Rob Zombie to direct next Halloween movie

[dubq 0]

A couple points: I think you can humanize Michael Myers because we already have a basically perfect movie where they don't. Jesus, let's nail Rob Zombie to a cross because he wants to do something different.

 

Hey, when buddy decides that he wants to fuck with a piece of history, a horror classic, and especially - a piece of my childhood.. then he fully opens himself up to any cross-nailing that might come his way.

 

Rob Zombie owes the movie going horror fan, not the other way around.

 

First of all he didn't fuck with a piece of history. He made his intrepretation of an older story, WITH THE BLESSING of John Carpenter, I might add. Not only that but he made it perfectly clear that he never intended this to replace the original and it won't. Will the orignal Halloween disappear because this movie was made? Will the existance of that movie be erased from everyone's memory, and retail store's shelves? If you don't like it, don't watch it again. If you didn't see it (I'm not going to go back through the thread to see if you did), stop your whining cause you have no basis to complain other then hearsay.

 

And Rob Zombie owes horror fans NOTHING and neither do they to him. Whatever gave you the notion of either? He's a fan of said movies and he made a movie that he thought he would like. It wasn't done to please the entire population of crybabies on the internet who do nothing but bitch about shit.

 

First off it's clear that Carpenter is off his fucking rocker these days - so his blessing means shit in 2007. Buddy is whoring out his legacy like it's going out of style. Halloween. The Thing. Escape from New York. What's next? Big Trouble in Little China?

 

If this movie is Zombie's own interpretation of the story then why is it pretty much a word-for-word reinactment of the original film after the first 25 minutes? Except this time around it's chalk full of completely unmotivated actors, shitty camera work (Michael Bay style) and more stupid little errors that even amatuer film students wouldn't make.

 

Hate to break it to you, but yes Zombie does owe fans of the original Halloween something - especially if he's such a huuuge fan of the original. If you're going to take that stance and then take on a project like this, you better damn well make sure it doesn't suck as much ass as this movie did. This might even beat the TCM remake as worst raping of a classic horror film, ever.

 

..and yes, I've seen it. The CHUD.com "Fuck you out of 10" pretty much sums it up.

[RedJed 0]

I'll post more later but I'm a ridiculous Halloween franchise fan and found little to no problems with this new version. I'm not going to compare it to the original because that is not the point here, this is supposed to be a different twist altogether. And it definately was to me. Zombie DID pretty much carve out (pardon the pun) a quite different and entertaining film here. The film WASNT almost "word for word, scene to scene" like the original after 25 minutes. If anything the backstory of Myers as a child went far too long, but thats my only real gripe with it. I dont get what some of you wanted out of this, can someone explain? Did you want a totally rehash of the original, a borderline part 9, or a new twist on the original, with Zombie paying homage to certain elements of the original but going in alot of his own different directions? I did want the third, and thats what I got, and for that, I was VERY satisfied.

[The Ill One 0]

I've never been a huge Halloween fan so it's hard to empathize with those who say how he slaughtered it, but that's pretty close to it. I'm not even anal about the loyalty or lack-there-of from the original but it really wasn't that entertaining. Some of the camerawork got to me, despite usually never caring, and bulk of the actors weren't too great. The idea of telling about his childhood had potential but the execution- not so much... but it wasn't like I was expecting some amazingly deep, psychological either. Matter of fact, I wasn't expecting much at all.

 

I wasn't going to riot or demand my money back, not literally, but it was pretty much what I figured it would be- a somewhat shitty remake. But there was one part that made me laugh my ass off-

 

It was when he broke through the car's window after being shot a few times because of the deliverance of the line, Dr.'s "What the hell!"

 

Also, man, people need to learn to shoot people in the head for reassurance if he's magically super-human.

 

It's a rental if anything and, apparently, the hardcore original fans should stray away from it.

[WukenBloodstar 0]

A couple points: I think you can humanize Michael Myers because we already have a basically perfect movie where they don't. Jesus, let's nail Rob Zombie to a cross because he wants to do something different.

 

Hey, when buddy decides that he wants to fuck with a piece of history, a horror classic, and especially - a piece of my childhood.. then he fully opens himself up to any cross-nailing that might come his way.

