviews. Fuck Rob Zombie - the guy's a one-trick pony who can't write a script to save his life and constantly cannibalizes the same tired Hillbilly shtick in everything he does.
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:22 p.m. CST
Even i disagree with myself! half of me loved it, the other half wishes it had been done differently. but overall, as a horror film, i found it very effective and well done, and would definately see it again and recommend it. I may have just done a few things differently...not much, but a few.
Sept. 1, 2007, 5:31 p.m. CST
by blonde redhead
was in it and he was a mouthy redneck loser too. thank god udo didn't have to try and put on some shit inbred accent. i <3 you, udo. also this movie still sucks a fatty.
Sept. 1, 2007, 6:28 p.m. CST
by Homer Sexual
Being over 40 (the original came out when I was 15) and sitting in a theater full of teens was enlightening. <p> When I saw Halloween: Resurrection, everyone in the theater hated the movie, nothing good was said on the way out. On this one, reaction was mixed. Most of the teens did like it, and most of the older (and by that I mean everyone older than about 16, and most definitely including the 20-something crowd) felt it was "meh." <p> I thought it was Zombie's best movie, but that's not saying much. I think Zombie is sadistic, and his movies play to sadistic viewers, but this movie is way less of that than his other two. <p> Of course it opened strong, I was super psyched to see it. But, whatever. It was just not scary at all, which is a big disappointment. Also, kind of boring. Many people over 20 commented on those two items on the way out.
Sept. 1, 2007, 6:38 p.m. CST
I love John Carpenter's Halloween because it respects the viewer, presenting the viewer with classy characters and classy families unknowingly facing a SILENT homicidal SHAPE lurking in their midst. Rob Zombie's Halloween does not respect the viewer much as the lame sequels to Friday the 13th and the disgusting re-make of TCM did not respect the viewer. I also hate white trash which is pretty much all Rob Zombie has to offer. That, and some tits, blood and guts. So there you have it. Fuck you Rob Zombie. Oh, and his insertion of his own wife as a "40 year old white trash stripper" was vile and disgusting and has no place in a movie that is even remotely based on the Carpenter classic. A white trash 40 year old stripper would make a great mother of Leatherface, but not Michael Myers. Rob Zombie just doesn't get it!
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:02 p.m. CST
Just saw the movie with my wife. Just to let you know, I can watch Corpses with no problem, and I loved Rejects. This, on the other hand..... I couldn't comprehend how bad this was going to be. I mean, I had an idea after reading a lot of reviews, but I had no idea. It's really upsetting, to be honest. I think there was a lot o potential here, but Zombie didn't really seem to be too into this flick judging by what I saw. I won't even pick apart anything specific, but I have to say that this was one of the most disappointing movies I've seen in quite some time. I guess it's fitting since when I saw Rejects I felt it was one of the best I had seen in a long time.
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:08 p.m. CST
My wife pointed out the Sheri Moon is getting better as an actress, and she's right. No need to bash her here, she was the only one in the movie that earned my sympathy.
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST
...this one is no different.<P>I enjoyed HO1KC. At the time, it was a welcome return to the visceral 80s horror pulp I grew up on that was tarnished by the Scream era for at least a decade. Loved that eternity scene (okay, five minutes or so) with the gun and the cop. I knew the flick was TCM sans-Leatherface, but I still dug it. For some reason, no one else felt the same way.<P>Then came DR and suddenly everyone loved that. To me, it felt like TCM meets the first half of Dusk Til Dawn, only again sans-Leatherface. To this day I cannot understand how the same characters that were in HO1KC only Tarantinoed and no Doctor character makes for a better film. But whatever. To each there own.<P>Took in Halloween today, but only because it was bonding day with my 17 year-old son. He thought it was "alright" (means he loved it) while I thought it was "alright" (means I hated it). McDowell turns in his worst performance since Fist of the Northstar. After Heroes, I was so very looking forward to him bringing gravitas to something I knew was going to be laden with tumbleweed, twang, tattoos, silly hats, and sweat. Sorry, Zombie, but you've pigeon-holed yourself and it shows.<P>I'm disappointed that the Shape has gone from the innocuous bogeyman to virtually any version of an ad-hoc cash-in character that's been aping the paint-by-numbers serial killer archetype since Jason Vorhees hit town.<P>Why are we so compelled to define "evil" instead of accept it for what it is? Where the Myers character is concerned, less most definitely is more.<P>But the thing I missed the very most is the coy way Michael looked at his victims after a kill, cocking his head to the side and staring on like a curious dog. Maybe it was there, but most kills were so shakey cam that I didn't pick up on it.<P>Bottom line -- Zombie has talent, but he really needs to try to create something of his own. I know he has it in him. However, his creations have thus far been all homage to superior works at the very best. Keep at it, Rob. I'll be with you for your next creation!
Sept. 1, 2007, 7:59 p.m. CST
this was a totally well-written, well-argued review. i've jumped off the horror wagon awhile ago, but i agreed with him point by point. also, good call equating the inclusion of rape scenes in movies as plot devices as a bonafide scumbag move. i'm completely disgusted by how much more socially acceptable it is to include stuff like that in film. even in something like "300", there was a totally unnecessary rape scene added that was not in the comic at all. we're all getting too used to things that should really really bother us.
Sept. 1, 2007, 8:27 p.m. CST
I bruised my friend sitting next to me with all my flailing!! There is a scene in the first 15 minutes that was so unsettling, it set the tone for the whole movie! Make sure you go to a theater with great sound fx! If you loved the original HALLOWEEN, you'll like the new Rob Zombie "Remix"...
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:26 p.m. CST
I have access to a work print - but screw that, I won't even waste the energy if its as bad as he says it is
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:28 p.m. CST
Ken Foree should be in every single movie....Big Joe should get a trailer for his own movie in Grindhouse 2!
Sept. 1, 2007, 9:39 p.m. CST
That is the reason the first film is amazing. The figure going around killing IS NOT MICHAEL MYERS.<p> Physically, he is...but inside the mask, he is just The Shape. And as others have said, he is a shark--a killing machine. There were a number of interesting horror movies in the seventies that deconstruct the concept of a murderer to it's most basic. DUEL, THE CAR, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, HALLOWEEN and others don't try to explain WHY things are happening--they just show protagonists trying to survive these ordeals.<p> And they were actually scary.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:13 p.m. CST
What would it be?
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:36 p.m. CST
by The Funketeer
had nothing to do with the movie. He's a friend of the site and as such they need to drop his name every now and then because being friends with famous people is what they're into.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:48 p.m. CST
by The Real MiraJeff
If it were up to me, and I had to remake one horror film, I'd remake The Abominable Dr. Phibes...
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST
Carpenter's Halloween had suspense and menace. Zombie's tried to be a ten-hanky weeper. Like you say, McCoy, Hitchcock never explained the WHY? As for "31 million, bitches", I'll just say it was a lay up that should have been slammed home.
Sept. 1, 2007, 10:56 p.m. CST
GOOD JOB THERE MORIARTY. I hope you remake Halloween one day and put a spin on it and spin on Carpenter's cock. As for the "snobs," hah. You guys are part of that 35 (not 31 mill) mill, so shut the fuck up.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:01 p.m. CST
That's why he fought to have "I was made for lovin' you" replace "God of Thunder". Grow a set. Mori tied this turd w/ H2.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:21 p.m. CST
You're right, most people walking out of this movie are liking it. That's why it's going to make $30-35 after the long weekend. Movie critics and little elitists on here and other sites live in their little caves/shells and can't handle this sort of thing. And sorry but yes big box office does equal quality. A truly shitty movie does not make huge money (huge compared with its budget...something like Batman and Robin doesn't count because it made about 100 million and cost around 60 or so, so it wasn't a success...this Halloween probably cost next to nothing to make, and it will make a tidy profit if it hasn't already).
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST
..and yes H20 was an excellent Halloween entry. It was another crowd pleaser; thus the box office.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:27 p.m. CST
Full disclosure: I saw Halloween 2 before I saw the Carpenter classic. So to me, Laurie and Michael Myers were always family. That said, it's not like I care much for the "mythology." <BR> <BR> If there's any issues with Rob Zombie's version is that it misses what made Halloween so interesting. Unlike Jason Voorhees or Freddie Kruger (who are each motivated by a weird, twisted idea of revenge) Myers has no motive for killing nor any reason for selecting Laurie and her friends. For Laurie, it's as if evil just fixed its eye on her. <BR> <BR> And that's what made it frightening. Myers was like a tornado, come from nothingness to wreck and destroy the lives of the babysitters. <BR> <BR> As for all the remakes/reimaginings/adaptations/reworkings, it's part of a sign of the times. But it's also a sign of how desperate studios are for landing that big weekend. When you are afraid, you don't take risks (then again, you also don't reap the gigantic rewards that come when you get something right). <BR> <BR> Then again, let's be honest. The most original movie this year (meaning it's not a remake or a sequel or an adaptation) was Ratatouille. And that didn't make a third of what Spidey 3 (a movie no one likes) did in its first weekend.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:33 p.m. CST
...In order to get more of what we want, we have to support it.<P>Even if what we are supporting is not what we want.<P>Tired of this.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST
Titanic made a gajillion dollars w/ a fafillion budget. 'nuff said.
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:51 p.m. CST
The original Halloween grossed $47 million in 1978. In 2007 dollars, it would be about $140 million. Zombie has a long way to go to match Carpenter's Halloween. <br><br> As for box office and quality, Fantastic Four 2 grossed $131 million. Wild Hogs grossed $168 million. Ghost Rider grossed $116 million. Rush Hour 3 grossed $113 million and growing. Norbit grossed $95 million. All bad films and all will grossed more than Zombie's Halloween will. What exactly is your point?
Sept. 1, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST
Truly shitty movies don't make money? How do you explain the two Fantastic Four movies making over $300 million? Or Wild Hogs making nearly $170 million? Or Night at the Museum making $250 million? Click making $137 million?
Sept. 2, 2007, 12:08 a.m. CST
So a movie that cost $20 million to make and grosses $50 million is a better movie that cost $25 million and grossed $50 million? The super blockbusters are more likely to make a huge box office, but some only do $100 million while others do $300 million. Halloween opened as virtually the only new movie this weekend on a long weekend. That gave them a big advantage in their box office intake. <br><br>If it opened two weeks ago against Superbad, do you think it would have done as well. Superbad opened on 500 less screens and did $2 million more on it's opening Friday than Halloween did. <br><br>This week it is going up against the poorly received Balls of Fury as it only new release competition. Halloween opened on 3,500 screens which is about as many big blockbuster would open on too. <br><br>The better judge of a movie's popularity is the second weekend drop off. Anything over 50-60% usually means people hated the movie.
Sept. 2, 2007, 2 a.m. CST
I will put money on it that you can't without twisting his words or changing the subject.
Sept. 2, 2007, 2:04 a.m. CST
How much did all the movies you wrote make? You know since how much money a writer makes is obviously tantamount to trusting his reviews of films. Because by your logic you are less qualified to review Mori's work than he is Rob Zombie's. Do you see now what a bullshit argument that is? Besides at least Moris ideas are original, and still a hundred times the quality of Halloween and on a fraction of the budget.
Sept. 2, 2007, 3:23 a.m. CST
Mori's ass kissing fans are living proof.
Sept. 2, 2007, 7:41 a.m. CST
it really is utter crap, it plods along I didn't care about anyone in it, the murders were weak. it's hard to make a killing spree that boring. fuck.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:32 a.m. CST
Twice in ten days - a great piece of impassioned writing, clearly argued and concise. Loved the review and will steer clear of the film. Completely agree about the rush to explain - what's wrong with a bit of mystery? Isn't it a case of (it's an old argument, but...) whatever your own brain imagines as an 'explanation' for crazy, fucked-up behavior is infinitely more scary than being told, linearly, why this shit is fucked -up? Because your sub-conscious head is wired for understanding and explanation, it can't help but develop half formed and contradictory theories there under your stream of thought... this is how horror works, subconsciously and surreptitiously. Also - your comment about the remake culture - kinda reminds me of where we were 20 Years or so ago in music, everyone saying there's no originality left with sampling and endless covers etc. Personally, I think that led to some of the most creative music we've ever had (DJ Shadow, Tricky, Hot Chip etc). Too much to hope something like a cut-up culture couldn't emerge in film? Maybe in this crazy, post-pre-modern, deconstructed world all the stories have been told, and there's nothing left to say?!
Sept. 2, 2007, 9:15 a.m. CST
To me. Loomis made Myers scarier than fuck because of his respect for how strong and dangerous he was, as well as cunning and evil. And the fact that Myers DOESN'T have a soul like you and me, that there's NOTHING inside of him, just a gaping black hole instead of an ethos or pathos...<p>That shit is scary. John Carpenter, he's like one of my dad's friends, you know, just some dude who likes creepy shit and knows how to fuck with someone's head. Halloween has the perfect fucking soundtrack, and Carpenter knew how to use the foreground and background. Like that shot of Strode with The Shape in the background after she fucks him up in the eye with a wire hanger...Then Myers does the zombie sit up, and looks toward her back. BRILLIANT!<p>Rob Zombie...Man...He took one of the lamest goddamned Lugosi flicks and used it to name his band. It's like those goth kids you know who also love metal, and get a fucking tattoo of the Universal version of The Mummy or something on their ass. House of 1000 Corpses? Didn't see it, and why? Because this guy Zombie is 'living his gimmick', and I don't respect guys like that. I do respect guys like Lloyd from Troma, because he looks like soemoene's skeevy landlord, who just so happens to like horror and shlock films. OR take the guy who directed 'Faces of Death'...He looks like a guy who you'd meet at a horror convention who knew some shit about all those awesomely bad Cannon flicks.<p>Zombie looks like a guy who loves horror films. I mean, clown white plus Alfred Packer beard and filthy dreadlocks? Shit yeah he 'loves' horror flicks because it fits with his image. It would be more awesome if Rob Zombie was really into, say, carnival glass lamps or movies featuring animated pastel colored bears. But no, he 'loves' horror flicks. Sure he does.<p>Attack me if you like, but Zombie's just a guy with goth affectations, who had a pretty good band, who has robbed the word 'fuck' of its magic and novelty; and even managed to make weird White Trash exploitation films boring. Good luck, Rob Zombie, with whatever genuinely unscary flick you come up with next. From the sound of it, this version of Halloween is desperately trying to be 'Henry' but with awesome MTV editing and the word 'FUCK' every other line. PASS. PASS. PASS.
Sept. 2, 2007, 9:22 a.m. CST
Slander is Spoken, lIbel is wrItten. that is all, carry on.
Sept. 2, 2007, 9:25 a.m. CST
If you saw Halloween: <BR> <BR> Did it scare you? Did it frighten you? Did you jump out of your seat? In short, did it deliver what it promised as a horror movie? <BR> <BR> If so, then congratulations. You got what you were supposed to get out of it. <BR> <BR> Whether the director is an auteur who's breaking all conventional rules or a hack who doesn't know a thing about movies is irrelevant. So is whether 10 people or 10 million people saw it. If the movie delivered on its promise, that's what matters.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:02 a.m. CST
Transcription of the VERY funny bit from 'Werewolves and Lollipops', At Midnight I Kill George Lucas With A Shovel...<p> Begins with a sketch of hypothetical Patton fawning over George Lucas after vowing to kill him with a shovel to save the future from the sequels.<p> GL: (Patton doing a weird Kermit-esque imitation of Lucas) Um...I got some good news..uh..I'm working on the three prequels the first three chapters...<p> PO: Oh sh--really?! FINALLY! You're gonna--OH MY GOD, THAT'S AWESOME! Dude, I'm so excited, I can't wait!<p> GL: Well, hey, you say you're a Star Wars fan, uh, do you like Darth Vader?<p> PO: I (exasperated laugh) I fucking LOVE Darth Vader dude, the helmet with the cape and the sword...that's GREAT! Man, I--Is he in the first movie?! <p> GL: Yeah, in the first movie, you get to see him as a little kid.<p> PO: Uhh..(Confused look on his face) is he like a little Damian-Omen Kid? Like, evil and killin' people with his mind and shit like that?<p> GL: No, he's just like this little kid and he gets taken away from his mom and he's very sad.<p> PO: Uh...I don't really care about him as a kid...at all..AT all..AT ALL. I don't--I just like the helmet and the sword and the cape...that's what was kind of cool about him...<p> GL: Well, hey, don't worry 'cause guess who shows up in the second movie?! Boba Fett.<p> PO: There you fuckin--Boba Fett?! YEAH! With the helmet and he's a bounty hunter...that is AWESOME...that is so COOL.<p> GL: Yeah, and in the second movie, you get to see him as a little kid!<p>PO: Again, I don't really care about him when he was a little kid...I like the ship and the helmet and the..uh killing people...is he like, uh, does he have the helmet on and he's killing people? Is that like what he's..is that what's going on?<p>GL: No, he's like this little kid and then his dad dies and he's very sad.<p> PO: (beat) Do not give a shit...AT ALL...about that. Could not care less.<p> GL: Well, don't worry because in the third movie, you know what shows up? The DEATH STAR.<p> PO: AWE-SOME. Man, that fucking--wait, what is it doing, George?<p> GL: Well, you just see it at the end of the movie it's being built and Darth Vader's just kind of looking at it.<p> PO: (Oswalt looks exasperated) Again...I don't care how they built it..how they put in the toilets and the air conditioning...I just like it when it's done and when it's blowing planets up. That's kinda...what's cool about it... <p> GL: You look really sad.<p> PO: Dude, I gotta say, I'm pretty fucking sad, man. That sounds awful. That, that all just sounds like SHIT.<p> GL: Would you like some ice cream?<p> PO: I uh..Yeah, I would like some ice cream, that would be cool if I had like a dish of ice cream.<p> GL: Well, here's a big bag of rock salt.<p> PO: You just said, I was gonna have a dish of ice cream.<p> GL: Well, when you combine the rock salt with ice and cream and sugar and flavoring it becomes--<p> PO: I DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHERE THE STUFF I LOVE COMES FROM. I JUST LOVE THE STUFF I LOVE. 'Hey, do you like Angelina Jolie? Does she give you a big boner?' WELL, HERE'S JON VOIGHT'S BALLSACK. That's right, the pink glistening ball sack she swam out of! Now, jerk off to THAT you lucky so-and-so! <p> Here ends the transcript. The bit is fucking hilarious, and I would say that the point Moriarty was trying to make is that sometimes the story of where something we like comes from may not be worth telling. I think this flick would have been more shocking if Michael Myers had a fucking NORMAL childhood, rather than the 100% Serial Killer Fuel this flick suggests. Long Live Patton.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:45 a.m. CST
Hey, Zooch, I can appreciate that you found the flick awesome, but you sound like someone from a damned PR firm. I'm a thinking plant.
