One of the only reasons this movie is hated so much is because Rob Zombie chose to remake it. Everybody said, "the movie should have never been remade, it was fine the way it was." I agree. But he was not just remaking it, Rob Zombie also made a back story for about a good 40 minutes and explained more about how Michael went wrong. And Rob Zombie said he did not want this to be like John Carpenters HALLOWEEN. He wanted it to be his own vision of this movie as if Carpenters never existed. Now some things I liked about this movie was, First of all, the death scenes were great. 2nd, it actually portrayed how real teenagers act today. 3rd, this was a great plot and showed how Michaels Life was and how he became so evil. And third, for once in a lifetime, this Michael Myers actually scared me more than the Halloween movies usually do. This movie has some good acting and killing scenes, and a great unexpected ending. Overall, I give Rob Zombies HALLOWEEN, a 7/10, or a 3.5/5.
Add a Review
-
flamethrower727 October 2007
-
BruddanChrist1 February 2008When Rob Zombie was offered the chance to remake Halloween, he went to John Carpenter to gain his blessing. Carpenter's response was, "Make it your own." Zombie has achieved something few filmmakers do in remaking a classic. He has taken the original version and added more meat to it.
Meyers's character development is very interesting. We first see him as a subdued boy who (allegedly) kills small animals to feel superior, then follow him as he progresses into a repressed, zombie-like murderer who kills everybody he comes across. When comparing the 1978 Meyers with the 2007 Meyers, the latter version is much more frightening (though, Tyler Mane deserves much credit for that). Carpenter's Meyers is a robot; Zombie's Meyers is a monster.
Zombie's ensemble of supporting actors is one of the film's strongest aspects. Most of the Devil's Rejects cast returns, all portraying much different characters. Danny Trejo and William Forsythe give particularly memorable performances.
In light of today's Hostel/Saw horror violence, Halloween is rather tame. While it certainly surpasses Carpenter's version in both content and intensity, Zombie practices some restraint in how much violence is shown, leaving much of the horror to sound effects and imagination.
I honestly don't understand why people are so hard on this movie. The ending drags on for a bit, but otherwise it's a pretty solid film. Remakes have become regular ventures. You can either resist them and be unhappy with half of the movies released, or welcome them and hope for a good ride every now and then. Halloween is a great popcorn flick! Just sit back and enjoy yourself. -
p0kerviK1NG6717 September 2021This movie is underrated
Yes its not an oscar movie bue i really like the character development of Michael.
I normally dont like horror movies, i think most of them are pretty cringe.
But this one is worth a watch. -
pennacchia31 August 2007This movies takes a different approach to what makes Michael Myers terrifying. In the past his inhuman mas murders were shocking because of the absolute lack of emotion and more machine like manner in which things occur. Zombie offers audiences a background on myers. Where before the terror came in the lack of explanation, Zombie creates terror by showing how empty and how reasonless he was at 10 years old.
An interesting note about the movie is after Michael at 10 you never see his face. This part may not be different from standard Halloween movies, but unlike those, in this film you have already seen Michael's face as a boy. This then leaves the audience placing the boys face beneath the mask of the 30 year old monster making the idea of these overly brutal killings more difficult to chalk up to another death in a slasher flick. The movie gives less focus to Lori Strode and much more focus on Michael and his progressions from 10 to 30.
Zombie makes the smart call of not completely taking his own new plot line, but also not creating an exact carbon copy, leaving in specific scenes and details but still skipping over some of the more memorable ones. No, it is not John Carpenter's movie remastered, but then if you want that just run it through some filters to make his movie look new. Instead, this movie feels like a Zombie movie but in all the right ways. Best Halloween in a very long time. -
cabartha27 December 2007Until now, all we know about Michael Myers was his strange and powerful will of killing. But in this one, we witness the born of his rage, disappointments, the reason of his unlimited hate on people and the sense of being wild. So far, I was thinking that he will not stop until his last family member is finished. But when you watch it, you will find the "real" answer of his purpose. The story is different than the original and I think you will like, even you will ask yourself if Michael is totally guilty or not. I mean, I believe that you will start to think he is not a callous killing machine. Recommend you to watch it in a late time of the day.
-
Sarah4236 August 2022This is ok if you've not actually seen the original, but if you have? Turn around and find that version to watch.
Maybe do it in either case, really.
The new structure adds in more of Michael's back story, but that's to the detriment of tension. By the time we actually get to Laurie's story, I was ready to turn it off.
Not the actors' faults, although who could compete with the original cast? Not the music or videography--both sufficiently atmospheric.
Just a script that plods on a story that's already a classic.
In sum, this version? An average job. -
ringer731 August 2007The basic problem with Rob Zombie's remake of the classic horror flick Halloween comes from its purpose. The only reason he should have even considered attempting such a feat is if he seriously felt he could service the film by giving it an update and improving some of its shortcomings that result from the tests of time. Sadly, Zombie not only does nothing to improve the film, he hacks and slashes away all of the mystique the original had and rips open brand new gory, messy, and pointless holes throughout.