 

Rob Zombie owes the movie going horror fan, not the other way around.

 

First of all he didn't fuck with a piece of history. He made his intrepretation of an older story, WITH THE BLESSING of John Carpenter, I might add. Not only that but he made it perfectly clear that he never intended this to replace the original and it won't. Will the orignal Halloween disappear because this movie was made? Will the existance of that movie be erased from everyone's memory, and retail store's shelves? If you don't like it, don't watch it again. If you didn't see it (I'm not going to go back through the thread to see if you did), stop your whining cause you have no basis to complain other then hearsay.

 

And Rob Zombie owes horror fans NOTHING and neither do they to him. Whatever gave you the notion of either? He's a fan of said movies and he made a movie that he thought he would like. It wasn't done to please the entire population of crybabies on the internet who do nothing but bitch about shit.

 

First off it's clear that Carpenter is off his fucking rocker these days - so his blessing means shit in 2007. Buddy is whoring out his legacy like it's going out of style. Halloween. The Thing. Escape from New York. What's next? Big Trouble in Little China?

 

Since when the hell did "blessing" three remakes=whoring your legacy and off your rocker?

 

[Downhome 0]

I went to see the theatrical version tonight, and as I said before, it's shit. The audience hated it as well, being very much vocal against it - laughing at it, mocking it, and more than a few just flat out saying out loud that it sucked and was a pile of shit.

 

I don't mean this as a flame, or any such petty bullshit like that, but I simply don't see how any horror fan can like this flick at all, I really don't. Everything about it sucks a massive dong, from the acting (Sherri Moon is quite possibly the worst actress of all time), to the dialogue, to the direction, the mood, even the fucking retarded musical cues. Not to mention the horrible story, the TWISTS, and all of the other bullshit in the film.

 

The only way I can understand that anyone likes this flick, even a little bit, is if you are either a sick fuck and somehow relates to pure evil like Michael Myers, or if you're simply attracted to Rob Zombie's cock and praise anything the douchebag is a part of. I'm sick of even saying that Rob Zombie could possibly one day direct a great film if he did so to a script that he didn't write, just sick of it. That'll never happen - not only because I no longer think it's possible and that he doesn't have the talent needed to do so, but also because I think that he thinks that he's so "great" that he wouldn't dare direct a screenplay that didn't come from his sick demented head.

 

That's about all I'm going to say about this one for now. From this point on I'm going to pretty much do what I did for Alien vs. Predator - simply pretend that it doesn't exist in the first place.

[CBright7831 0]

I'm starting to feel like there's only 10 people in America that like this film...and I'm one of them.

[Epic Reine 0]

This was far better than it had any right to be. I HATED Zombie's other flicks and thought I would hate this one as well but I actually thought it was good for what it was. Not a classic by any means but is good on its own.

[Jingus 0]

First off it's clear that Carpenter is off his fucking rocker these days - so his blessing means shit in 2007. Buddy is whoring out his legacy like it's going out of style. Halloween. The Thing. Escape from New York. What's next? Big Trouble in Little China?

Legacy? One movie that got good reviews and made a pile of money, and then slowly got worse over the rest of his career.

 

Hate to break it to you, but yes Zombie does owe fans of the original Halloween something

NO artist EVER "owes" the fans anything. That's an awesomely self-centered, Comic Book Guy way to look at professionals who devote their entire careers to trying to entertain people.

 

This might even beat the TCM remake as worst raping of a classic horror film, ever.

Whoa now, let's not go overboard. I have a hard time imagining anything that betrayed the whole feeling of the original more than the TCM remake. Besides, I doubt this is even the worst raping of a Carpenter film. Didya see the new Fog?

 

I went to see the theatrical version tonight, and as I said before, it's shit.

DH, dude, why did you even go? Seriously? You already despised Zombie, think he's total shit as both a writer and director. And then you saw the work print and hated it. Why spend time and money to intentionally not be entertained?

