on December 11, 2007
The original Halloween is a classic and will in my book always receive a five star rating. Recently there has been a great deal of remakes that were flops and catered to the teeny bopper crowd such as, The Fog, The Omen, Dark Water, etc. However there has been only two remakes that I thought were diserving of our attenion, one being the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, and Halloween.
What I liked about the remake was it gave us something fresh to work with. In the original Halloween we never really knew why Michael was bad, in this remake, the first thirty minutes or so expore the childhood of Michael Myers. People say that the dialog concerning Michael's family was wrong. Trust me, I have seen broken homes and Mr. Zombie gives us exactly what you would expect from a trashy family.
Besides satisfying my curiosity of Michael's childhood, I found this to be similar in many cases to the original, but at the same time the material was quite fresh with new chills and scares. Zombie took a masterpiece and reminded us why it is called a masterpiece. He accomplished a great job capturing a 70's look and theme, and did a great musical score as well. This is possibly the best horror remake that I've ever seen.
on September 20, 2007
Wow, there is alot of slander about this film flying all over the internet. This film was cursed from the start. A remake of a classic horror movie like Halloween is a daring and risky move! The man in the drivers seat...Rob Zombie. An interesting choice for a director but none the less the film was doomed right from the start. "Die hard fans" of the original (like myself) were astonished that Malek Akkad would dare and copy the original classic! But wait a second...the sequels have gotten very stale. Is this the appropriate direction? All in all Rob Zombie's version of Halloween is an entirely different film from the original. I think it was pretty smart to change the direction of the film some so one does make the same mistake that Gus Van Sant did with "Psycho". Now the question: Was the remake better than the original? The answer is - No way, not even close! However, this film compliments the original very well. I was surprised with the quality of the film as Rob Zombie is a fairly good director. The film was filled with foul language, nudity and alot of gore! As any good horror movie should be! The casting was well done. Apparently Rob Zombie used the entire cast from his previous movie in Halloween, but I have not seen either of his other two movies, so I don't care in the least. The girl playing Laurie was well cast. Finally Laurie was attractive! Malcolm McDowell as Loomis was brilliant and I loved him in the role. Still nowhere near as good as Donald Pleasence but again, who expected him to be? The back story written into the movie was well done. The little boy who played young Michael Myers managed to creep me out, so that says alot. Michael who is like 10 feet tall in this version is scary again. The ending can go either way for the fans. I happened to LOVE the ending myself, but I am clearly in the minority here! Before you pass judgement on this film, see it. The film BANKED in the theaters and the inevitible sequel is sure to follow. All in all a good film, not as good as the original, but nobody thought it would be.
on January 29, 2016
The original Halloween was not just a straight slasher movie. It was a slow burn stalker movie that had a really tense atmosphere. And when someone was attacked or killed, it was shocking, and didn't seem to be there just to up the movie's body count like many of the other films that cribbed this style of film. It is a movie where things just seemed to matter more.
This remake doesn't really do that. It's not a slow burn stalker film, it's more in line with traditional slashers, with it's brutal sustained violence, and death seemingly just for the sake of having things in the movie.
This also delves more into the Michael Myers character, who is established more as a character here. In the original, he was more of an unknowable threat, who was scary in the sense that he was pretty unpredictable. Here, his backstory is fleshed out quite a bit from the start. And while it does add a new layer to the character, I don't know if this type of character really needed one. Maybe I have a bit of bias, but I feel like I preferred him as more of a blank slate type character. Really added to the terror I think.
And speaking of bias, i am a big fan of John Carpenter's work, so I would predictably prefer the original over the remake. So I did try to look at this as it's own work, but I couldn't see it as anything other than a predictable paint by numbers slasher film. Frequently throughout the two hour run time I found myself bored.
Though I will say that this is a well executed movie. It's the film's biggest strength. And it's honestly a big reason why i would recommend this film in spite of it's flaws. It feels like it has an actual budget, and the overall film making it very well done. There's some haunting visuals, and some of the actual directing and pacing are really good.
I just wish that the actual material inside the film was better. Then I would have really liked the movie. And i would be somewhat curious to see a cut of this film that does take out some of the backstory. It'd make the film a leaner and tighter experience I think. Plus I do just prefer Michael Myers as being a bit more of an unknown quantity as far as his own motivations are concerned.