The character of Michael Myers in the original film came from a fairly well-to-do suburban family, yet inexplicably turned out a rotten, merciless killing machine. It is pretty essential to Michael's "Boogeyman" persona that he appear as something almost supernatural, and certainly nothing the audience could ever sympathize with. Yet Zombie drags a newly fashioned back-story out for half of the movie, trying to give reasons for why Myers does what he does, stomping all over the mystery that surrounded the original character and struck fear into all members of the audience. It is also a major part of the character of Dr. Loomis that Michael be the impossible case study, one that even the most accomplished psychologist couldn't comprehend. Instead, Zombie (in typical fashion of his God-awful career) makes Michael the product of a run-down, white trash environment. Any movie-goer would find it difficult to not laugh at the ridiculous caricatures Michael's family members portray, if they were not already bored to death by Zombie's fetish with white trash, and his predictability as a director.
Zombie saw it fit to remove almost all of the classic scenes that made the original so memorable and replace them with blood-strewn bodies of naked women at every turn. I'm not sure who exactly thinks "porn + gore = horror", but I'll tell you that there is a major difference between a creepy, mysterious mask-wearing man chasing after a scared babysitter and popping out from behind every corner and one bashing in someone's head with a baseball bat repeatedly to no one's amusement. It's fine if some people in the world enjoy goriness every once in awhile, it's not fine if Hollywood directors begin to confuse this with horror. Repeated sadistic killings are not what scares an audience, they're what sickens them. Mystery, suspense, and the creepy aura of the unknown are what make up a good horror film, and the original Halloween is THE classic example of this. Also, as a side-note but something that needs to be mentioned, who the hell talks like Laurie and her two friends in this film? These three girls, the blonde friend in particular, converse as if high schoolers find it extremely cool to drop the f-bomb every other word and sound as annoyingly immature as possible. The entirety of the dialogue written for their parts suggests no one involved in the making of this film has any idea what teenage girls talk like, so one of them decided to make it up and make them all look like total fools. I had already given up on the film by this point, but it seriously made me and everyone I came with kind of concerned that a film could get all of the way through the editing process and into theaters with such odd dialogue that would actually cause us to look at each other with quizzical faces.
My one piece of advice to moviegoers everywhere is, instead of putting more of your hard-earned money into the pocket of a hack director like Zombie and fueling the fire of awful modern horror films and terrible remakes, stay at home, dim the lights, and watch the original classic to remind yourself of just what makes a horror movie tick, just how great movies of that genre once were, and just what it feels like to truly be scared - heck, that's exactly what I'm going to do to try and push this steaming pile out of my memory. It's bad when a horror movie comes out that's filled with lots of cheap gore, overused expletives, and pointless nudity, it's far worse when it's done as a remake of a classic. The only people this film will strike horror into the hearts of is fans of the original, and sadly this is not the type of horror they paid to see - they, like myself, will be absolutely horrified at just how bad the abomination of a remake that is Rob Zombie's Halloween truly is. -
amgee-895514 April 2018One of my favourite horror remake is going to be 10 years old this year. That's crazy. I was in love with this film. I thought rob zombie done a great job reimagined a horror classic. The haters of the remake don't accept that zombie was doing putting a new spin on the 1978 John carpenter classic. Zombie said he didn't want to just do the same movie because it has already been done. The soundtrack was awesome for the remake. I liked we got more of Michael Myers backstory. I thought malcolm mcdowell done a good job as dr samuel loomis but he can't never replace Donald pleasence. He will always be loomis is my eyes and Halloween fans eyes also. I do admit zombie did fuck up the loomis character in the Sequel. It was the wrong approach of the character to just become a major dick. Remember a remake shouldn't outshine the original it's just another retelling of the story. All the casting was great. It was great to see one of my favourite scream queens Danielle Harris back in a Halloween movie. It was strange to see her playing the role of Annie because Harris was in her 30s and she was playing a 18 year old but she did pull it Of though because Harris is very young looking. I thought scout Taylor Compton done a great job as Laurie strode. She was very believable and u felt sorry for her. Sucks that Compton hasn't went on to bigger things because I think she's a good actress in my opinion. Plus she can do a great scream.
-
Otoboke3 October 2007Watching this movie was just like watching any other mediocre slasher flick, with one exception: the villain is completely boring and whiny. To be honest, I've never really been a fan of Halloween and this instalment doesn't do it any justice at all. Sure, there are some original and entertaining moments far and few between but this doesn't make Halloween a particularly enjoyable movie.
To summarise this movie is easy: Michael hates himself and decides to take it out on some cardboard characters from the horror movie character bin. That's about it. What is the point in it all? I really don't know and by the end of movie really couldn't have cared any less.
As is the problem with many horror movies these days, very little time is spent creating real characters but instead decides to throw in some stupid stereotypical teenagers as bait for uninspired gore scenes that mean next to nothing to the viewer. It was actually quite amazing to watch this film less than 12 hours after watching Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange': the contrast was vivid, showing just how poorly developed this outing for both Michael and Zombie was.