[Frosty 0]

I saw this last night and I as well thought it rocked. I didn't think the acting of the main characters was bad at all. If you found the 17 year old girls annoying... it is because you were supposed to cause that's how they act. they are annoying. He paid homage to the original numerous times. He Had his own spin on pretty much everything. I do agree that some of the camera work left a little to be desired and that there was sometimes a little too much gore. I agree with the person that said that sometimes he needs to learn that less is more. Overall I thought this brough the movie down to earth and had a relatively realistic character that got out of contorl over the series.

 

I enjoyed it and I AM a big fan of horror movies. I don't know how anyone who calls themselves a HUGE fan couldn't like this. It's a Horror movie. It's never going to win an oscar for writing, or never going to win best cinematography so you need to accept it for what it is a judge it accordingly.

[TSA09 0]

It's an okay movie if you've never seen the first 2 Halloween movies or just forgot that the even existed. I absolutely love John Carpeter's Halloween and after seeing this all my brother and I could do was laugh. I understand making it your own, but does that mean totally rewritting history? How can you tell another side to the story if he killed his sister at age 6 and was locked in a sanitarium ever since? I know I'm anal over details but that really annoyed me, there was very little continuity (I think my brother counted only 4 - 6 times things were consistant). Halloween was such an iconic movie back t hen that totally rewritting it now trying to make a spin on it makes no sense. Everyone knows the story of Michael Myers, this was an insult at best. We personally went into it knowing it was gonna suck, we just didn't know how bad. Everyone else in the theater had the same opinion. If anything, we laughed through most of it.

 

That's just my two cents

[dubq 0]

When I say Zombie owes the fans, I don't mean he owes them on everything he does. I mean if he's going to do something like remake a film that has a HUGE following of fans that grew up on it then he OWES it to them to make sure as shit that the film doesn't suck as much ass as it did.

 

It's pretty obvious that Zombie's not even in it for the horror, and after reading interviews with him I have a really hard time believing that "entertaining people" has been his motivation for anything he's done in his career - how about for the cash?

 

Regardless, I for one am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he doesn't even deserve it. I don't see why it's such a big deal for people to see the movie - dislike it - and then come back and say why. Like we're being such big assholes because we won't blindly accept a steaming pile of shit that was made by Rob "Zombie" Cummings. So what - he makes shitty alterna-horror-rock for the majority of his career and then becomes a movie director - that makes him a bigger fan of horror than the rest of us and therefore he must know better? Give me a break..

[Cartman 0]

Ok there was ONE thing I didn't like about this movie.

 

Fucking Cheerleader broads do NOT wear Slayer T-shirts!

 

[The Buzz 0]

I haven't seen the new movie, and while I liked the original movie and all. It's not like it was that great either. Plus to the guy talking about continuity...why in the world would what is essentially a new starting point have continuity with something that already started? It's a fresh spin, fresh start, fresh idea.....there was really no reason for the movie to match up with Plot Point A or B from the original movies.

[RedJed 0]

Dubq, nobody is saying that you can't say the movie sucked, thats your opinion and thats fine. But some of your comments, and also some from DH are stating, "you just CANT like this movie, no way no how" and thats fucking bullshit. You guys hate Zombie - OK WE GET IT. But your blindness towards that fact is making you less than fairly critical on the film itself and then lets take it a step farther, cut and drying, comparing it to the original. Lets face facts - the original is a classic in horror cinema, nobody was expecting the same from this, its a modern day spin on the original, but should really not be compared, frame to frame, scene to scene, to the original. And just because someone enjoys this film does NOT mean 1) its a Rob Zombie 'fanboy' thing, as I HATED Corpses, and thought Rejects was ok or 2) the person enjoying the film is a fucking sadist. WTF is that shit about, its fucking horror - damn, think outside the box a bit when you throw comments out like that. I think its awfully ironic that someone states that if you like it, you must love Zombie. So by that same reasoning, if you hate the film, then you must just have a deep seeded intense hatred towards him, too? Point being is that there is an opposite effect of unbiaseness there with a comment like that.