Sept. 2, 2007, 12:19 p.m. CST
I normally don't get this involved in a talk back except for maybe the Lost one, but the reason is because I'm a huge fan of horror. I'm sitting here about to watch a triple feature of Jason Goes the Hell, New Nightmare, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Next Generation today. No joke.
Sept. 2, 2007, 1:22 p.m. CST
that people are interested in a remake of halloween. Besides some of the goofballs on this website, this movie has been gettin pretty positive reviews. Check out Rotten Tomatoes, Joblo, IMDB.
Sept. 2, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST
Its at 22% at Rotten Tomatoes. Thats good? If that is good then what, pray tell, is bad? If you look at that number and use it to justify your positive point of view on this film then you are utterly delusional. And who fucking cares what "the people" are interested in a remake of except for money hungry art hating studio shills. Who, by the way JoJo, are right now laughing about how dumb you and your friends are for buying into yet ANOTHER terrible remake to go right along with that awful Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
Sept. 2, 2007, 2:22 p.m. CST
by Some Dude
The new material gives extra meaning to the "old" material. The killer is scarier than he has been in years. Cinematography and sound design are nice. Seriously, please stop thinking all horror films are supposed to be "fun." That is how idiotic memes like "torture porn" get started.
Sept. 2, 2007, 2:42 p.m. CST
An expected $30 mil opening weekend against the films it's up against? Balls of Fury and Death Sentence are the two NEW films that it's up against? And it's a holiday weekend? Plus it's a film that trading on the fact that everyone is familiar with the title? It's also opening in more theaters than any other new film, or any of the past Halloween films. It's on one screen here at the mega-plex. Just one. I don't see this having legs enough to make it to Halloween.
Sept. 2, 2007, 2:48 p.m. CST
everyone correct their mistaks?
Sept. 2, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST
Sept. 2, 2007, 3:19 p.m. CST
You guys, I said that great box office has nothing to do with quality. Die Hard IV's take is the perfect example. But on the otherhand, Zombie's film making a huge wke opening bundle means the guy can make more horror films exactly how he wants. Zombie has a vision. This movie is not out-and-out hated, as Moriarty and Quint "Told You So!" Schoolboy would have you think. This movie is good for "horror." And not b/c I will settle for just any fucking horror movie with a lot of kills. I don't care about gore. I love Carpenter's original. I love The Shape and the suspense and how it lead the way for independent film and DIY filmmaking. But I love Zombie's film too. He's given us something that is provocative and given us a Halloween to debate. I don't give a shit if this thing drops 70% next weekend. Zombie has brought Michael back and given him his integrity back. As for Moriarity and all of this libel bologna, please. All I'm saying is there is a reason why Ebert backed off filmmaking and went straight to reviewing films after Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. It's an impossible balance. Moriarty ripping Zombie's Halloween and calling it "INSIGIFICANT FILMMAKING" is just an unfair statement. What films have I made? I haven't made a film. I'm half Moriarty's age. But as a fan I have every right to question a review's integrity. If I was in the film business, I would refrain from reviewing films with such contemptuous phrasing as to call his movie pointless and worse than no movie at all. It's a labor of love, this Zombie-fied Halloween. I love that it's getting the teen idiots who saw Halloween: Resurrection back into the theatre for more "feel 'em up" shittiness, and shocking them with something incredibly new for the franchise. $34 million four-day holiday weekend. I love it. Also, Moriarty will not answer my question regarding how Rob Zombie's remake is "insignificant" while Peter Jackson's bloated retread of King Kong is knighted the Cat's Pajamas on AICN to this day. Zombie's Halloween's Creative Success > Peter Jackson's King Kong Creative Success.
Sept. 2, 2007, 4:14 p.m. CST
... The Halloween remake is boring as hell... Every complaint about this movie has already been said and I agree with most of it (Michael's comical over-the-top trailer park beginnings, Malcolm McDowell in his most boring role ever, Laurie Strode being reduced to a pointless footnote, etc etc) My biggest complaint about the movie tho has to do with the mood of the film or lack thereof... It's not suspensful, it's not terrifying, it's not interesting... It's just stuff happening and that's it... Michael kills some people... Some people have sex... And about 200 pointless f-bombs later, the credits roll... The best part of the original is the overall creepy mood of it. It's Laurie walking down the street and seeing Michael in the bushes and him disappearing in an instant. It's Carpenter's musical score which is played in all the right moments... In this one, the same music is used but it's almost like Zombie randomly played it for no reason... It has no effect... It's the creepy tone of Michael stalking his victims. The remake tries to do this a little but it doesn't work (maybe the fact that Michael is now the size of YAO MING is the main problem... How the hell can he sneak around without anybody noticing???) But every complaint could've been overlooked if the last chase sequence with Michael and Laurie was at least HALFWAY decent but in all actuality, it's probably the worst part of the whole movie... The only saving grace is that they didn't go with the "workprint" ending and had Laurie be the one that kills him but still it isn't 1/100th of the ending of the original (which is one of my favorite horror sequences ever)... And that's that... This pretty much kills the series which maybe is a good thing. I dont see how they do a sequel after this. At the very least, the remake makes the original look 1000Xs better and that's a very good thing... RIP Halloween franchise...
Sept. 2, 2007, 4:32 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
You can't read. <P>That's what this all boils down to. You want to talk about someone having their mind made up ahead of time. You really should go back into my review and read every word of it. Because you still seem to think this is about hating Rob Zombie. And you have become so fixated on the word "insignificant" that you're out of your mind. <P>But you're not interested in "debate," as you claim. If you were, then you'd accept that there are more points of view on the film's artistic success than yours. You don't accept that, and all you want to do is attack someone who didn't love it instead of discussing it. <P>Keep it up.
Sept. 2, 2007, 4:51 p.m. CST
The greatest sin of this film - aside from the awful writing, acting, dialogue, etc. - is how insufferably dull it is. And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this movie "reinvigorates" or "reboots" the franchise seeing as little Mikey is dead. I mean, if Zombie actually did put the final nail in the coffin of this series, I could at least give him credit for doing one good thing with this p.o.s, but we all know that isn't the case. As long as the name Akkad is associated with Halloween, there will always be more sequels. But with Mr. Myers gone to join the choir invisible, there's really nowhere else to go without some really ridiculous explanation of how he really didn't die. (Kevlar body armor under the jumpsuit? Steel-reinforced Shatner mask?) Of course, they could always go the Season of the Witch route, but that didn't seem to please the fans very much.
Sept. 2, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST
As I posted before, you said it was as good as Halloween II. That's giving Zombie a reprieve he doesn't deserve.
Sept. 2, 2007, 5:49 p.m. CST
This Zombie shlock will drop like an anchor and still gross 100 million worldwide. If Akkad brought back a decapitated H20 Michael, it's pretty naive to think this franchise's coffin has been nailed shut.
Sept. 2, 2007, 6:12 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
If it looks like shit and it smells like shit it must be shit.Seriously,all b.s aside it was as scary as a cloudy day.No tension whatsoever.Everyone who loved this film give us reasons.
Sept. 2, 2007, 6:31 p.m. CST
The workprint ending is about as anticlimatic as you can get... Michael for no reason at all lets Laurie go and gets shot to death by the police? How is THAT a good ending? And just because it's different doesn't make it good... And yeah, I'm not saying there's NO WAY they can make a sequel but who would want to see it? The main reason I wanted to see this was to see if Rob Zombie could make an entertaining remake to one of my favorite horror movies... He didn't. So why the hell would I want to see a sequel to that??? And what could they even do with the sequel? Just re-do the plot from the first sequel? Have Michael track Laurie in the hospital and try to kill her there? It just seems extremely pointless to do that. I did have a crazy thought after I saw the theatrical ending with Laurie going crazy and shooting Michael in the head that the killer in the sequel would be Laurie instead of Michael but again, the main selling point of the Halloween series is seeing Michael Myers kill people. Not Laurie Strode... So again, a sequel is possible but 100% pointless... Or maybe they'll do a Halloween : The Beginning prequel showing us EXACTLY how Michael's family became trailer park trash!!!
Sept. 2, 2007, 6:49 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
Shoulda cast Britney Spears.
Sept. 2, 2007, 6:52 p.m. CST
Its a remake!! a reimaging, whatever! how can you complain if its not exactly like the original? its not supposed to be! damn!
Sept. 2, 2007, 7:07 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
I don't care if it's like the original or not.It's not scary,it has zero tension,the acting is horrendous,the dialogue is awful and the pacing is terrible. Apart from that it was shit.
Sept. 2, 2007, 7:24 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
I see they're releasing the DVD ON Dec 18th before anyone forgets about this piece of shit.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
The ending on the workprint was not as anticlimatic as some would say. Michael let Laurie go because Loomis finally got to him. After all the years of Loomis having a one sided conversation, he finally touched something inside of Michael. Mori is right. Those who loved it, myself included, and those who hated it, most talkers here, are just not going to see eye to eye here.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
I thought we got a pretty decent look at Myers face near the end of the movie (orginal), so I never thought he was disfigured, unless Laurie poked-out his eye with the hanger.<br><br>I dunno, but Myers never was never as scary to me as Kruger and Jason when I was a kid, maybe thats because they were just more prevalent when I was growing up.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
I thought we got a pretty decent look at Myers face near the end of the movie (orginal), so I never thought he was disfigured, unless Laurie poked-out his eye with the hanger.<br><br>I dunno, but Myers never was never as scary to me as Kruger and Jason when I was a kid, maybe thats because they were just more prevalent when I was growing up.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:50 p.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
Maybe back then it was scary (I guess I was born too late) but not so much now. I respect that it has fans, but it certainly isn't as good as The Thing.
Sept. 2, 2007, 8:52 p.m. CST
Where did you find out its getting released to dvd on Dec 18th? Figures they would get it out before christmas...
Sept. 2, 2007, 9:07 p.m. CST
by Guy Who Got A Headache And Accidentally Saves The World
Everybody just die already
Sept. 2, 2007, 9:21 p.m. CST
Not too shabby.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST
I enjoyed watching it. Do I accept it as canon? Nah. But it WAS easily one of the more entertaining and better-made horror movies I'd seen in a while, which says a lot (especially considering Hollywood seems to be putting out some pg-13 horror movies lately, which is just lame... although Poltergeist was pg --before pg-13 existed-- and that remains one of my favorites). Although, I gotta admit, it never occurred to me while watching it that there really was no reason Myers should have been able to find Laurie. Pretty funny now that I think about it. But even as a fan of Halloween (and for that matter, Freddy, Jason, and the rest of the 70's/80's horror renaissance), I can't say the movie deserves the hatred people seem to be spewing at it. And my friend who really never got too into the Halloween series flat-out loved it. Although, after reading Mori's review, I kinda wanna see the movie he imagined/hoped this would be going into it.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:43 p.m. CST
The genesis of Michael was really lame. I'm with Patton, who the fuck cares where he comes from? And the whole white trash family thing was pretty uncomfortable for me and didn't work. Why not throw even more homage to the original and make Michael just some normal kid who snaps on Halloween night? Would have been better. But I did love the last hour of the movie. I say skip Michael as a child - if anything - start it up with the killing, bring Laurie back as a main character...ya know...a nice little hour and a half cat and mouse.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST
Start it up with the escape is what I meant.
Sept. 2, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST
And true well made and worthy sequels such as 28 WEEKS LATER pass unnoticed. There's more tension and craftsmanship in the first 5 minutes of that movie, than in all this piece of shit running time. And again: where the hell is my man Vern? I want to read his take on this and SHOOT 'EM UP.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:02 p.m. CST
$30 million is more than his first two movies made in the theater combined. People are going because of the Halloween name, not Zombie's. Halloween H20 opened to $16 million in 1998. If you convert the dollars, you will see that isn't that much different. I don't think people who went to see a Halloween movie this weekend will automatically rush out to see the next Zombie movie. In fact, they may be more likely to see the inevitable sequel to this movie than the next Zombie movie.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST
That movie was better than all the sequels put together. It's not as good as the original, but honestly, I was really taken aback by how much I enjoyed it. If you don't like Rob Zombie, it's not for you. And there are problems. The music selected for the film ranges from trite ("Love Hurts" and "Don't Fear the Reaper") to just plain odd ("Tom Sawyer?"). The cameos were distracting. The dialogue at points was unbelievably bad. THAT SAID, it was still fun once you let go and just go for the ride. Honestly, if there HAD to be a Halloween movie and it was a choice between this movie and another disposable/awful sequel, I think Zombie wins the day. Also, way better than "Hostel 2," which got so much love on this site Eli Roth must have been giving out free handjobs.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:08 p.m. CST
A sequel could work. "Halloween 13: Space Station Haddonfield" Michael Myers wakes up in the future after being cryogenically frozen by the same company that made the evil masks in "Halloween III." He then trades in his Captain Kirk mask for Captain Kirk's face.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST
Actually, Carpenter hired an actor to only do the particular scene where he rips his mask off because he had what he described as a face of an angel. Carpenter wanted Michael's face to be so unassuming to make the mystery of why he is the monster he is even more disturbing. <br><br> I thought what made Carpenter's Michael Myers so scary was that he came from a what looks to be an ideal suburban family and looks like any other young adult yet he kills without meaning or emotion. Everything about him has been stripped down to pure evil. I can't see explaining that evil will better the character.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:30 p.m. CST
by Neo Zeed
Din't mean to offend. I just find the slasher genre boring. Perhaps the thousands of slasher films that quickly followed Halloween has rendered the original film completely powerless in my eyes. I feel that I would have to been born exactly before all those movies to enjoy Halloween in that kind of context. It doesn't happen to me with other classics, but it does with Halloween (especially since the intentionally simple story doesn't inspire repeat viewing.) Nevertheless, it's my individual, quirky beef so I'm not going to defend it too much. In addition, I don't think a movie is either better or worse with jump cuts or CGI. I also don't blow my wad over shakycam, CGI pirates, apes, or golems.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:42 p.m. CST
So Zombie made Halloween because he wanted to explore Myers as a character, to make him more "real". One of the reasons that I loved Devil's Rejects is because I felt it made the goofy caricatures of House of 1000 Corpses more "real". And in doing so, it showed some scary, scary people. Who actually felt real. The problem, of course, is that Michael Myers as the enigmatic The Shape is far more interesting than the Firefly clan of Corpses. The Firefly clan had no purpose, they weren't a metaphor for anything. Whereas Michael as The Shape was a metaphor for paranoid fears, especially of the unknown (his mask hides his features) and the potential harm that can come to small-town children/teenagers (always heightened on Halloween). And although I like Zombie's instinct to explore the relationship between Loomis and Michael, I think the relationship is both more interesting than any of the film around it, and also less interesting than the metaphorical Shape of the original. And although I love Patton and I do believe in Clive Barker's philosophy of "don't explain too much", I think it CAN be fascinating to see the origins of our favorite stories/characters. I just don't think Michael Myers needed that treatment.
Sept. 2, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST
I GUESS THAT'S WHY ZOMBIE HAS A TWO PICTURE DEAL AT DIMENSION NOW, HUH ACE? I GUESS THAT'S WHY THE WEINSTEINS ARE COUNTING ON HIM TO SAVE THE STUDIO HUH ACE? Blah blah.
Sept. 3, 2007, midnight CST
Ok, so if calling his movie is insignificant is no big whup, then everything you've made so far moriarty is widely insignificant. please explain to me how hostel 2 is better than this, or better yet peter jackson's totally unecessary remake of king kong?
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:15 a.m. CST
Yeah, because our dollar is worth twice as much as 9 years ago. Dumbass. 16 mil nine years ago is not even close to 30 mil today. In fact, 16 mil 9 years ago is almost just that today. Nice try, now go back to sucking Mori's cock.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST
Is the response I expect from Mori. Then he will say that you don't know how to debate movies, because you attack him personally. Sound about right?
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST
From Jo Blo: The bottom line is that Rob Zombie is now GOLD in Hollywood, and considering that he just recently signed a 2-picture deal with the Weinstein brothers, it looks as though we'll be seeing a lot more of this guy behind the camera, which can only be a good thing, since he's very creative and a genius
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:20 a.m. CST
Batman Begins was insignificant. Do we really need a Batman orgin story? I mean really now. I bet in the new one we see the orgins of the Joker too. And you fanboys will suck it up. So long Mori like it though.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:23 a.m. CST
Holy cow, DohDoh, chillax. No need for the CapsLock, dude. Zombie having a two picture deal at Dimension has less to do with talent than name recognition. Talent might be part of the deal, but they mostly want to be able to say, "From director Rob Zombie" in the ads. And since when are the Weinsteins counting on him to save the studio? That statement's pretty wide of the mark. The Weinsteins have many eggs in many baskets, friend. If Zombie takes a dump, they can always go back to Rodriguez and Tarantino. There's no shortage of people to pick up Zombie's slack. And if we're going to compare remakes, I think Jackson's King Kong did a LOT more to enhance the Kong mythos than did Zombie's Halloween for the Myers mythos.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST
Again, by the same logoc posted here by many other talkbackers, why do we want to add to the mythos of anything? King Kong is much more iconic than Michael Myers, so why did they mess with it? And yet Mori loved Kong. I do not disagree with what you are saying, since I can barely remember the Kong remake, it is just that it seems that the very same argument can not be a positive for one movie and director, and a negative for another.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:32 a.m. CST
Way to predict behavior, skoobx. That'll show Mori that he's wrong. "Hey, you have a pattern of behavior that I recognize. Take THAT!" And for the record, DohDoh IS attacking Mori personally. Whereas Mori has generally a lot of good to say about Zombie. He just didn't like Halloween. In fact, as Mori himself POINTED OUT (hence the "can't you read" that you so cleverly predicted), he was disappointed in the movie because he genuinely believes that Zombie HAS talent. As opposed to, I don't know, a CapsLocked insane rant...