Sure if you enjoy random, unconnected and repetitious murder scenes, this will be heaven for you. But for anyone with half a brain and an attention span larger than a moth's, you're probably going to feel just as tired as I was by the time the end comes crawling by. Particularly ridiculous was the more or less same death scene that was used three times where Michael comes in between two teenagers having awkward sex, kills the moronic guy who has about 2 lines of dialogue and then cuts up the topless chick who's only real job seems to scream a lot.
The only character that is given life in this film is indeed Michael. The problem however is that he's just some narcissistic brat who craves attention and wears masks because he thinks he's ugly. Indeed, if that doesn't ruin his character, I really don't know what will. Oh, right, there's also the fact that he gets shot numerous times and is stabbed and falls off a building whilst still remaining perfectly alive. What is he, a mutant? A few redeeming qualities: the music; the cinematography; the decent performances; and a few brief instances of tension here and there makes Halloween, not all bad, but certainly not anything worth paying money for. If you like the previous movies, you'll probably enjoy this outing for Myers, but if you're like me and don't care at all for them, you should probably give this one a miss. -
chigglesman29 September 2007Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1000 Corpses and the sequel, The Devils Rejects. One thing the two films do have in common, they are extremely disturbing, containing black humor and a fun two hours. The one thing that Halloween does is sets up the first 45 minutes for the back story of Micheal. Micheal as a kid. This is the films highlight section. It gives us some extremely graphic on screen kills and we finally find out the truth behind the psychopath.
The next hour though, reminds me of every other horror movie I have ever seen. It has your regular teenage girls which love to take off their tops and get high and drunk at anytime they wish to. Of course Micheal follows them until he can finally mutilate them in the most sickest way possible. Of course, every girl but one takes off their tops. The movie is really gory and disgusting. It doesn't focus on blood spray and splatter, but more on the way of death. Which is one of the highlights of the movie. The music was revamped up from the original, of course remastered from Rob Zombie. It sounds great and creepy.
The bottom line is that this is an OK remake. It wasn't as good as I proposed it to be, but it filled a lot of my expectations. -
MovieAddict201631 August 2007On paper, a "Halloween" remake looked interesting. Zombie tries to go back to the character's origin and reinvent him - it's a recent trend in Hollywood ("Batman Begins," "Casino Royale," the upcoming "Incredible Hulk," etc.), so it's not quite surprising that Hollywood greenlit the project and it got the push it received.
But the problem that arises while doing this with "Halloween" is that it comes into conflict with the concept of Michael being purely evil. Although I can understand what Zombie was trying to do by exploring Michael's background, it contradicts the whole point of the original. By providing a reason and displaying a human character on screen, you give the character a soul - and despite what Zombie may claim, this does NOT make Michael scarier. It makes him an average movie serial killer: a guy with a messed up life as a kid who snaps one day and goes on a killing rampage.
Is it scary? No. Gory? Yes. Realistic? At first. And if it were a movie about a serial killer, it would work. But it's not. This is a movie about a monster, a soulless creature; a boogeyman, as per the original film. Monsters aren't scary when we know they're flesh and blood.
Carpenter had a way of framing the action in the original movie. Michael stalks Laurie in her hometown, but we never see any real flesh behind the mask, we never really see him moving around like a normal human being. But we do here. He stands in the middle of an open road, in front of three teenage girls walking home from school, and they all see him. He stands there for a few moments, then trudges away off-screen. We actually see him walk away, instead of just appearing and disappearing as he did in the original film. Which method is scarier? The answer is clear.
Zombie spends 40 minutes or so building up Michael's character before he escapes from the ward. We see him killing animals as a child (and torturing them, too), a stupid subplot with his mom as a stripper and a typical school bully, and a promiscuous sister. The sexual talk is frank and disgusting - the mom's boyfriend (husband?) is talking about how cute her daughter's butt is, and at this point in the film we're not sure whether he might even be the father. It's just shock for shock value. Zombie has a tendency of this - blunt violence and blunt dialogue combined - and in a film like this, it seems cheap and fake and unnecessary. The heavy emphasis placed on the swearing - and I mean this literally (as in, the actors place a noticeable emphasis on the profanity they use) is almost unintentionally funny. Zombie cast his wife in the role of Michael's mother, and she can't act at all.
Donald Pleasence got stuck with the most unfortunate lines from the original film, but we were willing to forgive bad dialogue because of how well-made the film was otherwise. Here, Malcolm McDowell gets the worst of two worlds: he gets to handle an under-characterization with bad, bad, BAD dialogue AND a generally weak film to boot. The sequences with McDowell's version of Loomis are all completely clichéd - Zombie clearly writes his dialogue based on other films' dialogue. The "intimate" scenes at the mental ward between Loomis and Michael are awful. McDowell struggles with typicalities of the genre, such as the Dr. Who Wasted His Own Life By Devoting It To Someone Else's (he explains to Michael that his wife left him and he has no friends because of how involved he became with the case - and the dialogue itself is straight from any cop-vs.-killer flick). The recent film "Zodiac" had a similar theme of men losing their personal lives due to obsession over a murderer, but it was handled better. The whole Loomis character should have been dropped from the remake if all Zombie wanted to do with him was use him as a deus ex machina, by the way.