But if you do want to watch a horror film, this is one to consider. I wasn't entirely sold on it, but I do recognize that other people might really like it. So it's one of those movies that if you think it looks interesting, then by all means check it out.
on December 16, 2007
I liked it. I really did. I enjoyed it as a film. As an individual film, seperate from the rest. Sure, it wasn't perfect. It felt a little uneven in the middle. In other words, it seemed like each half of the film were really just shortened individual films that were put together to make a whole new one. Because of that, the remake phase was a tiny bit fast-paced for me. However, overall, I enjoyed it a great deal. There is a reason why, however, that is deeper than the film itself.
What Rob presented was a great film, that had a story that wasn't perfect. Therein lies the genius of it. It felt real. It didn't feel like a movie. While many will find that to make it a cluttered mess, it didn't for me. An example would be the way he presented Michael's victims. We didn't get to know them that well before he killed them. But when some serial killer kills a group of people, and it is announced on the news, what do you think the chances are that you know those people? You don't. And yet, it is still horrifying. In other words, you don't have to know the victims to understand how terrifying the crime is.
In a movie, you follow these people around, the camera being your eye as you stalk them invisibly. You really get to know the people. Here, by not following them, it presents that realism quite well. You don't know who these people are, but whether you know them or not, Michael Myers is still presented as a terrifying being. Speaking of ol' Mikey...
I thought Tyler and Daeg's performances were amazing. I loved how even though you could sympathize with him in his early life, it didn't change how bizzare, and truly evil he was. Right in the opening scenes, we see him petting a rat, and then we see moments later cleaning a bloody scalpel or something. Then, he tells his mother that his rat died. You know what he did. It's not that hard to figure out. What's great about this is that it shows that even though he had this terrible life, he didn't just snap over night. He's been going crazy for some time. The scene with the bully in the woods was powerful, at least for me. His eventual escape was equally amazing. How he took out those guards truly showed his power, and menace. I especially liked when he killed Ismael Cruz, because that was the indicator that the young boy that went into Smiths Grove was not the monster that walked out. To quote the original Doctor Loomis, "That part of him died years ago." Michael Myers in this film, as a character, was just as scary as he was in the original. The best Myers since Castle IMO.
Which brings me to another point that I really liked. I think that of all the actors who could have played Loomis, Rob really picked the right one, which was surely a difficult task. Sure, many suggested Anthony Hopkins, but (and I hate to say this) having played similar characters several times, he may have had a spirited performance, but he would have taken you out of the real world, and remind you that it was only a movie. Rob could have cast an actor that wasn't that well known, but then the performance would have been lacking, and have the same effect. With someone like McDowell, he has that face that is just obscure enough that you can buy him as a real person, yet he is also a great enough actor that he can still pull an amazing performance.
The rest of the cast was great as well. I really liked Harris as Annie, and Laurie was cast pretty well in my opinion. She acted like a real teenage girl. I would know, there's one next door, and then there's my younger sister. As for greeting each other with "Hey, Bitches" I think that was actually rather spot on. Real girls aren't like cartoon girls, or 7th Heaven characters, who go wide-eyed the moment someone uses a curse word.
Like I said, the film isn't perfect, but it was definately better than most, if not all of the sequels. As for how it measures up against the original, well, in terms of sheer quality, no, it wasn't better. But better isn't what they set out to do in the first place. I think this is the problem with most remakes. Many people who bash them believe that the initial concept is to make a better version. What Rob set out to do was make a Halloween that was just as good as the original, to make Michael Myers scary again, and at that he passed in flying colors. Sure, the original had good things that this film didn't have, but this film had good things that the original didn't have. They're different films, so you can't really judge them together. It's not a shot-for-shot remake, and it isn't a rehash either, so there's not much room to really compare everything. The only area where you can compare them is in the level of quality, and at that, they're at about the same level for me.
Will this film have a legacy like the original? No, probably not. The original Halloween made a legacy because it was a fresh concept, and the first true slasher. Yes, it could be said that the original Black Christmas is the father of Halloween (funny, huh?), but Halloween is the father of slasher films. Without it, there would be no Friday the 13th, no Prowler, no Nightmare on Elm Street, no Cropsy (The Burning), none of these characters and franchises would have been brought to life without the original Halloween. Now that the slasher genre has grown so much, this new Halloween can't really do the same thing that the original did. However, as is evident in the upcoming Friday the 13th, it does seem as though it may inspire one new trend: remakes that actually try hard to be good movies, rather than cash-ins.