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:37 a.m. CST
Halloween is the Weinsteins only fucking hit unless you count that dismal Turtles movie (that Moriarty gave a pass to). He saved their ass right after The Nanny Diaries - any other studio it would have made money for - flopped in so many theatres it left crop circles shaped like an ass. Earth to Necgray, Rodriguez has flown the fucking coop. He's making Jetsons for someone else or Barberella with that talentless fiance of his (and the reason it'll flop, she's his Yoko). That Rebel Without a Crew is pissed that his half of Grindhouse (which sucked and also flopped) was blamed by critics and brothers Weinstein for the movie's failure. QT = yeah, if the dude makes a movie by 2010. Unlikely the Weinstein Company will still be around by then. So they got Rob, and Kevin and Blueberry Nights. Peter Jackson's Kong did a lot to make $250 million worth of audience go dizzy with SFX and Jack Black's lamest performace. It didn't add shit to the mythos. It retold the story and added worse dinos than Jurassic Park on a shitty VHS. Halloween reinvented Michael Myers for a new fucking audience. It also only cost $15 million. When you see what Zombie's next project is going to be - it'll be announced shortly from what I hear - then shut up. The Weinsteins are putting their chips on him now, mate. MGM is finally getting some relief from fucking with their company. They got Rob and Genius (the video company they own, duh.) and that's it. And they got Inglorious Bastards, which is probably going to be three movies and make AICN implode. Give Rob Zombie some credit. LIKE HIM OR NOT, HE'S NOW THE PREMIERE HORROR DIRECTOR AROUND UNTIL HIS NEXT MOVIE.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:42 a.m. CST
I am not defending the INSANE CAPS LOCKED RANT. Instead, I was finding it kind of funny that Mori preaches about debating the work at hand, but refuses to actually debate it. I, as well as others I am sure, are eagerly waiting his responses about the issue at hand. But it seems the only way to get an honest answer IS to insult him. Now, I do agree where Mori has stated that most of us are just not going to agree on this. He is entitled to his opinion. And I do not think that Mori should call Zombie's Halloween insignificant. That opened himself up to ALOT of cheap shots. Also, as far as predicting behavior, that is fairly easy to do when the reviewers here decide months out of seeing a finished product that it will suck. Then when they do review it....surprise....they feel it sucked. Oh well. I liked it, I think it added some much needed stamina to the horror genre, I think it took things in an unpredictable direction. I bet you if Roth made this same exact film, Mori would have loved it.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:47 a.m. CST
35% of people loved it. 15% thought it was alright. 15% hated it. The rest of the votes went to everthing else, from have not seen it, to won't ever see it, to waiting for the DVD.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:52 a.m. CST
Here's what he says in his review: 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. Ummmmmmmm, He's saying it's just "another crappy Halloween on the shelf." Pulllleaze. You know what, it's already made a huge impression on pop culture. You know why? Because not only is Rob Zombie the new behind-the-face of horror, Michael Myers is now stronger than he's ever been. And not only that, but the Weinsteins have their fucking Nightmare on Elm Street franchise a la New Line back in the day. And because of that, the company has saved a little face. It's their first hit. To call a film as Moriarty did, A SAD, DIRTY SHAME, is harsh as all fuck. It is hating. Let me ask you this. When is the last time Quint started a review with "I TOLD YA SO!!" Jesus Christ. These guys are like school children, not me. They've been pointing the finger at this movie since day 1. They could have said it's just not that great or explained how it could have been better. But Noooooooooo! They had to "tell you" how much it was going to suck five months ago and now "tell you" that it sucks just as much as they predicted now. But guess what? A lot of the audience that knows their horror - Moriarty and Quint would like to make you think that if you like this remake you are a shit mark on the future of film - likes this version. Some smart people, like Jo Blo, like this fucking movie A LOT. And even the ones who didn't excluding pricks at fake alternative weeklies and the new Eberts, who are going to hate a horror movie no matter what unless it has hipster cache like Scream did, - even the ones who didn't like this weren't as dismissive and whiny as Moriarty. So yeah, I am going to use a few Caps. They would have played this version of Halloween on fucking Z-Channel back in the day. And I look forward to the new film critics who are rising to dissect this film. It's not a masterpiece. I'm not saying it's the River Kwai or Bonnie & Clyde. But it is an important horror film and it doesn't deserve to go down in flames. So speak out if you liked it. And fuck anyone else who says "I must like Slipknot." No. I prefer doing blow to Gram Parsons.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:56 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... except I'm not the guy who loves Eli Roth's films. Didn't like CABIN FEVER much at all. Thought HOSTEL was decent. Thought HOSTEL 2 was a retread with about five decent minutes. And that's it. <P>In fact, I was one of the few AICN staffers who really enjoyed HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES at BNAT, where everyone else went out of their way to call it shit because it played back to back with MAY. I liked H1KC a lot as a deranged funhouse ride, and I said so at the time. <P>I thought DEVIL'S REJECTS showed more promise as a filmmaker, but I thought it also showed that Zombie might be a bit of a one-trick pony. I liked it, and said at the time that I was looking forward to what he might do next. <P>My problems with HALLOWEEN are not about Rob personally, and that's what you guys seem willfully determined to misunderstand. They are conceptual issues. I disagree with his entire approach to the character. So you're right... ever since I knew that was his approach to the character, I have had my issues with it, and the film played out with all of those issues intact. The real surprise for me was how much self-parody there was creeping in, with that awful "BITCH, I WILL SKULLFUCK YOU!" dialogue. <P>You have something specific to debate, Skoobx, I'd be happy to. As long as you want to have a conversation and not just insult me, I'm more than happy to participate.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:58 a.m. CST
Zombie HIMSELF said that he wanted to expand on Myers' background. Okay, so that was Zombie's reason for doing the movie. Now if DohDoh wants to compare the two movies and claim that Kong was "unnecessary", I feel it only fair to bring up the only thing the two films have in common. Which is that they expand on the mythos of their respective central characters. DohDoh brought up the comparison, not me. And I think that the argument from Mori's POV would be less concerned with adding to mythos as it would be with "is this movie good?" He can love Kong for all sorts of reasons having NOTHING to do with the fact that it's a remake.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... find me one place where I have insulted the people who liked this movie. Find one place where I called anyone who enjoyed it "a shit mark on the future of film." <P>You are now actually inventing things that I didn't say to attack me with. Is this movie that important to you?
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:05 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
It's so funny that you keep throwing that at me as a film that I loved without reservation? Wanna go back and read that review again, champ? Wanna read the sections where I wail about the year's absolute worst subplot, every single second of screen time involving Jimmy The Cabin Boy? Wanna read where I talk about all the things I think are wrong with the pacing? <P>And again... stop bringing up HOSTEL 2 like you think I published a rave for it. I didn't. At least yell at me about things I really said if you're going to be this upset.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:05 a.m. CST
Thank you. As a horror fan, I just really think that this was a step in the right direction. We have been fed pg-13 bullshit for 10 years now. This film was in my opinion brutal. I did not expect everybody that reviews here to like it. In fact, many of your problems with the film are valid. I just did not expect the level of hatred this film has recieved. It is very polarising, to say the least. And for the record, I do not think I ever attacked you. I have been harsher with some of the talkbackers that will just follow whatever you say. I also do not care how you feel about Rob personally. Personally, I hate Michael Bay. I still will give him credit where it is due. I guess you are right about not liking it then or now though. If you got exactly what you expected, then so be it. Do you think that this movie will change horror movies of the future for the better or for the worse?
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:07 a.m. CST
I know, I'm pathetic.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:11 a.m. CST
Seeing this movie made me have a horror streak right now. Watched the Gate last night, and plan on watching Night of the Comet in a bit. Right after Death Proof.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:11 a.m. CST
So as may be apparent, I'm new to talkback posts. And I have to say, I'm wondering how wise it was to start... This Halloween is not an important film. It's no more important than the Texas Chainsaw remake. Or the Omen remake. Or the Hitcher remake. Or the Wicker Man remake. Or the Amityville Horror remake. Or the Hills Have Eyes remake. Etc. ad nauseum.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:14 a.m. CST
No, do not get discouraged. Your last post had some good arguements in it. Man, I love movies. I love watching movies, good or bad. And talking about them, debating them, is almost as good as watching them. You are doing fine. I have been a talkbacker for years, just never really talkedback. Lots of downtime now (shoulder surgery), has given me time to do so. I still stand by my point though that like it or not, this movie was good for the genre.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:15 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
No. I don't think this film will change anything. <P>There have been plenty of R-rated films in recent years. Alexandre Aja's HILLS HAVE EYES remake was, IMO, far more brutal than this movie and, frankly, worked on its own terms as a movie more completely than this one does. And I don't think Aja's film is particularly significant, either. I just think it's better at what it does. <P>I think the only message development types will take from this film's opening weekend will be to greenlight more remakes of older films. Specifically, remakes of slasher films. Expect the greenlight for HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, and TERROR TRAIN any day now. Some will be R. Some will be PG-13. Very few of them will be worth watching on any level. <P>Look... if this film worked for you, then great. I'm glad. And that's not sarcasm... that's sincere. But TheDohDoh is insane if he thinks this film's ultimate impact on the pop culture world will be anything remotely like the Carpenter original. Remember... at the time that film was released, it went on to become the most successful independent film ever made. Not horror film. Independent film of any type. It passed EASY RIDER, which was also a cultural phenomenon. <P>Opening weekends are all about marketing. If TheDohDoh wants to prove me wrong, then he can feel free to check back in when this film's box-office goes up from week to week, when it passes the $300 million mark domestically, and when it spawns a ten-year-run of movies that specifically ape the stylistic choices that Zombie made. At that point, I'll concede that this film is the equal of the original in terms of impact. <P>What I'm guessing will actually happen is that we'll see a drop-off next weekend of 70% or higher, and by the time Halloween actually rolls around, this won't still be playing on a single screen in America. <P>Insignificant.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:27 a.m. CST
This is one of the most blind statements in your entire review. Nobody is cheering for Michael in this, unlike every Halloween except the first one. This is a hypocritical remark. First you say that the audience you saw the film with wanted to have a good time. They wanted to make a party watching this. They cheered when Michael nailed a guy to the wall. Not when Michael got stabbed. WHEN A VICTIM GOT STABBED. Then you complain that the film makes Michael the "hero" right after you say he didn't offer enough incidents to make the audience go wild. You are right, however, that Zombie made one of the more subversive mainstream horror films in recent memory. The film is subversive because it has no protagonist. What we are watching is simply the devolution process for the evolution of evil. This has never been done with Freddy or Jason or Chucky or Leatherface or Jigsaw. What we are watching on screen in the evolution of a horror icon. He's not a hero at all. There is no hero in this film. I love that Laurie Strode isn't some prototypical "final female." I love that this Loomis is a lost old man who quits seeing Michael and then shills a stupid book about him and how evil he is to make money (it's obviously a bestseller, even the slow sheriff of a "little town" has read it). I think what's great about Michael and how he becomes this inexplicably large beast while locked up, is that the evil is growing inside him. It's looking for a way out and it does that by a literal growth. He's becoming a monster before our eyes and even he - what little human is left - doesn't realize it. The psychosis that existed in the first film is shown like a case study. That doesn't make him a hero simply b/c he's on the screen the most. Most films, yeah it would. Not here. Instead of giving audiences "fun" and another run-of-the-mill slasher, it's great that Rob Zombie is saying, "if you want to watch mindless kills, you are going to have watch them be downright brutal and real." I think it's hilarious when Jason shoots someone in the eye with a fucking speargun. It's ridiculous. It's a clever kill. Jason is the wacked-out hero. Not here. Michael's kills aren't clever. They are dreadful. We are watching unstoppable evil clear it's way through a town. This moment has been coming and building for 30 years. Now, I feel like Michael Myers has justification for those seven sequels. For his iconic status. I love the first Halloween, but you have to admit, the sequels had nothing to do with it. ANd the sequels, sadly, are the reason people would recognize Michael Myers if you held out a photo on the street. If there were no sequels, the first Halloween would have a better status than Black Christmas, but not one quarter as iconic as it does today. I think Loomis works in the film as a play on the cheapness of psychiatry. It's about selling big books on big cases and getting yourself on TV now. I love that Michael can now go off and be the boogeyman he always needed to be, but wasn't b/c Carpenter didn't set out to make a character that has Halloween costumes for sale. Zombie did just that. He gave an effective and subversive justification for just that. And it's about goddamn time somebody did that for Michael Myers. And, I don't think Rob Zombie "cashed in" and sold his cred to make this. He took a big risk and did a damn good job that is obviously thankless amongst his peers like yourself. But for a lot of 15-30s, it means a lot.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:28 a.m. CST
Forgot about Hills have Eyes. I di enjoy that as well. I agree with you in thinking that this movie will in no way change the landscape like the original. But I think it could really open up some opportunities to have some original stuff. Zombie has a gold card now to do what he wants. At least until he REALLY fails. I think it you are right about the dangers of the remake game. And you are probably right about a whole slew of them coming down the pipe now. But what Zombie did was different. He did not do a shot for shot, scene for scene remake. I hope that now remakes will have a chance to be something new and fresh. I mean face it. They are going to remake everything. And most of those remakes are going to be just that. Shot for shot duplicates. This movie gives the option for studio suits to go, "Hey, we can still make some money on this brand, and we can do it in a new direction." Maybe I am being too hopeful. Do you think that this is one of those films that when you see it on DVD, you might think differently about it. I mean, for me, I hated Napoleon Dynamite. But now, I can't stop watching it when it is on. It has grown on me. I also find it hard to believe that this film, as many have stated, takes anything away from the franchise. It added to it man. It was the same story, but told from a different angle. It was a legend retold. Amazing events never are repeated the same. Every witness has his or her take on it. This was Zombies take.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:29 a.m. CST
It's going to give Zombie some freedom to hopefully do more original stuff, but at the same time he strikes me as a guy affected by what places like the AICN talkbacks have to say (which for the most part, at least by this site's respected critics, hasn't been good). And for the most part I think he knows (from current interviews I've read with him) that he sold out. So at least for Zombie I think it has created an artist with more control but a lack of confidence. What Halloween is going to do for the horror genre is probably continue a trend of what we've been seeing a little more of lately - the Hard R horror movie. And unfortunately drag out another - the remake. So as far as affecting industry trends, I think it will have little new impact. I still believe Zombie is improving as a filmmaker, visually, as well as (on a far less greater learning curve) dialogue. I thought his Halloween at times was beautiful to look at, and when the characters veered away from the hillbilly redneck white trash vitrole spewing from their mouths, they didn't sound that bad either. I mentioned before that some of the scenes with McDowell and the kid were pretty good, some of the best stuff in the whole movie, and at least showed to me he's capable of more than just having characters yell at each other. But the guy definitely needs a writing partner, someone with the ability to put a tender arm around his shoulder and tell him "this scene really does not need this character telling that one that they are going to get skull fucked, but Rob, I still like you."
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:35 a.m. CST
Moriarty, I don't care if the film falls off 70 percent next weekend. I care that Zombie now has weight in Hollywood. Of course it's going to have a big drop like most horror films. No, I do not think his film will be remembered 1/100 as much as the original Halloween, nor do I think it's as good. Almost, for me, but not quite. But I do think that for A LOT of people who never watched Carpenter's film, this film will be as iconic. It is their definitive look at Michael Myers. And those people aren't clueless, Moriarty, they are just young.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:40 a.m. CST
and realized that there wasn't much more need for mine. However Doh, if you honestly don't think that Myers was made out to SOMEWHAT of a hero, or at the very least a tragic victim, then you need to get skull fucked by your stepdad. If it really is truly too hard for you to see the point of Zombie "fleshing out" Myers' backstory, as opposed to the evil just coming from a seemingly normal kid and normal life, then you need to be skull fucked by your stepdad at the breakfast table. And if you write one more fucking novel length post about this movie, than, that's right, you guessed it... need to be skull fucked by your dad at the breakfast table while your whorebag mom make egg abortions. AND, if you got all those references, and didn't find them funny in a pathetic kind of way, than, that's right, you need to get skull fucked by your stepdad at the breakfast table while your mom makes chicken abortions and after asking him for the cereal.