Overall, this feels like a redneck version of "Halloween," which is going to offend some people, but I can't think of any better way to describe it. It's trashy, vulgar, and silly - and hey, that's fine, if that's Rob Zombie's motif and he wants to make movies pandering towards that sort of audience. I have nothing against it, and I think it may work with some films - I can imagine him making a good re-do of "Natural Born Killers" (although I hope it never, never happens!).
However, when you're remaking an iconic, legendary, incredibly influential horror film - don't cheapen it by "reimagining" it with horror movie clichés and shock-value material. The very worst aspect of this remake is that it simply isn't scary at all - it's a typical slasher flick, a homicidal-man-on-a-rampage flick, which ironically is exactly what Zombie said he wanted to avoid.
The first film was eerie, spooky, and unnerving because Michael's motivations were cloudy and we weren't sure whether Laurie was right or wrong when she said he was the boogeyman. We only knew one thing: he wasn't entirely human.
But ever since that original movie, the filmmakers have attempted to keep expanding upon Michael's history: the second film developed a motivation for his killings (Laurie was his sister), the fourth offered more clues at his background, and now we come full circle with a complete remake of the original film.
Michael's true demonic core - the natural horror element of the series - is stripped bare and all that is left is a disturbed, abnormally tall redneck with greasy hair who hasn't showered in years wearing a silly mask going around killing people because he had an abusive family life as a child. Some things are better left unexplored. -
funnygy31 August 2007I'm not a big fan of the recent trend of remaking all the classic horror films of the '70s and '80s, but I decided to go see the new "Halloween" anyway, if for no other reason than I'd never seen any of the original films in a theater. (That, and I figured they couldn't do much worse than the god-awful "Halloween: Resurrection", the most recent entry before this remake.) IMHO the original "Halloween" is one of the greatest horror films ever, and certainly the best "slasher" movie (unless you count Hitchcock's "Psycho", but that's another topic.) I really expected to be let down, even though I haven't seen any of Rob Zombie's other movies.
For the first five minutes, I thought, "Great, they took this classic American slasher flick and turned it into a white trash festival." But once Michael started talking (which he never does in the original film) something clicked, and I was hooked. The new film takes the Michael Meyers "mythos" (if you will) and fleshes it out, giving the audience a frightening insight to the true horror that exists all around us before eviscerating us with the shocks and gore we really paid to see.
The movie loses some of its momentum when it jumps to the present day, when too often it reverts back to simply restaging some of the trend-setting scenes from its predecessor - Laurie staring out the window at school and seeing the weirdo in the coveralls and the white mask staring at her, only to vanish seconds later. But hold on, friends - just when you think you know what's coming, the new "Halloween" veers off on its own course, and from then on all bets are off.
One of the most significant updates to the "Halloween" legend is the development of Dr. Loomis, the Van Helsing to Meyers' Dracula. The original Loomis (played memorably by the late Donald Pleasance, who kept returning for sequel after sequel despite his age and - in later years - ill health) was little more than John Carpenter's answer to Captain Ahab. Each film saw him trying to convince another group of skeptical law enforcement officers of the imminent slaughter, never to be believed until the bodies started piling up. The new film's Loomis, however, is a more complex character; he's not the selfless hero the old Loomis was, but he's not quite a villain either, as long as one can forgive him for giving up on Michael to turn his experiences into a cottage industry of "true crime" books and public speaking engagements. When Loomis and Michael are reunited later on, there's more going on then can be seen in a first viewing.
Zombie's "Halloween" succeeds on all fronts. It brings modern touches to a format that had long since fallen into cliché without changing it so much that it becomes unrecognizable. It manages to restore the menace and dread of the iconic Michael Meyers character in an era when masked psychopaths usually prompt the audience to laugh rather than gasp. Most importantly, it delivers the goods horror fans demand but includes enough depth and subtext to make it more than just cinematic junk food.
In short, I was pleasantly surprised with this new version of "Halloween". Like Zach Snyder's redo of "Dawn of the Dead", the 2007 "Halloween" could never replace its predecessor, but does make for a very admirable companion piece to a horror classic, blending the old and the new into an entertaining and thought-provoking fright film. -
This truly isn't a remake of Halloween, it's almost a different perspective of what is pretty much the same story. Instead of Laurie Strode as the main character, we get Michael. This aspect of the film is both intriguing and disappointing. Instead of spending most of it's time on Halloween night, Zombie's film spends about half the time building up to Halloween. The additional material isn't bad, it's actually pretty good, but it pushes out some of the original material that probably should have been kept in. The film almost plays as a companion to the original, just bloodier, more shocking, but missing some of the mood.