 

This whole subject seems awfully similar to some who moaned about how they hated the Dawn of the Dead remake because it was different, totally contradictory in some ways to the original, etc. The whole fucking point is that a director should have his own unique direction to take on the ever so prevalent world of horror remakes these days. As long as some elements of the original are kept in tact to a degree, and then followed up with new things that are 1) unexpected 2) creatively done and/or 3) entertaining, then I don't have a problem with it. Its a pretty simple formula I would suggest some of you follow, unless you already have a chip on your shoulder for most horror, in which I say dont even bother seeing this in the first place.

 

And Zombie doesnt owe "Halloween fans" shit - for everyone of them who is going to hate on it, there is going to be another who enjoyed it. Thats nothing new at all when it comes to the whole remake concept. Just the same as the TCM remake, you got a very mixed reaction from that.

[Frosty 0]

Dubq, nobody is saying that you can't say the movie sucked, thats your opinion and thats fine. But some of your comments, and also some from DH are stating, "you just CANT like this movie, no way no how" and thats fucking bullshit. You guys hate Zombie - OK WE GET IT. But your blindness towards that fact is making you less than fairly critical on the film itself and then lets take it a step farther, cut and drying, comparing it to the original. Lets face facts - the original is a classic in horror cinema, nobody was expecting the same from this, its a modern day spin on the original, but should really not be compared, frame to frame, scene to scene, to the original. And just because someone enjoys this film does NOT mean 1) its a Rob Zombie 'fanboy' thing, as I HATED Corpses, and thought Rejects was ok or 2) the person enjoying the film is a fucking sadist. WTF is that shit about, its fucking horror - damn, think outside the box a bit when you throw comments out like that. I think its awfully ironic that someone states that if you like it, you must love Zombie. So by that same reasoning, if you hate the film, then you must just have a deep seeded intense hatred towards him, too? Point being is that there is an opposite effect of unbiaseness there with a comment like that.

 

This whole subject seems awfully similar to some who moaned about how they hated the Dawn of the Dead remake because it was different, totally contradictory in some ways to the original, etc. The whole fucking point is that a director should have his own unique direction to take on the ever so prevalent world of horror remakes these days. As long as some elements of the original are kept in tact to a degree, and then followed up with new things that are 1) unexpected 2) creatively done and/or 3) entertaining, then I don't have a problem with it. Its a pretty simple formula I would suggest some of you follow, unless you already have a chip on your shoulder for most horror, in which I say dont even bother seeing this in the first place.

 

And Zombie doesnt owe "Halloween fans" shit - for everyone of them who is going to hate on it, there is going to be another who enjoyed it. Thats nothing new at all when it comes to the whole remake concept. Just the same as the TCM remake, you got a very mixed reaction from that.

 

 

Thank you.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Well, I guess on the bright side is that this piece of the franchise has to be better than what I read about the proposed "Pinhead vs Michael Myers" storyline from a few years ago.

Oh yeah, the guy who wrote and directed "Dead Hate the Living" (who went on to co-write "House of the Dead" and "All Souls Day") was supposed to do it. Nothing came out of it, and it never got made.

 

To me, the Halloween fanchise was pretty much dead the second they included the Thorn Cult bullshit.

 

 

[Nighthawk 0]

As far as other people go, my two friends I saw it with really liked it, and the theater seemed to. They were screaming at it like it was a roller coaster. Actually, very comically over the top reaction.

 

I like to yell things out during movies, and the best reaction I got from this one was "I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!" Got a "LOOOOOUD NOISES!" callback from somebody, too.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Well, I winded up going to see it after all since my girlfriend was interested after seeing a TV spot and honestly, I didn't think it was bad as I thought it was going to be. It was certainly better than H4, H5, H6, and H8. I wouldn't mind a sequel, but I guess we're not going to get one...yet.

 

The Good

 

I have to thank Rob Zombie for actually making Michael scary again because:

 

A.) The aged mask, it actually came off better as something to fear rather than the classic squeaky clean white mask

 

B.) He made Michael a fucking GIANT. That juggernaut feeling of his immense size and incredible strength really adds to him being a monster since his dark soul, warped mind, and eyes of ice are already bad enough.

 

C.) The backstory as a child helped. It added more to his character.