Sept. 3, 2007, 1:51 a.m. CST
I do not think Michael Myers was supposed to be A) somewhat of a hero or B) a victim. Is that what you'd consider Mac Culkin is the entertainingly stupid The Good Son? A victim and/or hero? Hahah. No. Even though I would have dropped Elijah Wood in a heartbeat.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:09 a.m. CST
I mean Jesus Christ man. You're points have become more and more hinged on baseless predictions of the future of film now that Rob Zombie has rode in and saved us all. I mean its great that you loved the film but there isnt an argument on Earth that you could make that this film does a single fucking original thing, let alone enough to change the face of horror for the better. You sound like a blathering Zombie obsessed psycho.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:10 a.m. CST
I thought Mori was going to break some news about a Sandman movie, not a documentary on snuff movies. 8^(
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:14 a.m. CST
Explain to me how Rob Zombies Halloween is better than either of the Episodes Mori wrote for Masters of horror PURELY ON A SCRIPT LEVEL. I'll repeat that, PURELY ON A SCRIPT LEVEL. Since that is the only input Mori had on either of those episodes. You intone that Zombie is so much better than Mori that he has absolutely no right to criticize. Explain in what way Zombie is the better writer please. Once again dont talk to me about visual cues in the films or the actors that are used or whatever, because Mori is not a director. Just from a writing standpoint.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:57 a.m. CST
i am not going to waste time comparing this to masters of horror. do you know how much shit ebert caught when beyond the valley of the dolls was released? any idea? all i am saying is called the psycho shot-for-shot remake, call peter jackson's king kong, call the tcm remake or the hhe remake or the hitcher remake = CAll those ALL pointless. Okay? But don't call Zombie's Halloween pointless. I don't put the film in my top 100, but I do put it in my top 30 for horror and my top 5 for this decade's horror films. I am fanatical? Hah, thanks. Commenting on a site that saw Harry Knowles do backflips for that King Kong, for Cabin Fever, for TCM: the Remake = that was some fanatical shit from the geek master. All movies have some guy going inexplicably bananas for it. Maybe that's me with Halloween. So be it. But people who haven't seen it should see it. This is a movie worth hating or loving. Not a movie that you see and say "meh." THOSE are the worst types of movies. Movies that POLARIZE like this Halloween are movies that hit a nerve. Just like Death Proof, Unbreakable or Tideland. And I'd put the reaction to this up there with any of them, in addition to the top labor day weekend of all time, which is just meanless icing on the cake, as all box office successes are. It's not the savior of film. Never said it was. It's a great polarizing horror movie, which is what the genre needs right now. Remake or not (preferably not, I agree).
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:08 a.m. CST
my argument that rob zombie's halloween is a great polarizing horror film (and a damn good horror movie to me personally) is supported by this need for some of you to say that michael myers was A) a hero of sorts and/or B) a victim. To me, he was neither. The kid, the adult, and then finally, Michael Myers, the human-less psycho, were all consummately evil characters, no hero, no victim, no protagonist about it. It's just not often we see an antagonist take this much up of a film. He's not Mr. Glass in Unbreakable. He's not remotely sympathetic. The first scene we see of Michael is him washing blood off in a sink. The motherfucker is just evil, but worse than Damien. And that KISS shirt was a nice touch, like the cat in his locker. When I saw that he had bagged a cat and put it in his locker in the principal's office, I laughed. That's the iconic Michael Myers I know. That exists now, post-post-post-post-post-post-post-post Carpenter's Halloween. If you hate that Michael Myers has come to that, fine. But that's like saying you like skinny Elvis and getting mad at me b/c I like the big one and I like the big one's concert DVD. I like Michael Myers as a villain up there with Freddy and Jason. Massawyrm put it right: These are our Draculas and Werewolves. I just felt Michael never got a film to justify his status. And Rob Zombie made the great Michael Myers Monster movie. The workprint opens with Monster Mash. Damn straight.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:20 a.m. CST
by Geek Sodomizer
did you copy and paste that from a previous post or am i having deja vu :P
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:26 a.m. CST
Having seen the movie @ one of the 12:01AM showings I can say that this review is right on. I'm not a die hard Halloween fan, or a giant horror buff. I do, however, think the original Halloween is a damn good movie. As far as Zombie's previous movies go, I hated HOATC, but I really liked TDR. When I first heard that he was doing Halloween I thought "oh great, thats just what the world needs". Then I saw the trailer, and I must admit was actually excited. But this thing was GARBAGE. I will never understand what Rob's obsession with white trash folk is, and why he needs to incorporate them as the source of the worlds problems into all his movies. Whatever, he's one some cool stuff but this was just plain AWFUL.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:27 a.m. CST
by Geek Sodomizer
so does this mean they'll let Eli Roth direct Cell? Lol I hope so!
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:52 a.m. CST
...a successful opening for HALLOWEEN might result in studios giving bold filmmakers a little more creative freedom in the future, allowing such vanguards to make films their way. And let's face it, although this is a remake we're discussing, it's a very unique vision, whether it appeals to everyone or not. Nobody is making movies quite like Rob Zombie. Also, a film is never "insignificant" if it inspires viewers and brings them some moviegoing pleasure. Zombie's HALLOWEEN has remained on my mind these past two days, since I saw it. The wonderfully iconic images in the film will be with me for some time, I imagine.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:57 a.m. CST
Indeed, well said.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:15 a.m. CST
I ask you a simple question and you go on a rant about films that have nothing to do with the conversation, Roger Ebert, and basically DEFINE in your head this movie as one of the great horror films of all time as if anyone is going to remember it in 5 years. No one but you genius thinks this is anywhere near as good as the first film. You are a piece of fucking work my friend. Its like a schizophrenic person. If this is how discombobulated you are in print I wish I could have this conversation with you in person, it must be a spectacle to watch you trip all over yourself in a live format. Btw I didnt even remotely ask you to compare Masters of Horror to Rob Zombies Halloween. Simply that you justify your argument against one Drew Mcweeny by telling us why you feel he is such an inferior WRITER (not director or anything else keep in mind) to Rob Zombie, who by anyone who know the first thing about writing or screenplay work, is pretty fucking horrid with dialogue and pace. But i knew you couldn't do it.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:23 a.m. CST
If you really think that Rob Zombies Halloween is anything but a cash cow and excuse to print money by making more remakes and sequels then my friend you don't work in the entertainment industry. Because I can assure you with all good confidence that, while I wish your statement were true, it is in fact way off the mark. If there is a film out there that could inspire studios to wake up and give artists freedom, that film is certainly not a horror remake. And if you think so you are incredible naive. Also, a film can damn well be insignificant even if people like it. Hell, I'm sure there are some people out there who liked Pearl Harbor. And as for the "iconic images" in Halloween, you can send that compliment right down John Carpenters way, not Rob Zombie's. I don't even think Zombie himself would disagree with me there.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:37 a.m. CST
Yeah, Mr. Bob Cummings (which is how I will refer to him from now on seeing as he's forfeited his horror pseudonym by making this travesty) is the savior of the Weinsteins and of horror in general. By Gawd, he the fucking Messiah! Can you feel the spirit move within you?! Fuck you. 25-30 million is peanuts by Hollywood standards. And it will be lucky to crack the 6-7 million mark next weekend. But who cares? Now Bob can make more "original" films - lol, I almost typed that with a straight face, like he's ever made anything even remotely original in his fucking life. This is the only number 1 film Bob has had and will ever have, and most of it is due to the Halloween name, not his.
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:18 a.m. CST
by abner pepper
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:25 a.m. CST
by abner pepper
I wouldn't trust Rob Zombie to direct me to the toilet after this piece of shit.
Sept. 3, 2007, 8:47 a.m. CST
It's great how so many defenders of the film love how Myers evil is boiled down to a traumatic white trash child hood. How many times have I heard it's "realistic" yet he can't be bothered to explain how little Mikey got 'roids while in the pen? Maybe that's what the whole movie was, Halloween, 'roid rage edition. I can only hope this "success" will let Zombie do what he wants. Like so many schlocky filmmakers, give them enough rope...
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:12 a.m. CST
will always be the best film, because the original wasn't trying to be anything other than what it was. In other words it wasn't trying so hard. It's still a creepy a film and a classic to watch every Halloween. This remake is too obvious for it's own good.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:56 a.m. CST
I don't doubt that the producers of this remake were dreaming of reaping profits. They are, after all, in the "business" of making movies. The point is, however, that they entrusted a maverick director to do the job. I read that Rob Zombie was encouraged to make the film his own, to do it his way. This isn't a paint-by-numbers remake. Regarding your comment about rewarding Carpenter for the "iconic images", I fully respect that. I love the original HALLOWEEN. But I think Zombie has done an admirable job of mining the iconography and breathing new life into it. This film has obviously struck a cord with many viewers, not all but many. It certainly is inciting a SIGNIFICANT amount of debate here.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST
"John Carpenter's The Thing is a rmake of a much beloved horror/SF classic..." Hey Einstein, I don't know how many times this has to be said -- Carpenter's version wasn't a remake of the original film. He went back to the book. Every fucking post you make is like fingernails on a blackboard.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:51 a.m. CST
I apologize...it's just that when someone uses reasoned dialogue to explain their point of view, I normally wouldn't attribute that to a Zombie fan. Now, in defense of Rob Zombie...Uh...Wait, he's the guy who thought it was cool to make a Nazi Werewolf movie? Nah, my great uncle Hank died with a piece of German metal in his leg that he brought back with him from one of those Nazis, so I won't be calling him anything but a potboiler at best. I sort of liked 'More Human Than Human'.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:56 a.m. CST
Halloween's reimagining took place to give it the 'Batman Begins' treatment. To re-energize a tentpole for the Fall season by creating a buzzworthy re-start. They changed the ending to allow for sequels. Great, but I said above that it would have been better that the young Michael Myers would have slaughtered a normal, loving family, all the while the word 'WHY' escaping their blood flecked lips. And then, there's NO reason WHY, and then Myers is scary. But, what Zombie has delivered is another of his love notes to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, without the subtext or shoulder to shoulder with verite as he seems to like.
Sept. 3, 2007, 12:44 p.m. CST
Not sharks. Hm, go figure. Anyway, I'll be staying far away from this movie.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:11 p.m. CST
For the ones defending this turd, I want to hear specifically why it was good. Like things from the movie, and not horseshit about Rob Zombie. "I like Rob Zombie!","You don't get him!","He's exciting and/or a great director!" How exactly? What did you see, specifically that makes you believe this. I saw a movie about Rob Zombie. I saw a needless Rob Zombieing, white trashing of Myer's family. A kid who was nonconsistant, one minute killing something, the next saying, "I love you!", and being sincere. The backstory did not justify what happened at all. Pretty bad if that's 3/4 of the movie. Myers not going trick or treating is what sent him over the edge? That's hardcore enough to send someone on a killing spree? And the imagery? Please. Seeing people soaked in blood screaming/pleading doesn't shock me in the least. It's really kind of boring and been done. A needless Rob Zombieing of the cast. How does it help the story to have every old ass person Zombie can get help the movie? There wasn't anyone else better to get? Mickey Dolenz in a Halloween film? That's better than Busta Rhymes? The fact that Myers being 7 feet tall and looking like a jackass wearing shit that wouldn't be allowed at the mall, let alone an institution, just jolted me right out of the movie. Also would you get three old people who didn't give a shit, move a pro wrestler sized killer? Oh, and I guess he walked on foot all the way to Haddonfield wearing the paper mask. "APB on 7ft. long-haired jackass wearing paper mask." Real hard to find. How did he find his sister after no one else but the sheriff knew who she was? No explanation. How did the cops get to the house Laurie was babysitting at when she called the to the sheriff's house were his daughter was bleeding to death? No explanation. Oh yeah, we had like 4 or 5 scenes of a girl/woman crawling away on the floor after being stabbed. Another Zombie fetish? I cared for none of these characters. They were presented as whores and foul mouths, so who cares if they die? The old shit house was really over done too. Laurie runs in a second time, then next thing you know she's in the attic! after being in a closet. "I want to get away, so I'll go deeper into the house!" The scenes were so boring that the music would have to chime in as Michael was trying to kill Laurie to let you know that it was scary. The biggest tell it was shit was the fact that my girlfriend wasn't scared of anything. She sits in my lap during pretty much every horror movie we've seen, sat motionless the whole movie. She said that it was too boring. Before I forget, the movie had more of Zombie's wife than anyone. Another example of it being about Zombie and not Halloween. I could see a small cameo, but come on. She was there more than Loomis! Loomis was then reduced to a plot device, and died a useless, pointless death. Another fuck up, his mother was always nice to Michael and loved him, she just had a asshole man around. So why did he become evil again? The music didn't work either. Nothing like shitty 70's stripper balads and RUSH to get me in the mood for horror. And what was the time of this film? We had new cars and old cars, new clothes and old clothes, rotary! phones and cordless phones. All the old music though. I couldn't tell if he was going for the 70's and had some fuck ups or if he was going for some Pulp Fiction thing. This movie was made for Rob Zombie and people who like him and the last 30 minutes or so had an almost verbatim shit reshoot of Halloween attached to it to justify the name. This was not a serious attempt at a remake, it was another chance for Rob Zombie to make another shit movie and get his name printed. What's new, original, or exciting by putting the same white trash, bloody, crazy nonsense in every film? The original is classic, but the remake sucked because of Rob Zombie and a good remake could have been made if it was taken seriously. The horror genre is going to be taking a shit for a few more years if this keeps up. We need some new stuff, not Saw 20 or Eli Roth either.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:47 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
We just saw blood come out of his nose (if I remember correctly), so maybay Myers just gave him a really bad case of sinus pressure.
Sept. 3, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
<br>Love it or hate it, Zombie is now going "Cha-ching" in the minds of the Weinsteins. I bet we get a sequel within 18 months.<br>
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:08 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
'Cause he wanted to kill off Myers in his version, so I don't think he cares too much about the future of the franchise .
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:09 p.m. CST
Michael Myers hijacks a car. Not only is the car seemingly not reported stolen but he drives around with his mask on right when the neigborhood kids are getting off school. Also, WHEN DID HE LEARN TO DRIVE??? HE HAD BEEN LOCKED UP IN THE YEARS PRIOR, FROM AGE 6 AND UP.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:11 p.m. CST
Zombie has stated many a time that he will not make a sequel as he feels "it cheats the viewer." I think he'll be out to prove himself with something totally original in his next go around. Perhaps that Sasquatch project, although I've heard other rumors as well.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:30 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
The weinstein's have admitted as much.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:30 p.m. CST
That you guys can't detach yourselves from your love of the original. Moriarty, the original hasn't really stood the test of time. I love the original, and I grew up watching it, but when I show it to my 17 year old sister (I am 30) she and her friends laugh at it. They think the entire movie is a joke. You can make empty arguments that they laugh because the new generation doesn't understand good cinema, but that is just you rationalizing your own lover for the film. This new movie is good. It had genuinely frightening moments. The backstory was disturbing, and made the subseqent story make sense. People want that today. They aren't willing to just accept someone as a supernatural killer. They want someone who can die, and who has a reason for their insanity. As a footnote, Laurie's family knew exactly who she was. The cop told the whole story of how they got her and that he promised not to tell anyone who she was. Were you in the bathroom during that part? Of course that doesn't explain how Michael knew who she was, but the original doesn't explain how he can survive multiple impalings, so I guess they can both have their leaps of faith.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:37 p.m. CST
Also, the crowd in the packed theater I saw it in was perfect cross-section of races and preppy/heavy-metal types. All kinds of people were there, and they applauded when the movie was over. Obviously, the people who don't write on message boards or make their living holding on to the cinema of their past seem to be loving this new version of Halloween.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST
The Weinsteins will definitely make a sequel to Zombie's Halloween, using the same characters and actors. This property is a cash cow and their studio is in desperate needs of sure-shots right now. I think Zombie will serve the same role as Carpenter on the second one, where he will script-doctor and supervise the proceedings while doing another project for Dimension of his own creation. There will indeed be a sequel to Halloween, and I think the brothers Weinstein will spend a good chunk of cash to attract a good director for it. They understand that Zombie's name brought a certain cache to this installment. It'll be exciting to see who they pick next. Compared to the Friday the 13th remake at Platinum Dunes, it will probably be far superior.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:50 p.m. CST
by TORTURE PWN1
Straight off Fangoria.com: September 3: No more HALLOWEEN? In its coverage of the excellent box office posted by Rob Zombie’s HALLOWEEN this past weekend (see our item here), The Hollywood Reporter queried Bob Weinstein, head of distributor Dimension, about whether its success would lead to the inevitable sequel. Surprisingly, Weinstein replied it was doubtful. “I never say never never…but it would have to be something very, very different,” he told the trade. Of course, it’s hard to imagine Dimension won’t want to follow up such a profitable picture (HALLOWEEN cost only $15 million to make)—and it’s also doubtful the company would take the next film in a Michael Myers-less direction, given the box-office indifference and fan brickbats that greeted HALLOWEEN III back in 1982. For his part, Zombie has said he won’t be back for another installment. We’ll keep you posted on any new developments. —Michael Gingold
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST
should have done a different story for each movie. Have the first be about Michael. The second could have had a werewolf (or something else). The third one wasn't that bad. I think people were expecting the return of Michael. Just rotate the stories. Have one come out every couple of years. Would have been a nice francise.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST
@Soylent. I think one of the big misunderstandings for why this film has a great reception with crowds (the theater I was in clapped at the end as well, and it was a very diverse audience) is that people are going not b/c they love the original Halloween but b/c they love Michael Myers. If you like Michael Myers, then you will like this film. If you are a Carpenter diehard who views the first film as religion, then you will not. Horror is the great populist genre for film. It attracts all kinds. Zombie delivered creatively and financially and made a great entertainment for modern audiences. The old fogies just can't separate nostalgia from progress in this franchise.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:55 p.m. CST
It's becoming increasingly obvious in this Talkback, that a large number of moviegoers do in fact like this new HALLOWEEN. Clearly, as people see the film for themselves, many are discovering that it is not a movie to be so easily dismissed.