The first fifteen or twenty minutes are spent with Michael as a child, we see the events leading up to his first Halloween night. This is interesting, but some of it feels like it could have been shortened to make time for other things. Daeg Faerch does a very good job of portraying young Michael, and steals some of the scariest moments of the film. Loomis's role is expanded and humanized; Malcolm McDowell makes the role his own and in turn creates something that doesn't feel like a rip off of the Pleasence character. We're treated to his break out from the asylum, which is actually done better than the original, the mental hospital scene always felt like the weakest in the original. Rob Zombie's Michael Myers is huge, Tyler Mane stands 6'8" and gives the character a much more human, angry feel.
The biggest fault is that we don't see Laurie Strode until close to 40 minutes into the movie. Halloween night is tragically compacted and therefore loses a great deal of it's pacing. The movie, in an attempt to keep the running time down feels rushed. The characters of Annie and Linda are shrunk down to fifteen minute rolls, most of which is spent naked. There is one scene that exploits the Michael is there, and then he isn't gag that the original used so effectively. Scout Taylor-Compton does a good job playing Laurie, unfortunately most of her screen time is spent screaming, what would have been her character development, apparently happens off screen. In the end, she isn't the main character, Michael is. Zombie, attempting to cover all the ground he had to and keep the movie under two hours cut out a lot of the long, eerie shots that kept the mood of the original in such a profound place.
Zombie makes up for this by doing what he does best. Killing people. It might sound sick, but the death scenes in this movie are spectacular. It is very much a Rob Zombie film, that means it's very bloody. That also means, that no one just dies. They get stabbed, they crawl a little bit and then they get stabbed again. Michael kills much more physically in this movie, the original Michael seemed to have impossible super human strength, in this one you can almost see the struggle. The death sequences in the movie are fairly well spread out, they happen in three big chunks, young Michael, Asylum, Halloween night, giving you just enough time to breathe before the next set begins. Just like all Zombie films, the movie ends powerfully, but not necessarily effectively.
Overall, Rob Zombie's Halloween is an uneven, but not at all bad attempt at "reimagining" the series. Unlike most horror films, this one could have afforded to be a bit longer and leave more room for mood. The first forty five minutes are very good, the last fifty of them are spent trying to cram a ninety minute movie in the alloted time. In the end, does it hold a candle to the original, no. But it does hold it's own and does a very good job at creating a very different but still frightening Michael Myers. It's leaps and bounds better than the sequels, but definitely falls short of the original. This is a must for Halloween, and Rob Zombie fans. The film is intense, fast pace, and fiercely entertaining. It's not cinematic masterpiece, but it's absolutely a worthy addition to the series, and might just start up a new one. -
Smells_Like_Cheese1 September 2007OK, now my problem with Halloween(2007) is this is a film that DID NOT need to be remade. Halloween('70's) was absolutely perfect in every aspect, in my opinion, it's the scariest movie of all time. But when I heard that Rob Zombie was on to direct this movie, I actually thought for a minute there was a possibility this may be a good remake. I saw it this morning at the theater, I am in absolute disgust. Just it's not like he just re-made the movie into his own idea, no, he took some of John Carpenter's excellent ideas and just made them into crap. Now I'm separating this from the original, Halloween(2007) was actually by itself a bad film. Which really disappointed me since The Devil's Rejects was done so well, this was just a typical stupid unoriginal slasher movie. Now, Rob had a good idea where he developed Michael's character in the beginning, where we had a better idea on why he became Michael Myers. But after that, everything went downhill, because Rob just rushed all the other IMPORTANT characters, so they got no development what-so-ever.
Mike Myers is a tormented kid, his mom is a stripper, his step dad is an alcoholic jerk, his big sister treats him bad, and he is picked on at school. But he kills small animals as well, leading him to go onto bigger things, like humans. He massacres his family, excluding his mom and his baby sister, he is taken to a mental institution and escapes 15 years later and is going after Laurie, his baby sister who is now grown up and is preparing her and her friends for a night of hell.
The acting on the teenage girl's parts was just horrendous, like extremely bad, I was actually hoping for them to get killed, how sad was that? Laurie was just a whiny little priss, not at all likable like Jamie's performance, same with the other two girls, they couldn't live up to the other performances. These girls were just annoying, not likable at all, while the other actresses at least had that going for them and made them likable vicitims. But it just seemed like they wanted their 15 minutes or some kind of big break, because it didn't even take them 10 minutes to take their tops off. On a movie on it's own, it's just too unoriginal and I'm disappointed in Rob because I thought he was really improving. Comparison to the original Halloween, perhaps Rob should have read the tag line THE ONE, THE ONLY, HALLOWEEN, because this was a huge slap to John Carpenter's face on his brilliant classic.
2/10 -
suspiria1031 August 2007Michael Myers returns to the stalk-and-slash game with this highly controversial and anticipated re-imagining of the much beloved 1978 version of Halloween.