 

D.) Michael was completely ruthless. He showed no mercy, even to people who were actually nice to him! This is nice because you're supposed to remember that he is supposed to be an unstoppable-like killing machine.

 

E.) The brutal deaths, while in typical Zombie fashion, certainly weren't a let down.

 

F.) I also liked the change of Michael killing his whole family (aside from his mom and Laurie) as well as Judith's boyfriend.

 

G.) Some unexpected jump scenes definitely helped.

 

Malcolm McDowell didn't disappoint as Dr. Loomis. I loved how he used some of Pleasance's lines. It was really weird seeing him with long hair though.

 

It was a nice nod to the original of the bitch cheerleader and her boyfriend practically dying the same, except it was in Michael's house this time.

 

It was a nice change to see Annie survive.

 

The remix of "Mr. Sandman"

 

The Bad

 

Laurie Strode being changed from a nice, kind of nerdy girl to a typical teenage girl.

 

I didn't like Michael with orange mask. That with the hair reminded me too much of Leatherface from the remake.

 

I HATED Dr. Loomis dying, but I guess since he was changed to be more of a douchebag, maybe his character had it coming.

 

I didn't like Laurie not knowing that she was Michael's sister. It would have added elements to the story like the "attempted bonding" scene for example.

 

The ending was a complete let down. Michael drops his kitchen knife for no reason to tackle Laurie through the balcony? WTF? The original ending was so much better with Dr. Loomis saving the day! I wish Zombie re-used that.

 

the only thing he can come up with is to "humanize Michael Myers" I mean COME ON...WTF? How does that make him more scary?

 

Because IMO its more interesting to actually give him reasons to become what he is instead of becoming evil for no reason.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

And what's with the hate of the TCM remake? I didn't think it was awful for being a somewhat faithful version. If anything should be hated, it should be that piece of shit prequel TCM: The Beginning!

 

Oh and FYI about Halloween 2007: Workprint Vs. Theatrical

 

SCENES IN WORKPRINT NOT IN THEATRICAL VERSION:

 

1. During the breakfast scene, there’s additional dialogue between Judith and Deborah concerning eggs. Judith alludes to Deborah having an abortion.

 

2. The workprint has an opening credits sequence. It plays over the scene of Michael running from the school, Loomis’ introduction, and the bully walking through the woods. These scenes are all longer as a result, most significantly more dialogue between Loomis and Deborah, presented in voice over as Michael runs.

 

3. There’s an additional shot when Deborah confronts Michael outside the house after the murders.

 

4. The montage of Loomis and Michael getting to know each other has more dialogue / scene snippets

 

5. In the workprint, there is an additional scene of young Michael with Deborah at the institution, where he expresses his need to “get out of here”. When he learns he cannot leave, he says “Then I have nothing left to say.”

 

6. When the nurse looks at the photo of Michael and “Boo”, there is an additional line where she alludes to Michael being ugly. This provides more of a motive for her killing than is present in the theatrical version.

 

7. The “Fifteen Years Later” scene begins with a newscast about Michael’s possible transfer.

 

8. Following this newscast begins one of the biggest changes: Udo Kier’s character. In the theatrical he is only in ONE scene, but here he has quite a few as the head of Smith’s Grove. He is joined by Clint Howard and Tom Towles as other hospital higherups. They disagree with Loomis’ instructions for Michael’s care. This is followed by the scene where Loomis tells Michael he can no longer be his doctor.

 

9. The scene of Ishmael Cruz and the new orderly in Michael’s room is a bit longer.

 

10. An additional shot of Loomis leaving Smith’s Grove, looking back with a look on his face showing that he is clearly conflicted about his decision to quit on Michael.

 

11. Additional shots of Michael watching Joe Grizzly.

 

12. The scene where we meet Laurie and the Strodes is lengthened, there is more talk about the “pervert” hardware store owner.

 

13. After Loomis speaks at the lecture, there is a scene of him walking with a colleague, asking how he thought he did in the speech.