Sept. 3, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST
Yeah. Weinstein is a freaking showman. He would have said the same thing about breaking up Grindhouse. He's working the angle that if he if says there are no more Halloweens, then more people will go see this one. Even the Fangoria writer you quote mentions his skepticism. Weinstein is not to be trusted. He is a suit. Zombie will not be back. But you don't release a horror film w/o thinking sequel these days if you're an exec.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:11 p.m. CST
by TORTURE PWN1
HALLOWEEN may be back in some "Shape" or form (which I don't have a problem with), but it probably won't be a sequel to zombie's piece of shit. Better to take Weinstein's word than listen to a desperate, defensive zombie apologist fanboy.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:16 p.m. CST
Yeah, b/c that Harvey Weinstein, he's not interested in hits or bags of cash or labor day records. Nice "shape" reference. Really clever. Let's just say a direct sequel loom-is.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST
by TORTURE PWN1
Sure, it made some $. But as far as people who actually liked the damned thing after seeing it, they're in the minority. There won't be much at all in terms of repeat business. The Weinsteins may be purveyors of stupidity, but they're hardly stupid themselves. They're well aware of how much "curiosity" factored into the BO take.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
if someone is praising a film they will write "and the audience loved it too as they were all clapping and they were diverse so therefore it must be great" and if someone hates it they write "the audience was stone silent everyone booed" ...I have yet to see anyone write a bad review and say "the weird thing is people were clapping and cheering for this shit" nor have I read anyone who loved something say "as much as I loved it the crowd didn't they were booing"...the audience reaction seems to always match the opinion of thew writer. and that to me reeks of a bullshit.I just don't buy it...i personally have no idea what the crowd thinks when I am at a movie as very rarely does anyone clap, I don't look around at the crowd to gauge their reaction and certainly don;t eavsedrop on falks to see if they liked it or not because there is only one persons opinion I give a fuck about....mine.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:34 p.m. CST
Has there even been a DTV Halloween? I guess now's the time to start though, right TorturePWN1? I mean, the franchise is obviously on its last legs. I mean, it didn't double its $15 mill budget in three days, right? Not to mention, the Weinsteins will make a killing when this flick hits DVD. They'll just let this property flail in the wind. I mean, it didn't do more biz than Grindhouse did its entire run in its first two days or anything. They definitely want to piss off their new blue chip director by sequelizing his film with a DTV piece of garbage. Dude, hey, you might want to go apply for a studio exec job. Your head is definitely far enough up your ass. I mean, the people in my theatre and Lonegun's didn't clap or cheer when the film was over b/c they liked it or anything.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:37 p.m. CST
If you live in a city, audiences tend to be very vocal at the end of a movie. There wasn't a film I didn't see this summer that didn't get booed (Pirates 3) or clapped for (Transformers).
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:51 p.m. CST
by TORTURE PWN1
Nobody said HALLOWEEN wouldn't be back, just that it will probably be without zombie, and possibly abandoning his stupid, revisionist mythos. It was the name HALLOWEEN and lack of competition that put asses in the seats. zombie's fans were only a small fraction.
Sept. 3, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
I read someone bring that up, and have to comment, the movie is named Halloween. What other day could a grown adult get away with wearing a mask in public?<br><br>I just thought that was obvious. And to believe their won't be a sequel, in some ways makes sence, because they can now use Myers as a character, and possibly not even have the name Halloween in the title, i.e. Jason, Freddy.
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:02 p.m. CST
Zombie himself said he won't be back. You want a cookie? I don't understand. Of course they're going to use the Michael Myers Zombie created in the sequels - aka the 6'8" one with the mask he borrowed from his sister's boyfriend. Why the hell would they reinvent Myers again after this incarnation is breaking records? They wouldn't start it all over, that'd be confusing. And...yes, people do dig it. If they didn't, it would have opened like Grindhouse, which got booed in several theatres. Shock horror. It did.
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:08 p.m. CST
The Weinsteins wouldn't and won't drop the Halloween from the titles of future sequels. It's a brand. It's not fourteen hundred letters like F13th: Jason's Back and ANOES. Per the mask, I was saying that it was dumb b/c Michael was driving with the mask in it's a STOLEN CAR, and a murdering psycho stole it....in a small town. There'd be an APB in two seconds. Not that many adults drive around during school time with a mask on in a stolen car whether it's Halloween or not. Also, how did Michael learn to drive when he was locked up since the age of 6? If Zombie did that, people would nail him for it. But since Carpenter forgot to include Michael's DMV days, it's fine.
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:45 p.m. CST
by Agent Michael Scarn
I read somewhere that by mistake he chose August 31 over October 31 because he read the dates wrong. He got lucky because if he chose October 31, this movie would of made maximum 10 mil. Going up against Saw 4 would of destroyed this movie
Sept. 3, 2007, 5:49 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
Speaking from the fact that they could have Myers do things that occur at other times than just on Halloween. If they keep the mythos of this movie as the basis of Myers, then he is just a crazy person who should, most likely, feel the need to kill every day of the year.
Sept. 3, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST
I see your point. However, it's always been my understanding (and let's be honest, the Halloween franchise has the continuity problems of my namesake bird), that the human capsule that contains Michael Myers' pure evil dies in the original and the remake, and becomes a boogeyman that haunts on Halloween from then on. That's my theory. It's the equivalent to what Fred Krueger's prequel would be - his first kills when he was a child molester and being killed at the end, only to release the boogeyman inside.
Sept. 3, 2007, 6:35 p.m. CST
I am always wary of reviewers who describe audience reaction to a film or even audience expectation, as is the case with this review - as if the reviewer somehow knows what is in other people's minds. It's a cheap way to criticize a film. Quint, in his review, described how the lady sitting behind him failed to react to HALLOWEEN, and that he "laughed" at her. This is not someone who I feel I can trust as a reviewer. Definitely see the film for yourself and make up your own mind.
Sept. 3, 2007, 6:43 p.m. CST
http://imdb.com/title/tt0373883/ From over 6,000 votes. Not bad for a "sad shame of a movie." And I'm sure with time, this rating will increase. There is definitely a change in perception occuring amongst viewers of the film.
Sept. 3, 2007, 7:54 p.m. CST
Don't trust the internet. With reshoots, the budget clocked in at close to 30 mil.
Sept. 3, 2007, 8:17 p.m. CST
So don't trust the internet (aka budget reports from award winning film industry journalists Nikki Finke whp is reporting 15 mill), but trust Messiahman, an anonymous commenter at the bottom of a messageboard that is on...the internet that claims it's 30 mill? Okay, you convinced me.
Sept. 3, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
That in the possible sequel, we'll have a scene that has Rob Zombie's I'm Your' Boogeyman playing. I just have a feeling...
Sept. 3, 2007, 8:31 p.m. CST
Holy crap. There is a total disconnect between the critical voice and the tastes of the masses. Its like there are two different worlds. Do critics amount to anything anymore? Do they even matter? Massawyrm's review was the only positive thing I read anywhere, and yet this managed to blow the roof off the sucka? Damn. All you Zombie hatahs better get used to him, cause he sure as shit isn't going away anytime soon, not with this teen demographic cashcow. I haven't even seen it yet, but I reckon I will on dvd eventually. Until then, my opinion will remain unformed, in my brainbox, eagerly awaiting the moment where the friction of viewing erupts in a gooey commentary that may or may not spark debate, cause flameballs to fly, or result in big happy smiles, gums flapping metaphorically through the magic of this virtual communitysphere we lovingly refer to as the innernetz.
Sept. 3, 2007, 8:43 p.m. CST
You're telling me this isnt a good movie?...Blatheringblatherskyte!...This is an total ass raping of my childhood! WAAAAAAH...gimme a break. Mori. Thanks for saying me some cash. An to grown-ass folk who're foaming at the mouth over this movie. Seriously. grow up. an i know i'm probably last an no one will care..but i still got something over a few of you. $9 not wasted. BOOOO-YAH!
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:26 p.m. CST
Not the critics on AICN, thankfully. But most critics elsewhere were unsparing in their brutal criticisms. And yet the film was a big hit, and everyone I talked to loved it, LOVED it. With films like 300, 28 WEEKS LATER, and now HALLOWEEN, I think 2007 is turning out to be a savagely entertaining year at the movies.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:33 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
Now I KNOW you are kidding. <P>Nikki Finke is a batshit crazy delusional harpie who will repeat anything she is told by anyone with any agenda. For the sake of what little credibility you have in this conversation now, please don't quote her again as an authority on anything.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:34 p.m. CST
People excusing garbage just for the sake of excusing garbage. Ignoring horrible performances, ungodly writing, and a total lack of atmosphere while using fucking box office numbers as a point of exhaltation. One might say Rob Zombie is the Michael bay of horror. Ok thats too harsh but as an analogy its not completely off the mark. it's amazing how fucking dumb the American public has gotten.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:36 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
The record being broken is for the Labor Day weekend, long considered a graveyard for film releases. <P>And opening weekends mean nothing except that marketing works. The only way to know if a film has really connected with an audience is by watching second and third weekends. <P>And if you REALLY think that this turn-out was all because of Rob Zombie, then I'm guessing you and DohDoh will see each other at the next Rob Zombie Fan Club meeting in Fantasyland.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:38 p.m. CST
Which even you said yourself earlier was garbage. Quit using incredibly dubious sources in an attempt to invent reality.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:40 p.m. CST
If it makes you feel good to continue bashing the movie, even though the majority of the american public seemed to enjoy it, then by all means, keep complaining..its not going to change the fact that those who hated it are simply outnumbered. Obviously, there is something about rob zombie's film making and name that keep people coming to his movies and keep people hiring him.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:41 p.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
Most people really don't give a shit about character development or what was made half a century ago (almost), so most people just want to be entertained for an hour or more.<br><br>In the screening I went to, I was the only one who wasn't saying it "Kicked ass", I just thought it was so-so. Then again, one guy said how it liked how in one of the other Halloweens, Myers killed a guy by flipping the bed he was on back up and squishing him. I then said that I think that was Jason, to which he replied, "I guess they all kinda seem alike." That is the average film-goer.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:43 p.m. CST
You don't fucking say! That public is just always one step ahead of those gawsh dern intellectuals. Boy what a wonderful world we would have if the money something made speaks for everything and all decisions of quality are made solely on that position. I agree with you, lets silence all critical voices and just let marketing and cheap bias decide everything. That sure would make for better viewing! You fucking imbecile.
Sept. 3, 2007, 9:49 p.m. CST
Yo, lets go see that shiz again bra. Fuck them hatahs, wut the fuck do they know.? They prolly never get laid anyway right? LOLOL. Its all about the mad money and fuck everything else. Yo man you is a pimp! #0 million dollars is the majority of the American public after all. EVERYONE liked it. I mean shit it's like, what, like three guyz didn't like it and fuck them right? I mean my friends and your friends liked it so that everyone right? Stay a pimp man. Out.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST
you're such a fucking snob dude. you think i don't know nikki finke's "crazy" reputation? i still consider her a more valid source on box office than some dude named messiah. and by the way, moriarty, please show me the awards you've won for your reporting. she's widely read in hollywood for her business reporting, as you would know. as far as her critiques of film, i could give a damn. never bring up moriarty's screenwriting b/c the guy gets a vendetta that will last until the end of time. who gives a shit if the film drops 70% next weekend. it's already grossed its budget and set a record, which moriarty is going to dismiss as well. next year, there will be a high profile release on labor day b/c of halloween. but nothing matters, moriarty, b/c you are the almighty. a better journalist than nikke finke and a better "filmatist" as vern would say than rob zombie.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:09 p.m. CST
DohDoh, I like Myers and I dislike this treatment. Because I like Myers as a mystery. I like him as an enigma. I like him as a metaphor. I don't like him as an easily explained straight-up pscyho. I don't like him as a cookie-cutter slasher. Boo-hoo, he had a troubled childhood. What cliche serial killer hasn't? If Zombie wanted to explore Michael's background, could he at least have given us something original to explain Michael's psychosis? Stripper mom, abusive stepfather. Poor white kid. Wow. That's some deep thinking. Don't make a big deal of explaining Michael's origin and then serve us re-hashed, has-been, well-worn tripe that we could see on any episode of Law & Order. Honestly, where were Sandra Bullock, Angelina Jolie, and Morgan Freeman when Zombie was casting? Cause they'd be right at home. And as for this nonsense about Michael not being a hero or villain, you're wrong. Mostly because people get caught up in definitions and moral connotations of words. By your own admission, the film largely follows Michael as he develops from disturbed child to mass murderer. The film is ABOUT Michael. That makes Michael the protagonist. If you look up the strict, morality-free definition of protagonist, you'll see that I'm right. Loomis is the antagonist. Michael may not be GOOD, but protagonists don't have to be GOOD. If you want a truly amazing piece of f'd up cinema featuring a villainous protagonist, check out the classic Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Which kicks this limp Halloween's ass in a million ways. Incidentally, for anyone else interested in the subject of protagonist vs "hero", I recommend watching Hannibal, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, and The Talented Mr. Ripley. And of course "Henry". I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones I can name off the top of my head.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST
i've seen henry. yes, it is superior to halloween. moriarty said michael myers is the hero. yes, i understand the definition of protagonist. he is the protagonist (by your definition) but he is not a hero or a victim. i don't think that zombie was showing that he was a "boo hoo victim of bullying." i don't think we're supposed to have compassion for the character. he is inherently evil. btw, moriarty, please explain how michael myers can drive a car in the original. b/c you can't, so you're going to say "you're dumb dohdoh, you insulted me again." if zombie had myers drive a car, there'd be 300 posts about here. @necgray, i get the suspense of the original. again, i don't think this one is as good as the original. but i do like it a lot, and i do think it's one of the better horror releases this decade. thanks for giving me an 8th drama vocab lesson and pointing me to a movie i saw when i was 16. jesus.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST
On his screenwriting. Ok this time I absolutely INSIST that you explain to me how Rob Zombie is the better screenwriter. If you are going to keep attacking the integrity of someones work you have to back it the fuck up. Otherwise you're just a cowardly bitch hiding behind flimsy arguments and immaterial statements about the world of film, of which you clearly know preciously little about the machinations. So either explain your fucking position on your constant attacks of Moriarty's work or quit it.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:18 p.m. CST
should be DohDoh's mantra. Seriously, take an enema. Do some yoga. Get a lap dance. You're like a townie who waits outside of the local bar just to beat up the college kids. Having standards by which you judge art isn't snobbery, it's a requirement of being a critic. And if you don't hold the same standards, then that's cool. Agree to disagree. You're awfully aggressive.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:20 p.m. CST
have you seen "the sword of doom" ? if not, go rent it. another would be "american psycho." another would be "man bites dog." i can go on. thanks. i am not unschooled in film.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:20 p.m. CST
then we don't need an explanation. That's what it means to be inherently anything. You just ARE. Thereby making an explanation unnecessary.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST
I wasn't suggesting that you are unschooled, dude. I was merely suggesting that your propping-up of the film is at least partially based on your assertion that it does something unprecedented. That it is somehow original. And I am countering that argument by pointing out the wealth of morally questionable protagonists prior to this movie. How has Zombie done anything we haven't seen a million times before?
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:26 p.m. CST
we need an explanation in my opinion to explain why michael myers is an icon of american cinema akin to jason voorhees and freddy krueger. the original halloween never made the case, b/c as i have said many a time, carpenter did not envision him to be a perennial halloween costume, nor did he probably want that. so instead, we have lots of bogus sequels making a bullshit mythology for a character that was merely a shape to begin with. jason and freddy's origins were more highly fleshed out in their first films. tcm: the beginning was a waste of time. leatherface is a dumb mute, end of story. there is more to michael myers, even though he is evil through and through. i guess if you can't make movies about inherently evil young characters necgray, then "then omen" should not exist, or "joshua" for that matter.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST
The Omen???? You want to bring up the Omen????? He's the son of the devil! We don't need to know why he's evil, he's Satan-spawn! You can make movies about inherently evil young characters. Absolutely you can. The Bad Seed is great. Lolita is really fascinating. Neither one tries to explain why those kids are the way they are. And again, by saying "inherently", you are admitting that they don't REQUIRE explanation. We don't need an explanation of why Myers is an icon because we already know why: he's mysterious. He brings out the paranoid fears in people. We don't understand what would make a child become The Shape. And that very mystery, the thing that MAKES Myers an icon, is destroyed by explaining him.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:35 p.m. CST
Although Michael Myer's history is fleshed out in this remake, his psychology is never clearly explained. Loomis - nicely played by McDowell, in my opinion - offers a diagnosis, but it's a slim one. What makes the Myers kid so creepy is that he's got this black hole inside of him. Unlike Anakin Skywalker, in the STAR WARS prequels, Myer's evil and mean-streak is not something that is simply talked about and alluded to by other characters; it's actually shown, in chilling graphic detail. By the time he's grown up, into a seven-foot monstrosity, that black hole, the evil abyss, has completely overtaken him. There is only THE SHAPE of a man, lurking about with a mask. The sense of mystery about the character remains intact, is never really blotted out with convenient explanations of why he is evil. Zombie's HALLOWEEN allows for the terrifying possibility that Myers was simply born evil.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:41 p.m. CST
And you contradict yourself in that last post. There is "more to Michael myers" and he is "evil through and through"? he cant be both pure evil AND a victim of circumstances. And its either one or the other. If he's pure evil, as you have said many times in this thread, then showing an incredibly cliched and poorly written bad childhood is irrelevant and immaterial to the character. Why even show it? if one is born evil his bad childhood is no more significant than any other event in his life rendering those scenes pointless. And if he is a victim of circumstances, which you seem to disagree and agree with simultaneously, then it defeats the purpose of what John Carpenter wanted from the character, whose wishes, in your last post, you seem to have respect for. Carpenter wanted Myers to be complete unexplained evil. You have his background in the first film, its unspectacular and normal in every possible way. Which is how the character was intended by his creators. If you don't think they did a good job of that, which, since you say you still love the original film more, you seem to, then don't act like you had any affinity for the character in the first place or that Rob Zombie "fixed" the mythology he was NEVER intended to have. If Zombie did anything it's make the character milquetoast, a pale imitation of every serial killer cliche in history. It's apparent you don't have any idea who or what the character of Michael Myers is. Given your ever changing stances on everything except the fact that you love this film for one reason or another, its apparent you just have blind dogmatic faith in it. As a result I don't think we have any more reason to take your position seriously as you just play devils advocate to oppose whatever argument is thrown your way.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:43 p.m. CST
dudes, i really don't take any of this so seriously. i think it's fun and funny and i like talking about this movie (obviously, hah). my last statement is that rob zombie's halloween has offered a new take on a franchise that pretty much has no reason to exist besides michael myers himself. so he gave a movie to michael myers. it was coming sooner or later. i don't think another director could have made it as well as zombie, point blank, unless we're talking about directors that never would take the project a la QT, de palma, pt anderson et al. i think the redneck stuff is taken way out of context. i think zombie thinks that shit is funny b/c it pisses people off. and so do i. it makes people uncomfortable. i think for someone to take a shot at renewing a franchise that will continue for eons to be shit unless some new thought is put into it, is not something that deserves this type of bashing. i do think the film will live on. it's not the masterpiece carpenter's was. of course not. but i don't think a freddy or jason movie will outdo this one for some time. so michael myers, the red headed stepchild of horror icons, has checkmated them for the time being. as an '80s kid, i think that's a cool thing. horror is a fun, populist medium. you need to be able to laugh at stuff - like monster mash in the workprint - in horror. i get that rob zombie fucked with moriarty's baby. he loves the original way more than most do. i don't see how he can pass judgement on nikki finke or rob zombie, when he works in both of their professions and knows the tropes involved in each, based on his output. if you haven't seen halloween, go see it. don't let moriarty tell you not to. they would have played this remake on z-channel, and i don't think any other horror remakes sans carpenter's thing would have. there is a lot to like here. at least michael myers doesn't drive a car. and yes, at least it doesn't have busta fucking rhymes in it. thanks for the burning and lynching. it's been fun. i am a fan of yoga. i am a fan of evil protagonists. i am not a fan of moriarty. i am a big fan of AICN. it's one of the internet's most important sites and always will be in my eyes. adios. hugs and kisses from a big time "zombie apologist." the dohdoh.