I ventured into a midnight showing thinking I pretty much knew what to expect. Or did I? I was one of the chuckleheads who saw the work-print on Tuesday night. What I saw in the work-print had a lot of promise. It needed the usual pacing edits and a half dozen or so pick-ups to round out the action.
Flash forward to Thursday night / Friday morning and a promising start with a wicked 'The Mist' trailer I hunkered down for the nest two hours. I knew there were changes. A new ending and the removal of the rape scene seemed to be the most mentioned. As things started to unfold my interest started to pick up when many of the thinks I had noted from the work-print were tweaked and snipped making it leaner and meaner. The fairly nasty rape scene that lead to Michael's escape was replaced by a more likely scenario (hell more screen time for Bill Mosely is always welcome). The pace gets tightened and it moves quicker. A few bobbles here and there. The nurse getting slaughtered scene while properly shortened took away some of the long version's creepiness. But nothing too severe and tension was even added to several scenes whereas the work-print had absolutely no scares at all. All the way to the final ten minutes I thought 'Rob you're doing a heck of a job here considering the baggage you have to overcome'. Then it happens the new 'test audience' approved ending begins to unreel. Gone was Dr. Loomis coaxing Michael to spare his sister's life and when the smoke clears of a dozen police officers bullets hits a dead Michael Myers lay amongst with his doctor shedding a quiet tear over him. Now we are treated to an absolutely ludicrous extended hunt scene that has Michael literally bringing down the house in search of Laurie. Needless to say by the time the credits rolled in the space of ten or so minutes my jubilation had turn to disgust. I may put too much stock in endings but sometimes you have to draw a line. The whole 'test audience' thing needs to be abolished or at the very least renovated. They do not represent either the fans or the movie going public in general. I do hold the original very high it has been my favorite horror film for over twenty years and my love for 'The Devil's Rejects' and house of a 1,000 Corpses' was vast not to mention Zombie's music career. It's not Zombie's fault entirely. Most of the blame is at rest on the good old brothers Weinstein. They wanted to gear up a possible another run at a lucrative franchise. Lord knows they need it after botched nearly every release of the fledgling 'Weinstein Company'. It just amazes my some times how quickly things change. My favorite franchise has been left a smoldering husk and I think it is truly time for Michael to hang up his mask. A few producers need to call it quits too. -
DonSwanson5 September 2007I'm an indie filmmaker, and Carpenter's "Halloween" is one of my pillars of the film-making faith. I was not at all happy when I heard there was going to be a remake.
Zombie's "House of 1,000 Corpses" was kind of decent, and I loved "The Devil's Rejects," so I was looking for a remake that butchered the original but was at least interesting to watch, which is more or less what I got.
In RZ fashion, it was intense at times, and beneath the un-needed profanity, blood, and nudity there was a captivating story, but there was ZERO SUSPENSE, and ABSOLUTELY NO REAL SCARES. As soon as the movie ended I told my friends, "This should've been called 'Michael Myers,' not 'Halloween.' Up until Halloween night of 1995 (or whenever the present was) it was an interesting and intense story, then it fell apart. Halloween night came way too fast, and there was not nearly enough time to get to know the girls (especially Laurie), and no real reason to care about them. I actually thought as I was watching it, "Wow, it's night already, how'd that happen?" Michael stalking Laurie while waiting for night to fall was sorely missed, and the lack of it took away the suspense that made the night terrifying... which is why this movie was not at all scary.
So, my $0.02, it should've been called "Michael Myers," not "Halloween." It was interesting until Lynda and Bob all of a sudden are at the Myer's house. Had there been more building to the end (Halloween night) it may have been more effective, but as it was it seemed unconnected and rushed, like RZ said, "I got this great back story on Michael Myers... oh, crap, I gotta remake the original film... here..." And, of course, it wasn't the least bit scary. It was intense, Judith's death was a little hard to watch, but there's a HUGE GAPING DIFFERENCE between something being scary due to suspense and something making you feel uncomfortable because it is intense, RZ didn't even come close to accomplishing the former.
Definitely not Carpenter's "Halloween," not a bad movie, not a scary movie, but overall an interesting movie... hopefully RZ drops some cut scenes to better tie the end into the rest of the film when it comes out on DVD.
I can't give it more than 5-stars because of how I feel about remakes, so on a remake scale of 1-5 I give it a 4, had the ending better fit into what came before it I would give it a 5... had it been remotely scary I'd break my own rule and add on another star.
Every story is worth telling, it's just how you tell it - Me. Have Fun! -
Just got back from checking out Rob Zombie's vision of "Halloween", and I must say it was everything I pretty much expected. A "new" version with upgraded nudity, upgraded violence, and of course upgraded gore, along with a few changes here and there. Being a fan of the original, I must say this one isn't nearly as good as that "classic".