 

14. When Laurie and Lynda leave the school, Lynda harasses another female student for some reason, pouring a drink on her head (this is one of the few changes that were for the better, as it makes Lynda even more annoying than she already is)

 

15. Additional sex talk between the three girls as they walk home

 

16. When they see Michael, there are additional shots of him standing across the street (in the theatrical we only see his blurry shape)

 

17. A scene of Laurie walking to her house where her mother is putting up decorations outside. Michael is seen following her in the background.

 

18. A scene showing Michael in the graveyard, finding the tombstone and then removing it.

 

19. After Laurie leaves to baby-sit, we hear Michael breathing as her parents chat. When the mother goes inside, Michael approaches. The father sees him and assumes he is a trick or treater.

 

20. A scene showing Laurie watching horror movies with the kids. Laurie tells Lindsay it’s time for her to go.

 

21. The chase from the Wallace’s to the Doyle’s is a bit longer.

 

22. The pool scene is a bit longer

 

23. A scene of Loomis and Laurie walking to the car is longer, and it really resonates that Loomis is feeling guilty, a moment that is truncated in the theatrical.

 

SCENES IN THE THEATRICAL THAT ARE NOT IN THE WORKPRINT

 

1. A scene of Loomis explaining the color spectrum to Michael

 

2. The death of Ishmael Cruz

 

3. A scene of Brackett pulling up alongside the girls as they walk home. Brackett offers a ride, which only Annie accepts.

 

4. The graveyard scene with Sid Haig.

 

5. A scene where Lynda calls Laurie right before Bob’s death.

 

6. A quick bit where the Strodes express confusion over what Annie means by saying her dad is “same as always”

 

7. Loomis buys a gun

 

8. A shot of Bob backing his van into the driveway at the Myers house. Also, this scene occurs much earlier in the theatrical version than it does in the workprint.

 

9. A scene where Brackett explains how he knows who Laurie Strode’s real family is (a much needed addition as it is never explained in the workprint how she came to be with that family or how Loomis would know where to find her).

 

10. Loomis running up to the house and finding the kids is not in the workprint.

 

SCENES THAT ARE DIFFERENT ENTIRELY

 

1. Michael listens to Monster Mash in the first scene instead of classic rock (note – a lot of the music is different, more usages of the original music, but that is to be expected from a workprint – this was the only one I will point out)

 

2. The biggest one that almost everyone knows about, when Michael escapes. In the workprint, an orderly and his friend harass and then rape a female inmate in Michael’s room. Michael ignores them until they begin playing with his masks (this pays off the line about him not liking it when people touch his things). He kills them both, gets their keys, and escapes. In the theatrical, he is being moved for some reason and suddenly kills the four guards, including Tom Towles (who plays a different character in the workprint), as well as Bill Moseley, and Leslie Easterbrook, neither of whom appear in the workprint).

 

3. The scene where Loomis is told that Michael escapes is entirely different, and features more Udo Kier.

 

4. The scene where Loomis leaves for Haddonfield after arguing with Udo Kier and Clint Howard is completely different.

 

5. The scene where Loomis meets Brackett takes place in a different location (a diner in the theatrical, and what appears to be the graveyard in the workprint), and the dialogue is different.

 

6. Mrs. Strode is brutally killed; in the workprint it is just sort of suggested.

 

7. Bob’s death is completely different. In the workprint, he is killed in his van when he goes out to get beer. In the theatrical, he is killed in the exact same way he was killed in the 1978 film.

 

8. The ending is completely different from the moment Michael pulls Laurie out of the car. In the workprint, Loomis talks to Michael for a while longer than he does in the theatrical version. Then the cops show up, guns drawn. Loomis convinces them all to stand down while he continues to try to calm Michael. He succeeds, and Michael lets Laurie go. As she runs to Loomis, the cops (including Brackett) open fire, shooting him dozens of times. Loomis screams for them to stop but it’s too late. Michael appears dead. The film ends on a very nice shot of Loomis standing over Michael’s body, clearly realizing how he failed his patient, as we hear the audio recording of their very first meeting at Smith’s Grove.

 

9. In the theatrical, Michael kills Loomis by crushing his skull, then spends about 10 minutes smashing his house trying to find Laurie. He finally does, and then rushes her. They go out the window, then Laurie shoots him in the face, screams, and the film ends.