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:46 p.m. CST
Then what is the point of showing his fucking childhood, especially in as cliched a capacity as Zombie tells it. Its just poor storytelling dedicating half the film to something so irrelevant. If you think that he was born evil, which you apparently do, then why where the part of his upbringing important to you as a viewer? And you can't say "because it gives the character depth" when by your very argument he was evil from the get go. I can't wait to hear the stories you make up to justify that point of view. And as far as Zombie film allowing for the "possibility that Myers was born evil", that sure sound like a man being born evil is interesting to you. Well how about this, watch Carpenters film and you will see it does not ALLOW the POSSIBILITY that Myers is born evil, but it is stated as a FACT. Amazing right?
Sept. 3, 2007, 10:57 p.m. CST
But if Zombie wanted the possibility of a "born evil" character, then why offer us background on the character? Why have Loomis give even the slim explanation that he gives? I don't think Zombie intended for that doubt to exist. Or if he did, then he half-assed it. Otherwise we should see counter-point. We should see that Michael had sweet, loving parents. Or a devoted older sister. As it is, we have no reason to believe that Michael was born evil because we're given plenty of motivations for him to turn into a psycho. He might have always had the potential, as many people do, but we aren't given a scene showing us that he deliberately turned away from "the light". So I don't think that the possibility of born evil is existent in the movie as is. If it's there, it's weak tea.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11 p.m. CST
dude, we have to stop posting at the same time.... ;)
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:02 p.m. CST
...is to make for compelling viewing. I recall that Carpenter's version opened with a scene of Myer's as a boy and I recall that it was one of the best scenes in the movie, if not the very best. Rob Zombie has simply explored the boyhood angle in greater detail. And yes, I found it very interesting and scary. I like my horror films that way.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:10 p.m. CST
Most serial killers came from really good families. Many had a strong core family. So calling the childhood that Zombie presented as cliched is a fallacy.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:17 p.m. CST
"to make for compelling viewing." Well no shit Sherlock. What necgray and I are asking is WHY it is compelling in the context Zombie gave it. You are right Carpenter did put a scene like that in there, but in the original Myers family was a completely normal suburbanite family. Thats why its compelling, There is no good reason Myers should be psychotic, which is what makes him so wholly different from others of his ilk. In Zombies version he has a moderately shitty childhood told through his typically shock jock filtered dialogue. This completely demystifies and homogenizes the character. yet at the same time Zombie is doing this, he also claims that Myers is "inherently evil anyway". Which completely nullifies the signifigance of any childhood scenes depicting a childhood askew. So by your definition a completely worthless scene is compelling. i guess other random shots of Myers life would be equally compelling. I hope for your sake in the DVD that Zombie has hard hitting outtakes of Myers making a sandwich or taking a walk on a sunny day.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:17 p.m. CST
The redneck stuff makes me uncomfortable because it's BAD and TRITE. Is that what he was going for? Bad and trite? Kudos, then. For a guy who doesn't take it seriously, DohDoh sure does like to get pissed off at Mori. I disagree with Mori, and with Harry, and with all the guys here, at various points. But I never get so vitriolic about it. And we're not talking about Zombie's ability as a director. Few people had problems with technique. It's Zombie's writing on this that most of us dislike. Even if I concede that no other director could have directed this film better (a concession that I don't believe), I think there are plenty of people who could have written it better.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST
You're talking about real statistics vs movie logic. Yes, in reality most serial killers come from good homes. But in movies, traditionally abuse is seen as the motivating factor in creating a psychopath. When I said cliche, I meant in the context of the film world, not the real world.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:27 p.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
... I compare it a bit to what's happening with Shyamalan. As he gets more and more confident as a director, he seems to care less and less about the screenplays. I think Zombie has definitely progressed as a director, but his writing collapsed completely this time around, and he ended up undercutting himself as a result.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST
I don't recall any "random shots of Myers' life" in the film. I recall a depiction of a boy discovering his inner monster and gradually embracing it. You seem to be railing against the fact that not only did Zombie explore Myers' childhood but that he set it in such a dysfunctional setting. I think that was just his creative inclination, just the way Martin Scorsese made his family in CAPE FEAR a lot more troubled than the one in the original. I don't think it was meant to show how Myers turns into the bogeyman. If it has a purpose - and you really seem to want some kind of logical explanation - I would suggest Zombie is showing us that whatever nasty environment Michael Myers grows up in, it is not nearly as nasty as Myers himself. Yeah, he has one abusive guardian, and the school kids pick on him. But those bullies in his life do not compare to the monster that he is. And that is genuinely frightening.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST
I am no criminologist, but I do know that your assertion that "most serial killers came from really good families" is untrue. Physical and sexual abuse, alcholism, and general dysfunctionality is the rule, not the exception.
Sept. 3, 2007, 11:57 p.m. CST
LoneGun, I can see your point and I think it's a lot more reasonable than some I've seen. But context is everything. If you set up an environment of abuse and negativity, then show a character within that environment acting abusive and negative, we're naturally going to assume causality. He might be way more brutal than the environment reasonably would allow, but the association is there. And I don't find anything frightening about logical causality, even if the circumstances are heightened.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:03 a.m. CST
I think skoobx meant good families in the "middle america" cliche way. Middle class, white, suburban. Abuse and dysfunction are the rule, which we DO see in Halloween, but so is middle class. And Michael's family is a little too trashy. skoobx, am I correct?
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:13 a.m. CST
With respect, I suppose some people would assume causality, but I did not. I have to wonder how many viewers are going to see this film expecting to witness causality, simply because they had heard in advance that Zombie's film was going to have a stronger focus on Myers' childhood. I imagine that many would naturally anticipate the element of causality. Personally speaking, I did not get that from HALLOWEEN.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST
What Quint has said: <br><br> "I don't know if you can say I'm following the hype considering this hype didn't exist before I read the script and wrote the review" <br><br> What I say to Quint: <br><br> You make it sound like you had so much to do with this film when you had nothing to do with it but posting a story of the script, dude ever since you posted that first review and got some mentions in other movie sites your ego has been getting bigger and bigger, You sound like the most obnoxious film school kid who puts everything down while never doing anything himself. It doesn't even matter if it's good or bad but you make it seem like your review made him do re shoots or kept Zombie up at night, come back to real life for a moment and get over yourself, now that the movie is out your gonna have to find a new film to attack to make yourself feel important, good luck with that. <br><br> Also for those of you who think the original Halloween is the equivalent to Jesus Christ Carpenter has said that he doesn't understand why Zombie has gotten so much shit and said that his fans are crazy, even Carpenter said that after having so many bad sequels the fans should be happy that at least there is a director who loves horror making it. <br><br> I don't understand why this site makes it their agenda to bash this movie and that is the truth. I am one of the biggest Eli Roth fans, I was at the hostel 2 premere and afterparty I was defending Roth all over the place for Hostel part 2 and this site was all over Roth (better for me) but this site is hating all over Zombie, now keep in mind I love Eli Roth but Rob Zombie's Halloween is so much better than anything Roth has done so far and the key word is "Rob Zombie" get the whole John Carpenter ideal out of your head and realize it is Rob's vision. This was the first Halloween film I have ever seen to play with my emotions and make me care about any of the characters, all in all was one of my favorite movies of the summer.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST
like someone said this movie is not made strictly for hardcore fanboy's, I went to see this with my mother, who has showed me every Halloween since I was six years old. She saw the first in highschool with her best friend and it was always her favorite horror film. She isn't the biggest moviegoer but has seen all the sequels do to the fact it became a family event with my cousins and I. She didn't have much interest in seeing this new film because the family tradition has worn out since our trip to see reserectiuon, but I took her because it means something in my life so you know I do care deeply about the franchise and films and I am not just a Rob Zombie fan. My mother and I were on the edge of our seat the whole time and when it went to black we both looked at each other and started clapping. Point is that a casual fan of the Hallowwen movies, some one who I doubt really cared beyond the first that she saw in highschool LOVED this movie. this movie is made for all audiences not just the fanboy's who just want michael to be the shape and not have a backstory. compelled This film appeals to people who want to be compelled and not to those who would prefer to scoff.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:38 a.m. CST
I love that you went to see it with your mother. That is so cool. I enjoyed it, too.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:44 a.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
You went and saw Resurrection at the theaters, with your' mother no-less. I can only offer my sympathy.<br><br>Although, that is where I don't get the hate this thing is getting. Sure, it isn't the greatest movie of the year, or even the best one in theaters right now, but come on, at least the critics that hate it still say it is better than every other Myers film that didn't have Carpenter behind the camera. I dunno, I've seen it more than once and wasn't impressed all that much, considering how much I loved see Devil's Rejects on the big-screen, and half a dozen times on video, but I can't really think of a "horror" film that was released in the past year or two that was better.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:02 a.m. CST
I thought 28 WEEKS LATER was excellent. If you haven't seen that one, I highly recommend it.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST
by The Dum Guy
I've seen it, but thought it fit more with an action film than horror, much like Aliens to Alien. I thought it was more suspense driven the first third, and pretty much action oriented the rest... I just don't consider it horror, maybe thats because so many genres are mixing together with "zombies" you can't be sure, i.e. Residen Evil, it has Zombies so it must be horror, but... no? But, Dawn of the Dead 2.0 is.<br><br>Maybe I should have gone with "slasher" and not "horror", since it is so subjective. Now, if you want to know the most "horrible" (as in actually horrifying) I would go with Cannibal Holocaust, and I know that might sound cliche, but when I was around five years old I actually saw someone catch a large turtle and cut it up (ripped its fucking shell apart) to make soup, so maybe it was just tapping into my child-hood fears...
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:36 a.m. CST
Actually, I am a criminologist of sorts. The stats are true. I was certified by the Fed gov. as a Criminal Classifications Officer. Most people are under the assumption that these killers were abused and what not. That is understandable. Read up on a nice fellow by the name of Joel Rifkin. He had a good family, got bullied a little by peers (who the hell hasn't), but was just plain ole batshit crazy. Interestingly, he was inspired to kill from a Hichcock movie (I don't remember which one off hand). Not that any of that makes me an expert of sorts, but I have had many, many lengthy conversations with some very, very twisted people. The other factors you mentioned are in fact major contibutions to other types of crime, particularly so called "career criminals." But in stark contrast to that, most serial killers are very intergrated into society. They function very well in the real world. Most people said Ted Bundy was the nicest guy you could have ever met. It is called the "mask of sanity." kind of funny, as this is a Halloween talkback. Now, granted, there are exceptions to this. The belief that abuse is the reason for the killings is in large part due to the killer's criminal defense. By pleading insanity, and claiming abuse, they seek to avoid the death sentence, if applicable. As far as the stereotype hillbilly thing, well, reality creates sterotypes. Hell, come visit me in SW Michigan and we will stroll on down to the local Walmart and view a whole shit load of sterotype.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:50 a.m. CST
Poisoning the well around here. not guys like Quint. This used to be a site for film fanatics with at least some semblance of taste, now its full of sycophants of one type or another for one shitty filmmaker or another. there isnt a shit film that comes down the pipe that doesn't get defended as if it was the fucking gospel. Rob Zombies Halloween joins an elite vanguard of films like Transformers, Die Hard 4, Ghost Rider, Fantastic Four, X3 etc. The list goes on for miles. you could always count on aint it cool to start an online outrage that studios would actually listen to, now you've got nothing but fanboys and 16 year old who represent the "average film goer and cry pretention and use the biggest cop out battlecry of all time of "hater". I dont know when people stopped taking writing, acting, editing, et al into consideration when choosing their taste in films but those good times are certainly long gone.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:53 a.m. CST
Well that explains alot
Sept. 4, 2007, 2:13 a.m. CST
quote "I dont know when people stopped taking writing, acting, editing, et al into consideration when choosing their taste in films but those good times are certainly long gone." Come on man, you don't have one shitty movie you really like?
Sept. 4, 2007, 2:29 a.m. CST
by slappy jones
i totally agree...it is such a bullshit way of reviewing something. I like quint a lot but to see him mention some ladies expression during the film as some kind of proof that the film was bad is just silly.and can industry killer please tell us something he/she does like...i know plenty about what he/she hates (everything it seems) and i am really curious as to what he/she thinks is great....
Sept. 4, 2007, 2:40 a.m. CST
...then at least Zombie gets points in my book by not offending me with his efforts here. The Assault On Precinct 13 remake? That shit made me throw up in my mouth a little. The Fog? Jesus Christ - what a cinematic dumparoo that was. Rob Zombie's Halloween worked at least as well for me as Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. In both cases, I questioned the sanity of the people involved in even wanting to attempt a remake, and in the end, at least I didn't feel completely ripped off by Hollywood, which otherwise routinely pisses all over my pop culture nostalgia. I felt some things in Zombie's reimagining worked, and some things really did not work at all. I have no problem with the idea of Michael as at least somewhat a product of his environment, and not just the demon seed he was in the original. Carpenter had one point of view on evil, Zombie has another - both are valid, I feel. You could make the argument that this is really the biggest separating point between the two versions, because otherwise Zombie pays pretty slavish reverence and homage to the original film(s). There's just enough twists and turns to make it it's own beast. The white trash upbringing was pretty laughable, actually (the beginning scenes got quite a few laughs in my theater, anyway). Zombie's kind of stuck in a rut with this sort of thing, too. I thought the kid who played young Michael was quite good. I thought Malcolm MacDowell gave one of the worst performances I've ever seen from him - seriously, his work in Tank Girl trumps this, in my opinion. The violence was very quick and brutal, and I felt it worked pretty well throughout. I also think Zombie pulled shy of making the violence simply gratuitous, and I appreciated seeing some restraint on the part of the filmmaker here. As much as I like the Devil's Rejects, it plays like a snuff film in parts. Some victims you want to see get it, others you have sympathy for - and I dug that Zombie didn't make it easy for the audience in that way. I have to say, I like the structure of the film as a split between the "origin" of Michael and the bulk of the events from Carpenter's original. Condensing the original Halloween down to the second half of this film worked for me as someone who's seen the classic version dozens of times. I might've gotten bored with a complete retread, and at least I can say there was more I hadn't seen before in Zombie's version than I had - even if some of it didn't work. The three girls did well with their limited screen time. Their dialog with one another captured the raunch and rural qualities of the original, but felt updated enough to appeal to a modern crowd. Zombie is nowhere near the master of suspense Carpenter is, and I'd have to mark that as a negative here, even considering how hard it must be to try and draw in today's jaded audiences. I just don't think suspense is one of Zombie's strong points as a director, unfortunately. The film does lag in spots, and feels over-long. Finally, the very last scene (scream, photo insert) elicited raucous laughter and cries of "WTF?" from my crowd - and I can't imagine that to be the reaction Zombie had hoped for. All in all, this version of Halloween is a mixed bag, but worthwhile. I believe Rob Zombie to be a talented filmmaker - The Devil's Rejects still showing the most promise of this to date - and I hope he takes on something original next. Maybe even break out of the horror genre into sci-fi or something, just to broaden his horizons a bit.