It was interesting seeing more of Michael or well more of Michael as a child. I own the extended cut of the original which adds a glimpse more of Michael when he was young, but not much. Of course it seemed very cliché, and although I think it was interesting, it didn't really add much as I prefer the mystery that surrounds the original (and actually the "cult" explanation in the rarely seen Halloween 666/Origin of Michael Myers, which is the better version of the 6th Halloween film IMO) Of course in a remake, there's always buckets more of kyro, which I guess were necessary for today's horror slashers, but I again prefer the original where barely a drop is shown but you still get the point. It's not that it was overdone, I think it was very well done and there were some pretty gruesome moments, but as the original shows it doesn't make the movie. Among the added gore and scenes, a few changes were made here and there, yet some scenes seemed exactly as they were in the original. You see Laurie as a baby, when Michael first kills his sister (and other family shown in the newer version not seen in the original), Michael spares her and genuinely seems to care for her. During the ending chase when Michael catches up to Laurie, it is added that instead of trying to kill her, he takes out a photograph of him holding her when she was a baby (of course she does not understand after seeing her friends butchered and attacks him to protect herself), but we never find out what he really wants, I am actually curious and liked this inclusion that perhaps Michael really wasn't completely evil.
Overall it's a decent flick on it's own, and a lot better then most of the "newer" slashers Hollywood chucks at us today, but IMO it doesn't top the original. Rob Zombies version doesn't change much in terms of the basic plot, and I enjoyed his inclusion of more peaks into Michaels past (and heart?) -
bobbo-3012 January 2008There are Pros and Cons to consider with a remake as ambitious as Zombie's undertaking of John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN; you have really only two characters to portray in depth, while the "teens" in this Teen Slasher are still only an entrée. With his portrayal of the "original mad slasher," Michael Myers and his lifelong mentor/analyst/father figure, Doctor Loomis, this director has gone above and beyond the call of duty. However, the suspense and terror that were present in Carpenter's original are unsatisfyingly missing--but perhaps that's meant to be, as they could clearly only be copied, and never matched by another film maker.
What we have, though, in young Rob Zombie's approach and final production, is so very much more--we get THE WHOLE MICHAEL MYERS STORY, and to a great extent, for the very first time. There are early scenes in which the Myers family is shown bare-bones, flaws-and-abuse-and-a-stripper-for-a-Mom-and-all, and they are difficult to watch; but of course, we never thought Mike came from a typical home, did we? And the great Ronny McDowell does a great turn as Doctor Sam Loomis. Two elements that were always missing from Donald Pleasance's now-legendary performance are back-story and lack of understanding, but McDowell shows a true confusion and personal realization of what Evil (with a capital E) might really mean...a bravura performance, and probably the best of the film.
There are very passable portrayals from the rest of the cast, and the female actresses have very nice bodies for baring (this is VERY important for a big-budget Horror film, any fan can tell ya), and Zombie does the duty of bringing many good characters and actors to his version of this hard little tale.
Overall, you've got to hand it to this boy: the "new" HALLOWEEN is a very, very good Horror film, hands down. And though he loses some of the real scares, there are images and ideas in this new picture that will remain with the viewer for a while. One only wishes that those first really frightening images and ideas from long-ago 1977 could still be newly-realized, again. -
fatfredyfreak15 September 2007Why must Hollywood continue to churn out these worthless remakes? I'll be honest and say I wanted to like this movie, but I went in with low expectations. But, really, has Rob Zombie ever actually seen Halloween? Michael Myers was a normal 6 year old boy from a normal family who, suddenly, for no reason at all, put on a halloween mask, grabbed a knife, and murdered his sister. Zombie's Michael is supposed to be 11, his mother is a stripper, his dad is AWOL, and everybody, EVERYBODY, cusses worse than a sailor. As a fan of Mr Zombies music, these plot elements don't seem very new or fresh. After 10 minutes or so, I knew this was going to be just like his first 2 movies, bloody, violent, and boring. The only thing he didn't ruin was the music, and I was surprised he didn't find some way slip a hooker and a f-bomb in there. And then there was the cast. The girl paying Lourie was too short,too young, and lets be honest, too annoying. By the end, I just wanted her to shut up and go away. When I heard who was playing Dr Loomis, I was relieved. But he totally phoned it in on this one. All in all, this is Mr Zombies worst effort yet.
-
Sleepin_Dragon13 November 2020I've previously been critical of Halloween follow ups, and some of Rob Zombie's films, but this one, I really enjoyed it.
The original is one of my favourite films, certainly my favourite horror film, it was a game changer, the iconic slasher movie. I had always shuddered at the thought of it being remade, but this, nowhere near the quality of the original, but it's a cracking movie, Rob Zombie dared to do the unthinkable.
I'd call it quite a respectful remake, they of course out a new spin on it, but they keep some scenes, they even keep some of the music, I suppose they knew full well that some things were worth keeping.
I loved the backstory of Michael, we see him go from troubled child to brutal killer.
What this film really is, is violent, it lacks any sort of suspense, there are no scares, or those moments when you see him appear from the shadows to give you jump scares, what you get is brutality, if you enjoy that, Zombie delivers.
