For the record, love Donner's Superman, hate Singer's Superman ;)

eh? So... err... WHERE did you see it all before?

This reviewer asserted he has no credibility before even getting to his review. Why the fuck was this even posted?

There. I said it.

In case you haven't done your math lately, Carpenter's version came out in 1978. Think about that for a second -- that's a whopping 29 YEARS ago. It's been nearly THREE DECADES since Carpenter's version came out, which means that a complete and absolute 100% of today's teenage audience -- you know, the ticket buyers and core demographic that the studio is aiming this thing at -- WEREN'T EVEN BORN when Carpenter's version -- or for that matter some of its sequels -- were around.

So when Cbebop007 admits (as he did in a post above) that he's (1) only 19, and that (2) he only caught Carpenter's version on DVD after the fact, you need to realize that's pretty much how 90-plus percent of the audience who will see Zombie's remake ever did experience the original. They either watched it on DVD (where at least it was uncut) OR, even worse, they simply caught it one night on something like USA or TNT, where it was not only edited for TV, but you also lost any real sense of the original's pacing and intensity since its now being constantly interrupted by commercial breaks.

So on the one hand, I can appreciate a lot of people here being true horror fans and who recognize Carpenter's version for the classic it is, for its place in film history AND I can also appreciate those around here who are older (like myself) who can say they actually had the fun of seeing Carpenter's version in the theater, where you experienced it the way it was meant to be seen -- with alot of people around you jumping and screaming.

But to both those ends, Cbebop007 made another good point: so much of what made Carpenter's version so great and groudbreaking for its time are "tricks of the trade" that have since become common place -- so much so that if you're a younger teen today who is looking back on Carpenter's version, you don't really give it the credit its due. Because so much of what it achieved back then has been copied and diluted so many times over, in so many other things that you've seen since.

So with all that in mind, Cbebop007 was right to say he would just tackle the review as someone who wasn't a fan of the original and who is just looking at it more as a general movie fan. Because in the end, that's exactly who the studio is banking on here -- namely today's teens and today's generation of moviegoers. Sure, they're counting on some people coming out because of the infamous Halloween or Michael Myers name (insert small trademark here) as an easy money-making marketing tool. But aside from that, this is just one of those things -- particularly since this film will reset the clock to Day One -- where some of us just have to say "Ok, it's THIS generation's version of Halloween, and not mine. My version of Michael Myers is safely stored on my DVD shelf. Meanwhile, today's teens can adopt this for all their own"...and leave it at that.

Of course, that brings up the whole separate argument of WHY did they feel they needed to remake such a classic at all or why couldn't Zombie just make up his own "new" character to focus a film on (if he was so interested in making a slasher movie), but as I said, that's a whole other Talkback and debate on how Hollywood really HAS become creatively bankrupt...

On a side note, the best band from that late seventies/early eighties era, PAGAN ALTAR, is still making music, and still kicking ass...

Fucking shouldn't have been made anyway,

I've also heard that said about the exorcist and it makes me wince- I'm 28, and remember when they finally lifted the ban on the Exorcist in Britain. We all went to the opening night in the cinema, and a good amount of the people in the audience were describing it as lame. I think that a significant number of people do not appreciate tension or suspense and just wnat cheap shocks and gore- the rise of torture porn as an example. I'll take suspense every time.

They keep The Shape out of sight or in the shadows, never see him doing anything to mundane. Every time he is seen it is with a sense of dread and he is either killing or stalking. To be near him was to die,simple as that. But what really made it all work was that Laurie Strode was likable. In the first two, she was well constructed by the script and Jamie Curtis. Her friends were less likable on purpose, I think, to make Laurie seem more isolated. And they had actual conversations, the dialogue had a constant theme and the discussions actually MEANT something. Instead of just being one liners, 'snapping" insults and 'sassy attitude" pretending to be lines. The script writers seeking that Holy Grail of quotable quips in hopes will be repeated or become a catch phrase. When Laurie said "It really was The Boggie Man." and Loomis replies "As a matter of fact. it was." It wasn't going for a one liner or quip, it was the culmination of all that had gone before, and set things up for the last look out the window and the shots of the different parts of town as Myer's breathing could be heard.

The movie has a sense of dread that built up to moments of sudden horror and violence, as opposed to torture porn and action movies pretending to be horror films.

That is what makes it a classic to me.