Sept. 4, 2007, 2:46 a.m. CST
I await a Friday the 13th movie that explains to us how Jason takes money from his victims and donates it all to fighting autism. I think Zombie should make movies for the Sci-Fi Channel. Good review Mort. I think the best point made is the fact that in 5 years this movie will be forgotton just like Zombie's other movies.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:13 a.m. CST
Yeah, because nobody here ever mentions HoaTC or Rejects. Forgotten my ass. It has been a while since a movie has divided audiences like this. And that is not INSIGNIFICANT.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:22 a.m. CST
I haven't seen the final version and i am wondering if Zombie digitally went in and added JackOLanterns and Trick or Treaters into the movie? I remember seeing about 5 jackOlanters, zero trick/treaters and maybe 2 scenes with fall leaves blowing. Zombie does know Halloween takes place in the fall right? Maybe he was in the same situation as young Michael and never really went trick/treating. Maybe he thinks it is a myth. A myth similar to a man in an institution growing up to be 6'8 and 300 pounds. They wouldn't keep a man like Myers sedated? That is a myth. In reality they let people like Myers work out with top-flight trainers to make him the perfect killing machine should he ever escape. I thought the rape-escape was pretty retarded but now i hear that the final version has an even more lame escape? Zombie should've just made this his own slasher flick instead of a remake and chances are he'd be receiving a lot less heat. He could've called it "Slasher" even and had a heroine stripper played by, hmmm, how about his wife! Yeah! A part of me wants to rip this movie all sorts of new holes to crap out of because i'm a huge horror fan and yes, a huge fan of the original. Another part of me doesn't care, Zombie has yet to impress me with anything so why should i expect that from him now. Has anyone heard of the upcoming Nightmare on Elm Street where we find out that Kruger was a clown for retarded kids before his abusive land lady cut off his electricity in the middle of him making ice cream prompting him to buy an ice cream truck?
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:30 a.m. CST
I think in about 30 years or so, after Zombie is long gone, he may be the next Ed Wood. Was Ed Wood a good director? Absolutely not, but he had a charm and an audience. Zombie will forever be the king and martyr for hillbilly devil rockers the world around but his movies are forgetable. They are funnier than they are scary and why remember a movie that pays ass-licking homage to other movies when you can just watch the original movie? Instead of ripping off movies like he has done, Zombie tried to make a movie and rip off his own tricks, which like his music, is completely one-dimensional.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:35 a.m. CST
"It has been a while since a movie has divided audiences like this." A while? Like when Transformers came out or when any comic book movie comes out or any remake comes out of which we have millions, geeks like us reading and posting on forums like this are divided on a regular basis my friend.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:37 a.m. CST
It wasn't the trainwreck I was expecting. I thought the direction and photography were fine as were the performances, but thought the script definately needed more work and there were a lot of dull scenes - but it was still better than most modern remakes, the only two remakes I prefered were Hills Have Eyes and, of course, the brilliant Dawn of the Dead.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:51 a.m. CST
It has nothing to do with their enjoyment of the film and everything to do with the rabid fanaticism and insistence that it is a great piece of work. Sure I have shitty movies I like, but I dont try and pretend they are anything but what they are. Whether they know it or not justifying this shit sends a message to studios ot make more of it. And I guarantee you the quality of what follows would be far beneath anything Rob Zombie has done.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:57 a.m. CST
Certain other directors have made whole careers out of "paying ass-licking homage." Q.T. anyone. And as far as divided, I guess what I mean by that is, in your examples, there are many people in the middle. With this flick, there seems to be very little middle. Either you like it or love it. I still stand by my thought that this lil flick that has buggered a few of us here was a very positive contribution to all moviegoers. And geeks for that matter.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:04 a.m. CST
I see your point, but Hollywood is going to send us shitty movies regardless of how this did. I liked this flick. But it was not the greatest cinematic experience ever, by far. What I find really interesting here is how rabid the haters get at the rabid lovers. It is amusing. Listen, like it or love it, this movie is not as insignificant as some would have us believe. If it was, Hollywood would not get any type of message. It made its money, I bet will make a shit load on DVD. And when they doubledip with the Directors Cut. Then tripledip with the Platnuim Double Disk Blu-Ray/HD box set featuring a Myers mask and Rob Zombie CD with free airtime minutes from Verizon with exclusive Halloween ringtones. Ok, I'm getting silly now, but you see what I'm saying.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:04 a.m. CST
Because its a far more influential movie as far as the effects of its success are concerned. Halloween affects horror yes, but in a year or two it'll be forgotten with the rest of the shit remakes. But if the debates we had with Transformers occured with everyone in the same room as opposed to online I promise you fights would have broken out.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:11 a.m. CST
Any film with hype will be significant in some capacity. The Texas CHainsaw Massacre remake is far more significant than this though. After all without TCM remake this film wouldnt even exist. And this is just a greater example of that films significance. Also when you remake a film like TCM or Halloween, inarguable masterpieces of the genre, it belittles the originals contribution, bastardizes it even. now this is only a temporary occurence, but its another reason why we get so rabid about remakes. Also Zombie's halloween, enjoy it or not, is a terrible film. Its just garbage writing with one needless plot point after the next. WHy the whole Myers childhood thing is bullshit has been deconstructed on this very talkback. Yet people insist on saying how brilliant it is. People need to learn that just because one enjoys something, that doesn't mean it has any sense of quality. In fact if you cant tell one from the next it is a character flaw in that person. people like that are detrimental to the art of making movies. yes we will get shitty movies no matter what, but if the American public would wake up and smell the fucking coffee we could reduce that number of films drastically.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:19 a.m. CST
Seriously, don't compare Quentin and Rob Zombie. Zombie has yet to make a movie that allows him to be mentioned in the same breath as Tarantino. This thread about Halloween doesn't hold a candle, again, to Transformers, Matrix, Star Wars. Hell, i remember reading a thread that went on for ages about Batman Begins. Geeks are divided all the time, they either like things or hate things all the friggin' time. Halloween is no different than anything else, it has a hardcore following that are split, it has fans of the genre that are split. Then there is every one else that is indifferent. Geeks are rarely in the middle on anything. Zombie doesn't help the fact either by making a movie was that was kinda good, kinda not good and largely forgetable.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:34 a.m. CST
Ok, I like QT, but why should we distinguish between who gets to rip who off? By your logic, because QT is the more accomplished artist, he can rip off everything pre 1983? Seriously, QT has not done a damn original thing since Pulp Fiction. Everything he has since made has been "borrowed" from something else. I am not shitting on him, hell, I own all his shit. And I even almost enjoyed Death Proof (its gonna need a few more viewings folks).
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:54 a.m. CST
It is not that QT gets to rip off anything. First off, and most importantly, there is nothing new under the sun. Every one takes ideas from some one else, something that moved and inspired them, but it is one thing to pay tribute, like QT does or like Carpenter did with his Halloween borrowing plenty from Psycho (even character names) but Zombie doesn't add anything of his own to it. Just rednecks, f-bombs and nicely filmed violence. He can borrow all he wants. everyone does it. And you can say what you will about QT not making anything original since Pulp but at least he has made something original. Zombie has raped Texas Chainsaw twice and remade Halloween. He has yet to show any real capacity to direct except to get movies done on schedule, within budget and with minimal effort paid to just about anything else. Like i said before, he should work for Sci-Fi Channel making their bizarre assortment of movies.
Sept. 4, 2007, 5:09 a.m. CST
Zombie doesn't add anything of his own? Have you even seen this movie? How about the first 2/3 of the movie?How about making Michael move like a human being? How about adding the whole various masks thing? How about trying to give a reason for the madness?
Sept. 4, 2007, 5:11 a.m. CST
as I have skoobx registered here from way back when, but could not remember the pw for the life off me. Thank God for Firefox. Also thanks for a reasonable debate of the subject at hand. It has been entertaining.
Sept. 4, 2007, 5:37 a.m. CST
Have I been arguing with a Zombie fan this whole time? You are one of those that loves anything he does i take it; even his music. You are one of those that are ready to compare Zombie to the likes of QT and The Beatles. What did Zombie add to Halloween? Yes, a backstory, with crazy rednecks dropping f-bombs like they get paid for each one. He added nicely filmed violence. Making Michael more human ... when did that happen? Was it by casting a 6'8 300 pound man? Are most humans that size? The mask thing? Before Michael was so possessed by the thought of killing that he sat in his room staring, looking out to the day that he could kill again, now he passes time by making masks. How cute. I think he does some scrapbooking too. I hear Charles Manson makes friendship bracelets on death row. You are right, Zombie did add a lot, he added 45 minutes of irrelevant backstory (read above how Myers is pure evil making the backstory irrelevant) to a compacted version of the original, basically taking that movie and cutting out any build up so that he could make room for his grisly violence. So in a sense, he made the kind of movie he always makes except that this time people couldn't say what a shameless rip-off it was because it was a remake, making it a rip-off by nature. I'm waiting for the thread that is going to argue the point of giving this Halloween Best Oscar Nominations for Picture, Director and Actor - Tyler Mane.
Sept. 4, 2007, 6:04 a.m. CST
Reread my previous post. MOVE. Not more. Also, how much build up could there have been. It was fucking Halloween. Were you surprised when he killed some people. You have said yourself, that he did not add anything original too it. And then you list the original things he did. Pretty much Zombie was damned if he did, damned if he did not. He did not do a shot for shot remake, so people bitch about that. If it would have been a shot for shot remake, people would have bitched about that. As stated in a previous post, I am not a Zombie mark. I really do not like HoaTC. Devil's Rejects was just ok. I felt this was different. I really felt he did justice to the Halloween mythos. I think you are just hating it because it was Rob Zombie. I bet if this same film was Q.T.'s you would mark out for it. That is ok, but your last post just showed why exactly you hated this film. Not truely because you hated the movie, but because you hate Zombie. That is ok man. I got a buddy that won't watch Forrest Gump just because. I just am baffled at where you get to decide who gets to rip off shamelessly. Q.T.=ok to not produce something that is not just 2 + hours of cool homage shit (which for the record, and as stated before, I dig)? Zombie = not allowed to do that because you hate him?
Sept. 4, 2007, 6:22 a.m. CST
by Darth Hogan
Sooooooooo Eli, what do you have to say now???
Sept. 4, 2007, 6:45 a.m. CST
And you have to start putting words in my mouth. First off, if you meant move then that makes even less sense. Michael didn't move like a human before? What did he move like? Are you confusing this with Jeepers Creepers? Yeah, build up is what good horror movies do. We know people will get killed in pretty much every horror movie but you still build up to it. You still tease and play with your audience's emotions. You still take time to create or build some sort of suspense. For the record he did nothing original in this movie. The backstory is not original. Crazy rednecks are not original, especially from him. Machine gun style F-bombs are not original. He did what he always does, directs a movie that looks cool at times and is cool at times but is ultimately only interesting upon first viewing. I wont take away that he has a growing and improving visual style but so does Michael Bay, does that mean Bay is a great director? Hell no. Again, I don't hate Zombie or this movie. I have not once said that. I have stood by that i think the movie was slightly less than ok, pointless and ultimately insignificant. It will vanish into the anals of movie history because there was nothing special about it. Even now, if had made this his own slasher flick we wouldn't be talking about this at all. But, because he is Halloween he invited these talks. His diehard fans will love it forever and ever. I will treat it like his other movies, I saw them because i watch any and all movies, especially horror, but they are forgotten soon after. Kinda like a Sci Fi Channel movie. I compare it like this ... Zombie is a McD's hamburger, tasty and filling and ok for right now but in an hour i will want something more. What you should be baffled by is why you are, once again, comparing QT to Zombie. I will say it again, slower this time, everyone rips off things. THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN. But where QT adds some imagination to it, where he writes crisp dialogue, where he takes a kung-fu revenge movie and adds an elegant style and characters, Zombie just makes wanna-be versions of movies he likes with his same flat characters saying the same monotonous things and the violence amped up. It seems funny to me that you claim to not like Zombie movies but you are furiously defending him. Are you getting a cut of the back end? I actually do agree that this was a hard movie for Zombie to try and remake. He was damned no matter what unless he just went ahead and made his own slasher movie with the same back story and his own slasher. And still no one has answered me. Why does the movie feel like it takes place on any day other than Halloween? Why are there no trick/treaters or pumpkins? What is up with that?
Sept. 4, 2007, 6:49 a.m. CST
What does Roth pwned mean?
Sept. 4, 2007, 8:30 a.m. CST
yeah....real good argument there!
Sept. 4, 2007, 8:56 a.m. CST
Are you serious?!?!?! Ok, I bit, now back and guard the bridge.
Sept. 4, 2007, 8:58 a.m. CST
Am I serious about what?
Sept. 4, 2007, 9:05 a.m. CST
"This used to be a site for film fanatics with at least some semblance of taste" <br><br> so you loved Hostel 2? <br><br> And for the record I don't like Rob Zombie's music at all, so not just a blind fanboy also someone asked what did Zombie bring to Halloween, oh I don't know, only the best film of the series in 26 fucking YEARS!?!? Does that not count for anything???
Sept. 4, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST
Best Halloween movie in 26 years. Though because i grew up with them i have a soft spot for Part 4 and 5.
Sept. 4, 2007, 9:44 a.m. CST
by Rando Calrisian
This is why AICN is so cool. People scrapping over a movie that will be forgotten by Halloween. I saw it last night because I am a fan of the original, and I am a fan of Zombie. Unlike so many out there, I don't hold the original to "gospel" status that so many seem to. It's a great slasher flick from the 70's. Zombie's new film doesn't really better anything, but it also is not horrible, either. I will say that I thought the kid was pretty damn creepy, and the whole film from beginning to end brought on a severe feeling of dread, the kills were pretty brutal here. It was not boring, at least. So why so much hate? It was not the worst movie of the year. It's a damn remake... when was the last horror remake that was actually better that the original? Maybe The Thing? Come on... Zombie did some pretty cool stuff in there, and it could have been a LOT worse. I don't think the kid backstory took away any mystery to why he is like he is - he is just a bat-shit crazy kid that likes to torture and kill things. There are some really silly things - like his escape from chains, but its a freakin' slasher movie, man! Get over it! I saw Michael Myers kill a bunch of people - isn't that what Halloween is about? I agree with Masaworm's review. There has been so much negative flack for this film ever since Quint posted his review. Quint and Moriarty were never going to like this movie - ever. Please look at every Halloween sequel since the first film, this is a better, more horrifying film that any of them.
Sept. 4, 2007, 9:51 a.m. CST
I loved this film. I know it has huge gapping plot holes, and a schitzo tone. But I don't care. I loved seeing the Shape in his best incarnation since the original. Mori is right, just seeing him taking some folks out was enough for me. I mean what is this? The fourth narrative thread in the Halloween Universe, where the fuck are our expectations? People who line up to see this movie really don't deserve any better than what they are getting. This is the first time that Myers has scarred me since halloween 4, and to put it in perspective, I was 7 when that came out. Just go back to blowing Zack Snyder and leave Zombie alone. Because you know...you didn't use your review of the Dawn of the Dead remake to get on a podium about the state of the industry. Perhaps we can start shitting on Hammer Films next.
Sept. 4, 2007, 10:50 a.m. CST
by Rickey Henderson
I just don't understand why Zombie needs to make us understand the psychosis of this character. I'm paying to watch a horror movie, not a tragedy.
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:38 a.m. CST
Got your mask on?
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:46 a.m. CST
Zombie has NOT made a sentimental horror flick, nor a film that explains Myers' psychosis. He's challenged viewers with a portrait of a monster in his childhood. As for why, see my post above - Sept. 3, 11:38:09 PM.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:08 p.m. CST
for putting himself in a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" situation by making this film. I love the original and I love this film. Both did what I expect a good horror movie to do. Scare the shit out of me. I think Zombie's remake is great. I think his decision to focus on Michael actually added to the film. I admit there was the big plothole of how he knew who Lauri was, but you can say the same for the original (even though I know when that story was written Lauri was not intended to be his sister). Just leave Zombie alone. I thought it was well worth my price of admission and everyone I know personally that has seen it, loved it.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:27 p.m. CST
Although Rob Zombie has exposed himself to the most vicious kind of flak for remaking a classic, the man can take some pride in knowing that he made a solid horror film that a great MANY people obviously like. He's paid homage to the original and offered something new at the same time.
Sept. 4, 2007, 12:59 p.m. CST
sorry if this was already posted:<br> http://horror-movie-a-day.blogspot.com/1978/10/secret-post.html<br> or http://tinyurl.com/2e7k3w.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST
by Rando Calrisian
I think Zombie did as good a job as anyone could have done with this movie. It's brutal, and scary. Maybe not a classic, but effective for a Michael Myers movie. Gory, Campy, scary - what more do you want? Perfection does not come from the word REMAKE. For those that may have forgorren... A list of the crappy re-makes we've been exposed to in the last 5 years. Where is the originality in Hollywood? Not in the horror department, that's for sure. The Invasion, The Fog, The Ammityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, House Of Wax, Psycho, The Wicker Man, The Omen, The Hills Have Eyes (1 and 2), The Hitcher, Dark Water, The Grudge, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, 13 Ghosts, The Ring, The Haunting... ALL CRAP! Please add to the crappy remake list below! Remakes are good for opening weekend, then die. No originality needed - Zombie at least had some edge of your seat suspense.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:05 p.m. CST
You might want to look at your own economics knowledge. Depending on which unit of conversion you want to look at to determine the difference in $16 million in 1998 vs. 2007 (there are five methods used today), $16 million in 1998 would be $20-24 million today. So a $7 million difference is a decent size, but it isn't all that big especially since Halloween 2007 opened on 3,500 screens which was unheard of except for major blockbusters in 1998. Halloween H20 opened on 2,607 screens (making $6,207 per screen vs. $8,932 per screen for Zombie's Halloween). So when you factor those little facts in, there really wasn't a huge difference between the two openings other than the current Halloween movie opened on 900 more screens.
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:15 p.m. CST
M - great analysis of the problems of this film. I saw the first film home alone with my babysitter back when it finally hit HBO after being in the theaters. I was totally freaked out by the first one, I know that humanizing MM or "developing" the back story as a succession of understandable developmental breakdowns really misses the mark. Overexplaining why he is an evil, unstoppable killing machine takes the horror out of it. What really got to me as a kid watching H1 and H2 was the subtle hints that he was worse than human. That he was somehow possessed or empowered by an evil demonic spirit connected to the celebration of samhain. Loomis gives these hints in H2. While that plot point is just as silly as others, that is all you needed for it to be freaky enough to still scare you - is he human, is he not, can you kill him, can you not? Damn it looks like you cant! F@#$#%^ run!!!