It's pretty good, 8/10. -
Ace219430 January 2008I truly thought Rob Zombie did a decent job at turning a horror classic like John Carpenter's Halloween into his own film or a different take, believe this would have sucked if he tried to duplicate what Carpenter did. Zombie made this film the way he felt it should have been and I respect him for that. In my opinion a little bit to bloody for my taste, but that's what was so great about the original it was scary enough without the blood. I did like that Michael came from a dysfunctional family which differs from the classic where he came from a normal family. Coming from a messed up family kind of shows why he is whacked. Well I say it's a lot better then the crappy horror films they make these days and say if you enjoyed the original, give this one a try.
-
zerofied4 September 2007If you have even the slightest appreciation for the original - save yourself the trouble, this is as bad as you're thinking it will be... probably worse and to top it all off - IT WASN'T SCARY - JUST DISGUSTING
Rob Zombie (who according to credits "wrote" this...eh hem)should have just made the Devils Rejects part 50 or whatever & left this classic alone. He did not treat the remake with style, respect or any artistic integrity. At one point he must have thought to himself "gee, I'd like to shoot a pointless yet unnecessarily graphic rape scene".If you want to go about making or enjoying the new style "in your face whether you like it or not" movies - why not just create your own genre, call it torture porn and lets move on. But please stop pretending that this is what horror is...
Now to specifics: Michael Myers was never the product of a dysfunctional family - that's way to simple, this was a boy in a picket fence suburban happy family who was pure evil - that's what made him so damn creepy - there was no bullshit explanation, it's just something that happened, it also goes a little further towards explaining why axes, gunshots and anything else they've tried didn't kill him. Your basic run of the mill psycho is not usually that resilient.
Also, why does every ignorant person in Haddonfield, IL sound like they're from Kentucky? Maybe you're not so good with maps, but Illinois is no where near the south, champ. Making the general statement that only inbred, lazy, rape-happy drunks sound like that is a less than charming assumption.
You didn't even keep the closet scene... what the hell is the matter with you?
Lori Strode & her gaggle of whore-bitch friends... pathetic & horribly written. These girls were horrible & incredibly one dimensional. Someone has some SERIOUS mommy issues to work through - might I recommend a more private therapy? I wish you wouldn't subject the world to this bullshit, but if you must, at least stop trying to disguise it.
I could have warmed up to the idea of modernizing a classic. But step one would have been properly filling the shoes of Jamie Lee Curtis, you failed miserably from the beginning. -
chrishayes73723 December 2007I've been a fan since I first saw Halloween way back in 1981 on video :), I have all 9 movies now on DVD the latest edition is of course Rob Zombies Halloween unrated directors cut - I live in New Zealand & the movie was not released here at the cinema so being a big fan I had a long wait to see it & boy was I impressed it was an awesome experience & I was very happy with the back story of Micheal Myers & how brutal his life was & you could almost see day by day how he was driven to kill almost his entire family . It was great to see inside smith grove as well - Dr Loumis was far better in this version - although the original is a classic this version had a lot more depth & a better & more intense ending so all in all a must see 10/10 no question .
-
PedroPires9013 October 2021Rewatching all the franchise, I can now compare this with all the other films and it is curious that this film works much better when it does something totally different, when it's not "so Halloween".
The first half of the film is fantastic. It's more like a thriller, a violent thriller. The second half starts well but it goes too far in the very ending (in fact, I'm not the biggest fan of films with multiple endings).
Either way, this is never a bad film. It's a totally different approach to the characters and story and I really like that (hate remakes shot by shot). It's much more violent, more brutal, more raw. It's less suspenseful, less atmospheric, less mysterious. Above all, it's different, but still good and much better than most of the sequels.
As positive notes, the "why Laurie?" works much better than in the original version, overall the acting is also way better, Loomis is as good as the first one (if something, even more credible here) and all that part at the hospital is fantastic. Negative...well, Laurie, unfortunately, is much less charismatic than the original one (the film is also much more about MM), the film sometimes feels too heavy and too long and and the score - still a masterpiece - is worse used, not creating the same level of suspense. -
sonictemple31 August 2007Zombie reinvented Michael Myers into nothing more than a Leatherface who wears a William Shatner mask; Michael's cruel to animals, Michael thinks he's ugly, Michael makes masks, Michael stumbles around breaking things and killing people.
I'm a huge fan of the Halloween franchise, but I was bored half way through this film because there's just no suspense -- all this movie consists of is violence and screaming, and even then, it never manages to be threatening or disturbing. Watching 10 year old Michael, wearing a clown costume and a Shatner mask that's way too big for his head, kill people isn't menacing, it's cheesy and so absurd that it's a bit funny.
Perhaps the worst part of the film is the soundtrack (for example, they play "Love Hurts" after Michael's slaughtered his family) which is surprising coming from such a supposed musical mastermind. But that, in effect, is the problem with this film. Zombie thinks he's much more clever than he really is, and in an effort to be cutting edge he removed all of the elements that make Halloween such an interesting franchise and replaced them with clichés.