[CBright7831 0]

So I expect a director's cut to be in the works in the near future.

 

If so, then I'm all for it.

[Jingus 0]

And what's with the hate of the TCM remake? I didn't think it was awful for being a somewhat faithful version.

Because I thought it was fucking terrible. A generic Hollywooded-up version of what felt so creepily different in the original. Also, faithful? It retained "Leatherface, cannibal family, teenagers dying, Texas" and then pretty much made it up as it went along, especially that godawful ending.

 

For that matter, what's with the love for Halloween 2? I thought it completely lacked everything that made the first movie so great, and was basically a Friday the 13th flick with a different mask. Especially the ridiculous finale, where they went so over the top in Wile Coyote-ing Michael to death that I never once bought that he could've lived through it.

[RedJed 0]

And what's with the hate of the TCM remake? I didn't think it was awful for being a somewhat faithful version.

Because I thought it was fucking terrible. A generic Hollywooded-up version of what felt so creepily different in the original. Also, faithful? It retained "Leatherface, cannibal family, teenagers dying, Texas" and then pretty much made it up as it went along, especially that godawful ending.

 

For that matter, what's with the love for Halloween 2? I thought it completely lacked everything that made the first movie so great, and was basically a Friday the 13th flick with a different mask. Especially the ridiculous finale, where they went so over the top in Wile Coyote-ing Michael to death that I never once bought that he could've lived through it.

 

I have to say I didnt mind the first remake, again because of the unique differences in the original versus remake, but the second TCM remake/prequal/whatthefuckeverthatwas really was downright rehashed BS that didn't work at all on any level.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

For that matter, what's with the love for Halloween 2? I thought it completely lacked everything that made the first movie so great, and was basically a Friday the 13th flick with a different mask. Especially the ridiculous finale, where they went so over the top in Wile Coyote-ing Michael to death that I never once bought that he could've lived through it.

 

It had a good story picking up right where the first one left off. It has some VERY creepy scenes (the hospital looking like a ghost town, Michael looking over the babies for example). The chase through the hospital was very well executed and was better than the chase at the end of the original. Michael is still scary - unlike in the later sequels. The murders are really gory, but not campy like in Halloween 6 for example, but realistic and messy and somehow very gritty. They had to make that change because of the competition. And I liked the finale of Dr. Loomis going out with a bang and having Michael cook to death because of it! Say what you want, but its still better than Michael falling down a mineshaft or being electrocuted!

[Nighthawk 0]

Also, I thought the ending of the new Halloween was really good. When she initially starts dryfiring the gun over and over, I said "That's really fucked up." and then when it goes off and it just ends with her screaming, I said "Awesome ending. That's the kind of shit you never get better from. She's just going to be crazy forever now." It felt a little TCMish, with Marilyn Burns screaming/laughing her head off from the back of the pickup, and it's like "Yeah... she ain't gonna recover." That was one of the only good things about the TCM with Matthew McConaughey and Renee Zellweger, and the very end when Marilyn Burns has a cameo in a nuthouse being wheeled on a gurney in a catatonic state. Still crazy after all these years.

 

I also thought a crucified dog at the gravesite was a bit of a TCM tribute. Would have made it a chicken in a cage, myself, but still pretty good.

 

The TCM remake, by the way, was ok for one reason only: R. Lee Ermey.

[Jingus 0]

Oh, it's definitely better than 3, 5, 6, and 8. But I just thought it was a pretty massive drop in quality from the first one, Michael just seemed like another invincible slow-walking killer in a mask and not like The Shape. Didn't scare me at all, and I found the hospital setting to be kinda goofy, what with the administration's apparent budget cutbacks meaning that they only had working light bulbs in less than half the sockets. And I've never had anyone give me a good explanation of exactly how Loomis and Michael survived through the end. Plus, it all happened the same night as the first movie, so Michael apparently had magic regenerative powers to recover from the multiple stab and gunshot wounds from an hour or two prior.

[Celtic Jobber 0]

It's pretty obvious that Zombie's not even in it for the horror, and after reading interviews with him I have a really hard time believing that "entertaining people" has been his motivation for anything he's done in his career - how about for the cash?