Sept. 4, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST
Why because Halloween opened bigger than the combined total box office revenue of House of 1,000 Corpses and Devil Rejects? That tells me that the Halloween franchise has a lot of weight in Hollywood. The Scary Movie franchise has done huge box office, but I don't see the Wayan brothers as big players in Hollywood. Since directing Scary Movie #1 which grossed $157 million (which Zombie's Halloween won't come close to) and a $41 million opening weekend and the first sequel which grossed $71 million, Keenan Ivory Wayans have directed major projects like White Chicks and Little Man. Neither of those movies had much of budgets or exposure.<br><br> Zombie was almost assured of getting more movies because of his budgets and ability to make a profit even if the box office receipts weren't great through DVD sales and rentals. I still think people are going to credit the strength of the Halloween franchise more than Zombie's name here.<br><br> As for Zombie saving Dimension, you can say Stephen King and John Cusack were already doing that. Dimension released 1408 which has made $71 million on a $25 million budget earlier this summer. And that only opened on 2600 screens.
Sept. 4, 2007, 2:40 p.m. CST
I bitched about it just everybody else - the I saw it, and I loved it! Maybe i'm subconsciously over-looking things, but I dunno - I'm not too hip in story rhythm, flow & character development - I just really enjoyed the hell out of this flick - and yeah, im a halloween trekkie too who knows - but Zombies movie sure beats the hell out of all the sequels imo..
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:34 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
what films do you like? I amnot attacking you but to my memory Ionly have seen you attacking and ripping films apart sop I am genuinely curious as to what films you enjoy.
Sept. 4, 2007, 3:52 p.m. CST
In Kevin Smith's defense, at least when he does cast his wife, her roles are minimal. Like in Clerks 2, she showed up a few times then disappeared completley around the end. And in Jay and Bob SB she had two lines in the whole thing.
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:01 p.m. CST
Rob Zombi still hasnt found out what makes a good horror flick, he hasnt found the main nerve that propells the genre forward, and he hasnt even discovered the genre's roots to exploit it. He just plain doesn't understand the psychology of great scary movies, whereas Carpenter, during his prime and into the early 80's, seemed to take delight in the pacing of his films and pride in his atmosphere. Each of Zombi's films blow their wad way too early. He shows all his cards in every scene, leaving zero anticipation for the rest of film. His films are vacant excuses to film his favorite parts of scary movies: the violence. He cant even pull off a good jump scare because his camera never lulls the audience into safety. There is ALWAYS movement and unexpected jumps. And if Zombie was going for "realism" or something more based in a well-this-is-how-it-would-really-go-down way, his aesthetic completely betrayed him. He has a good eye, but everything outside of the angles are over over the top and cartoonish. Not that its bad, just a disservice to this particular tale. Pan's Labrynth was more frightening than this Halloween trash. Zombie should feel sick about forcing comparisons between himself and Carpenter by remaking a classic. how can any self respecting horror film fan praise this contrived trash? Throw away blind allegience and be real about it's shortcommings. It's the only way we can bring back compelling action and horror films. I guess Ill just shut up and watch Jigoku again.....
Sept. 4, 2007, 4:08 p.m. CST
The Drive-In. Even the rednecks were laughing at it and pulling out of the parking spaces early. Now, I've seen all of Zombie's stuff; I thought HO1KC was okay, but like Halloween, was extended when it really didn't need to be; the whole scene where the girl goes underground and sees all the hellish figures was unneeded; it was like a post-climatic ending that wasn't needed; almost like a epilogue infomercial for McFarlane figures. Next was The Devil's Rejects; more hillbilly rednecks, more torture, more uber-profanity. I liked "Rejects" a lot more, especially the "Bonnie & Clyde" ending. Now, back to Halloween. Started off OK, uber-profanity not withstanding. Then it began to falter; lousy dialogue, crappy cinematography, non-existant character development. Why do I care about Young Michael? Because he had a shitty upbringing? Nope, don't care. I did like that at the inception of his incarceration, he had no clue of what he did. Unfortunately, there was no reasonable progression. Yeah, he withdrew into his masks. Wow, heavy. Then, the adult Michael escapes and comes back to Haddonfield. His magically divining mask picks Laurie out of a crowd of strangers. So, why did he kill the Strodes? Why did he kill her friends? No clue. No motivation. Now, the capper. After Laurie is in the car with Loomis, he pulls her out. Now, THAT should have been the END of the movie, not the crap that followed. Housewrecking Michael. For a FULL 5 minutes. If he had some super psychic power that allowed him to find Laurie initially, did it not work in that house? Did he have to do some interior decorating beforehand? PLus, WHY o WHY the final shot with the almost empty revolver? Again, after the car scene with Loomis, I could have walked away somewhat less annoyed as I was, but it went on TOO MUCH; like Zombie felt the need to pad the end of the movie for some stupid reason. Rob, stick to music, dude. Your panties are showing.
Sept. 4, 2007, 7:42 p.m. CST
Only so I could agree with the pro-Zombie talkbackers and talk some more smack about Drew's opinion and obvious jealousy towards a filmmaker who actually gets films made. But then I saw the movie. Moriarty is right on all counts. This movie was just terrible. The acting, pacing, ending. You name it. I've been foiled again.
Sept. 4, 2007, 8:23 p.m. CST
by slappy jones
Sept. 4, 2007, 9:56 p.m. CST
He challenged viewers' tolerance for crappy dialogue, crappy character motivation, and straight-forward slasher b.s. What frigging trendy horror movie in the past 5 years didn't have gorehounds salivating over the "ooh, it's so brutal" factor? Challenging my arse. And if he wanted to portray the gestation of a monster, why do we need the 3rd act? Why involve Haddonfield at all? I think if Zombie wanted to explore that theme, if he wanted to show us an original vision of a well-known horror icon that gives us background or shows us a different side of the icon, he would have been better served to have the film's third act be Michael's escape from the asylum. We don't need Haddonfield. That was John Carpenter's Halloween. In fact, I think given Zombie's preoccupation with Michael's backstory and his relationship with Loomis, maybe this should have been a prequel instead of a remake. It's practically a prequel anyway, just with a condensed and cheapened version of the original tacked on.
Sept. 4, 2007, 10:29 p.m. CST
to going to see Rob's Halloween after work today. At the last second, I changed my mind, went home, popped some popcorn and watched John Carpenters Halloween on DVD. I just can't bring myself to put a nickle in Zombies talentless pockets.
Sept. 4, 2007, 10:45 p.m. CST
by total mo
I saw this piece of shit at a 7pm show on a Saturday night in Los Angeles. There were an unusually large number of families with small children there (like 6 and 7 year-olds). Not a single kid screamed or cried the entire movie, but they DID laugh through most of it. There's pretty much no way to defend a horror movie that a room full of seven year-olds thinks is hilarious.
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:10 p.m. CST
good ending, terrible review.
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:12 p.m. CST
not terrible. not a shame. just not that great. i feel about your review how you feel about zombie's halloween, and i feel about moriarty's ridiculous review, how moriarty feels about zombie's halloween (aka the movie that ate-raped his movie baby.)
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:13 p.m. CST
btw: get a comment section going for your site. they cost .99.
Sept. 4, 2007, 11:53 p.m. CST
I think you're suggesting quite an interesting alternative to the HALLOWEEN that Zombie has made, honestly. However, I still like this film the way it is. The third Act works and is ESSENTIAL to this version. We need to see our bogeyman fully realized and put into action. The third Act of this HALLOWEEN rewards us with exciting horror action, much of it original. The scene in which Laurie is cowering and crawling for her life within the ceiling boards is terrifying. I didn't feel the whole Haddonfield section of the movie posed any problem structurally. It was the obvious place to take our bogeyman. Remember: HALLOWEEN is "The Night He Came Home."
Sept. 5, 2007, 12:26 a.m. CST
I am a HUGE fan of the original Halloween movie, and it was always be the sentimental favorite. But the fact remains that standing on its own, this was a great movie from top to bottom. Who cares about the backstory of characters? I do. I don't agree with the Star Wars Prequel rant at all. Those movies didn't suck because they were about Darth Vader's backstory, in fact that was the only redeeming things about them. I liked the first half Origin Story of Michael Myers, I think the whole thing was well acted and well directed. I think the second half "re-make" portion was terrific (if a little long). Rob Zombie made it his while still honoring the source material, and that is a hard thing to do. Chrisopher Nolan is someone who is doing an excellent job of it on Batman. All in all, not a bad movie and this is one long time Myers fan who was very pleased.
Sept. 5, 2007, 12:52 a.m. CST
Originally, I was skeptical about Rob Zombie doing this remake justice, not because I thought he lacked any talent as a filmmaker - I'd seen THE DEVIL'S REJECTS and thought it was excellent. And I wasn't skeptical due to any leaked information about the direction he would be taking HALLOWEEN in. I was skeptical because I just couldn't imagine a Rob Zombie version of this film. His style just seemed so different from that of John Carpenter's. I decided to approach the film with an open mind. I now think Zombie was the best man to make a new HALLOWEEN movie. It really revitalises the legend, maintaining the spirit of the original, while updating it with meaner, more twisted details. The original Carpenter version remains an untouchable classic, at the same time. I look forward to re-watching both films in future days.
Sept. 5, 2007, 1:25 a.m. CST
and not called it Halloween I think there is something youre forgetting. Zombie taking his own ideas and placing them in the Halloween mythos is a good business decision. Its called show BUSINESS. If youre looking to expand your career and graduate to the next level it makes more sense to attach yourself to a known property than to make another low budget film. He already made two of those so why do it again. Zombie took it to the next level and I give him credit for making a power play like that.
Sept. 5, 2007, 1:57 a.m. CST
Halloween is the Night He Came Home in the original Carpenter vision of the film. The Night He Came Home is part of Carpenter's thematic question. What happens when a small town tries to deny the existence of their local bogeyman? Some day, it comes back to haunt them. That's what I'm saying. If Zombie is going to create his OWN vision of Michael Myers, he should have stuck with the thematic question, "What is a bogeyman before he BECOMES the bogeyman?" I think seeing Michael fulfill his potential actually takes some of the power away from what we're given earlier. How much scarier would it be to END the film with Michael passing the "Now Entering Haddonfield! Population: Whatever" sign, knife in hand. He slowly pulls the mask down onto his face and the credits roll. It then leaves you to imagine what unspeakable things he is going to do. If he's brutal as a child, if he's dangerous when he's locked up, what will he do when he's loose?
Sept. 5, 2007, 2:01 a.m. CST
Incidentally, if I wanted to listen to box office totals or debate the business sense of filmmakers, I'd go blog with accountants. The site is Ain't It COOL News. Not Ain't It PROFITABLE News. Those of us arguing that Zombie should have made his own movie are saying that as people interested in art and artists. Not business and businessmen.
Sept. 5, 2007, 2:28 a.m. CST
fair play to you for writing so many damn words. but my reviews shorter and better great film, good job at not ruining the previous Halloween movies........Halloween is not the holy grail its a movie guys and at least it wasnt Hills Have Eyes 2......get over it and love the Rob Zombie filmography!!!!
Sept. 5, 2007, 2:29 a.m. CST
zombie loves the original. the third act is when he pays the most direct homage to carpenter. he is completely the structure of his movie. it is a genius move for a remake and i don't even think "remake" is the correct word for what zombie created. it's his own nightmare, like drawing your own x-men comic if you were a brilliant kid.
Sept. 5, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
Daniel Criag's version of James Bond is like Rob Zombie's version of Halloween. They both honor what came before while at the same time breathing new life into the franchise. Which is more than what Busta Rhymes was doing...
Sept. 5, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST
Daniel Criag's version of James Bond is like Rob Zombie's version of Halloween. They both honor what came before while at the same time breathing new life into the franchise. Which is more than what Busta Rhymes was doing...
Sept. 5, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST
The ending you are proposing sounds pretty cool, actually. I'm still not hearing a convincing argument, however, on why Zombie's version doesn't work. There is still a lot of mystery offered to viewers in this one. For example, I wonder what exactly Myers wanted with Laurie, after he captures her. I have a guess, but it's not made entirely clear, leaving a lot to the imagination. There are plenty of examples of classic bogeyman films and books that delved heavily into back-stories and still had big third Acts, amongst them FRANKENSTEIN and JEKYLL & HYDE. I think this HALLOWEEN works much the same way as those.
Sept. 5, 2007, 5:33 p.m. CST
by Abominable Snowcone
And I'm not even done reading it.
Sept. 5, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST
by abner pepper
Go to bed.
Sept. 5, 2007, 8:21 p.m. CST
Saw it on Sept. 5th. It was not shot for shot after Mike breaks out of the looney bin like most of the Zombie haters have stated it was. All of you haters try to do a better job. I noticed 3 or 4 flaws in the movie. I'm glad I caught it in the theater. Nuff said
Sept. 5, 2007, 9:13 p.m. CST
it still rocks. I do think I like the workprint better though. Have to get woth my buddy and see it again to decide for sure.
Sept. 5, 2007, 10:22 p.m. CST
...and come to think of it, the original actually does explain why Jason is on his killing rampage. He drowned in Crystal Lake while the counsellors were busy having sex, so thats why he has a vendetta against them, and thats why the horny ones tend to die more often. Also, camp counsellors beheaded his psychotic murderous mother as well...so thats part of it too. Its all pretty campy - pardon the pun.
Sept. 5, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST
You can hear an interview with "Halloween" producer Malek Akkad about his father's legacy with the series and his intentions with the latest release by visiting: http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=48569
Sept. 5, 2007, 11:42 p.m. CST
Do you think they'll release the workprint on dvd? I'd love to see it. Perhaps, they'll offer both cuts of the film. Glad to hear it holds up on second viewing.
Sept. 6, 2007, 12:11 a.m. CST
Moriarty - I admire how you toy with total morons. It's like watching my cat knock a grasshopper around. Top notch, top notch!
Sept. 6, 2007, 9:35 a.m. CST
How do you figure he toyed with us? Get off his dick.
Sept. 6, 2007, 9:36 a.m. CST
I would love to see the workprint released on DVD. I watched it again last night. I do like it better than the theatrical cut. I bet they do release it as a director's cut double dip.
Sept. 6, 2007, 11:04 a.m. CST
Why do you assume yourself to be one of the morons I was talking about?
Sept. 6, 2007, 5:14 p.m. CST
What are you people looking for in these slasher films? Jesus, its as if you guys go out and spend money on films like this so you have $10.00 worth of complaining to do. Aside from the trailer trash language by everyone and the timeline snafu, I don't see much to complain about. After HOTC and the Devil's rejects, what exactley were you expecting from a Zombie version of Halloween? I think everyone is having issues with this version in part because of its realistic violence. When you think of Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers, you can't help but think of over the top deaths filled with killing props. I always thought Michael Myers was the scariest of the 80's trio because of the concept the human embodiment of pure evil. That Michael could have been the wierd kid growing up next to you or the quiet guy who sat by himself at lunch in the high school cafeteria. The movie is what it is. To most it will be a steaming pile, but those are the same that couldn't have been satisfied regardless of who was involved and how it turned out. With that said, while I don't agree with it, Moriarty, that was one great review.
Sept. 6, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST
Oh no. You don't get to use the "what are you people looking for" defense. Everyone made a big deal out of the fact that Rob Zombie was directing. This fact was hyped to the moon. If the studio and the fans are going to prattle on endlessly about, "ooh, it's Rob Zombie", then I'm going to take the man to task. When I first heard that he was doing Halloween, I was excited. I liked Devil's Rejects a LOT. I thought he had grown by leaps and bounds between HOTC and DR. I like Zombie as a visual artist. I thought HOTC was poorly-written and DR was a huge improvement, story-wise. I thought the quality of his writing would catch up to his visual sense in Halloween. And, like Mori, I was disappointed. I don't even hate the movie, I just don't think it's worth more than a rental at best. It's certainly not up to the expectations Zombie had to know he was facing after DR. I didn't pay to see this. I resisted seeing it because of reviews I had read, but a slasher-loving buddy offered to pay for me. So I went. While it's true that I'm a "I know what I hate" kind of guy, I also always want to see a movie be good. Hell, I would root for Soul Plane to be good...
Sept. 6, 2007, 6:25 p.m. CST
One thing I will admit and am disappointed in is that hardly any critics are defending the film in print. Besides Jo Blo's review, well their first one ;), this review is a point-by-point reasoning for why Rob Zombie's Halloween is a great horror film. It pointed out a lot of things I wouldn't think about like Zombie's use of music. All you haters of "Love Hurts." If you guys know of any other links like this, I'll be checking. http://tinyurl.com/2qfftn
Sept. 6, 2007, 6:37 p.m. CST
and it really is not that good. Not bad, just not as good as Halloween. Plus, does anyone else besides me keep thinking that Hatchet was the name of a great young teens book?
Sept. 7, 2007, 2:23 a.m. CST
Halloween Post RIP
Sept. 7, 2007, 11:53 a.m. CST
A point has been made here - and elsewhere - that this might have been a respectable (if not great) film if all references to Halloween had been removed and it was instead filmed as a stand alone movie with a unique serial killer. I think this is a bunk analogy because so much of the film is inextricably tied to the Halloween mythos that it's inconceivable that this would have even been a finished film in the first place without Carpenter's original to piggy back off of. Maybe the first half of the movie could have spun off a unique second half that had nothing to do with the Halloween series, but the second half - as shot - adheres so closely to the original that it's pointless to wonder how it might have come off as a stand alone movie. It's like wondering whether "Ishtar" might not have been a decent movie if it was a remake of "Casablanca" instead.
Sept. 11, 2007, 4:23 p.m. CST
http://www.strandedinstereo.com/film_halloween.shtml Kiss my balls.