 

From what I know about Rob (and from his movies) I think he's more of a fan of 60s and 70s exploitation films, and classic Universal horror films like Dracula than slashers like Halloween. He should've never agreed to the remake.

 

And yes, I'm another hardcore Halloween fan who's pissed because he slaughtered the remake so badly.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

And I've never had anyone give me a good explanation of exactly how Loomis and Michael survived through the end.

 

Well, H2 was supposed to be the end, but after how much of a flop H3 was (they had intended the Halloween sequels to be different stories like The Twilight Zone), they had no choice but to bring back Michael so they retconned the ending of Halloween 2 so the explosion wasn't as deadly therefore both Dr. Loomis and Michael survived.

 

Plus, it all happened the same night as the first movie, so Michael apparently had magic regenerative powers to recover from the multiple stab and gunshot wounds from an hour or two prior.

 

See that's why I prefer the remake version of Michael. Yeah, he's fucking HUGE, but he's normal guy now instead of being superhuman, which I could never take seriously. The original Michael got stabbed in the neck, poked in the eye, stabbed in the stomach, shot in the heart six times, fell off a two story building, got shot seven more times (two of which went into his eyes), got burned, and survived all that before finally getting decapitated (I'm ignoring that bullshit excuse H8 came up to continue the series with so don't bother trying to point it out). I mean COME ON! At least with Jason, it was cool because of his curse, which was done way better than that crap with Michael's Druid Protection Agency they tried doing.

[Soja 0]

The original Michael got stabbed in the neck, poked in the eye, stabbed in the stomach, shot in the heart six times, fell off a two story building, got shot seven more times (two of which went into his eyes), got burned, and survived all that before finally getting decapitated. I mean COME ON! At least with Jason, it was cool because of his curse, which was done way better than Michael's Druid Protection Agency.

 

Only he used his precognitive powers to beat feet and slip his mask over *another* guy, knowing Laurie was amped for ax-murder & she'd end up in a nut-ward, giving him easy access. Then he'd spoof her into thinking he was some other dude again so the Shape could dump her off a building,

 

The only thing he didn't see coming was reality TV-host Busta Rhymes.

 

I'm ignoring that bullshit excuse H8 came up to continue the series with so don't bother trying to point it out

 

As you say, but damn. Karate-cized his ass.

[Jingus 0]

The original Michael got stabbed in the neck, poked in the eye, stabbed in the stomach, shot in the heart six times, fell off a two story building, got shot seven more times (two of which went into his eyes), got burned

Exactly. I mean, even if I bought that he somehow lived through all that, how the fuck did his eyes grow back? At least Jason had the excuse of being some kind of undead zombie-like thing. (Although it doesn't explain how he took all the damage in parts 2 and 3 and yet still kept kicking ass in 4, when he was still supposed to be alive.)

[cd213 0]

I saw it last night with a group of people that were HUGE fans of the original and we all had the same response, it was a DAMN GOOD HORROR FILM. People that are hating went in WANTING to hate it. People were going to hate this from the word go since the original had such a huge fan base. Those people need to get a life. It's a movie, and a damn good one at that. Did it have it's flaws, yes, but what movie doesn't. I saw the workprint copy last week and thought that many of the changes were very good, except I liked the workprint ending more. This is a very good stand alone film.

 

I go into movies different than most people since I do reviews, and judge movies differently than most. I wouldn't give this movie more then 2 1/2 stars (mind you it's just a step below 3 for me) but I really liked it. The acting was very good, especially McDowell. The kid that played young Michael did a good job. He brought sympathy to a character that no thought they would feel that for, and that's not a bad thing since he started off killing people that might have deserved it for different reasons. Then when Michael starts killing people that didn't deserve it you hated him even more. Sherri Moon wasn't horrible. Danielle Harris was HOT!!! The chick that played Lori did a good job of making the character her own.

 

Overall, this wasn't the best movie and the best remake (I like dDawn of the Dead more), but this isn't as bad as MOST people are making it out to seem. And the over 32 million that it made showed people didn't mind it as much as some are making it out to be.