Rob Zombie to direct new 'Halloween'

[zero]

It just boggles my mind that people are bitching about this movie. It's seriously part of the reason I refuse to read any reviews until I see the movie first, because I don't get how someone couldn't like it besides the raging against remakes. Remakes can be great, and I find it funny that people are treating the John Carpenter version like sacred ground when Carpenter remade The Thing. Remakes work when you remake good movies with good writers/directors, and Zombie was the perfect choice for this project.

Again, don't go into the theater expecting Citizen Kane or anything - it's a horror film. A horror film directed by Rob Zombie at that. The acting isn't great, there's tons of gratuitous sex and it is extremely violent - AKA, exactly what a horror film should be.

[Dr. Rated-R]

I just got back. I live in a pretty small town and the place was packed. I'm pretty confident it'll be a success after that.

I fucking loved it. I like the original a lot, I own it and have seen it several times, but I think it's aged badly and suffers from being extremely over hyped. Looking into the life of Myers (in a realistic, non voodoo bullshit fashion) really adds to the character a lot, and makes all of his actions, the subtle little traits that set him apart from the other slasher villains, mean that much more to me. It honestly immediately jumped in to my top ten horror films, and is definitely one of the best horror movies I've seen in ages.

[Nottavictim]

Holy cow, a perfect horror film? You must be joking. It certainly breathed new life into Michael Myers, but it was far from perfect and even confusing at times. My most major beef was that Zombie couldn't decide if Myers was pure evil or not. His original premise is that society created the monster, but apparently a society created monster is unstoppable and superhuman. And being pure evil, he killed everyone without much regard. Except for his sister that is, who he seemed to want to bond with, rather than kill. And don't get me started on the Loomis character, whose therapy was to carry on a one-sided conversation with his patient for 15 years. No medication in sight. In fact, Zombie disproves his original premise by the end of the movie, as Loomis concludes that he is the boogie-man, after all. In that case, his death means very little.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Nottavictim

[reyrey619]

So, I went to the theaters to see it even after viewing the workprint, and I liked it alot more. I wouldn't agree with Zero that it was better than the original and that it was perfect, but I do give credit to Zombie for having balls and changing things from the first movie. The ending was better than the original ending IMO.

[Kane's Mullet Slacker]

I like the ending in the workprint personally better than the theatrical version. I think the theatrical ending dragged a bit too much and I was just waiting for it to end. Also the escape was dragged out too much in the theatrical version. The workprint escape was much simpler and moved the story along faster.

[Mick]

Spoiler: Click here to view

In that case, his death means very little.

Spoiler tags, please.

Look, Dr. Loomis was the major player next to Myers. I mean....who else knew him better? Nobody. The only reason we didn't get Loomis in H20 and Resurrection was because Donald Pleasance was dead. That simple.

Oh, and Zero:

Remakes can be great, and I find it funny that people are treating the John Carpenter version like sacred ground when Carpenter remade The Thing. Remakes work when you remake good movies with good writers/directors,

A little offtopic, but while we're on the topic of John Carpenter and remakes (not to mention that Village of the Damned was a remake of Children of the Damned ), they're remaking Escape From New York, with Gerad Butler as Snake. God help us.

Spoiler: Click here to view

THE NAME'S PLISSSSSSSSSSSSSSKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BuddyAwesome]

Just got back from watching it.

Honestly, I'm very disappointed.

I thought it was good, but nothing more than that.

A few irks I had...

So the year that he broke out and was killing people again happened in 78 or 79, forget which. That's cool fine and all, but they had a girl talking on a cell phone? Also, if that happened in 78/9, and they showed him 15 years earlier wearing a KISS shirt, I have no clue how he would have gotten his hands on one of those.

Reason being: KISS started in 73. That would have been 63 when he was wearing the shirt and listening to God Of Thunder. By the way, he wore the Destroyer shirt and God Of Thunder was off that album, which I also believed came out in 76.

The original ending was better and I was disappointed with them having killed off Loomis.

I was really hoping to see Myers get stabbed in the eye.

I was pissed when they had him run and tackle Laurie off the balcany. Nowhere in any Halloween movie has Michael Myers ever ran.

The shit when he was a child was cool, but then again, originally I thought they said that he didn't ever speak one word to Loomis, yet they had him talking all the time for a while.

Just a lot of small things got me to not like the movie so much.

[reyrey619]

Just got back from watching it.

Honestly, I'm very disappointed.

I thought it was good, but nothing more than that.

A few irks I had...

So the year that he broke out and was killing people again happened in 78 or 79, forget which. That's cool fine and all, but they had a girl talking on a cell phone? Also, if that happened in 78/9, and they showed him 15 years earlier wearing a KISS shirt, I have no clue how he would have gotten his hands on one of those.

Reason being: KISS started in 73. That would have been 63 when he was wearing the shirt and listening to God Of Thunder. By the way, he wore the Destroyer shirt and God Of Thunder was off that album, which I also believed came out in 76.

The original ending was better and I was disappointed with them having killed off Loomis.

I was really hoping to see Myers get stabbed in the eye.

I was pissed when they had him run and tackle Laurie off the balcany. Nowhere in any Halloween movie has Michael Myers ever ran.

The shit when he was a child was cool, but then again, originally I thought they said that he didn't ever speak one word to Loomis, yet they had him talking all the time for a while.

Just a lot of small things got me to not like the movie so much.

[TOG]

Spoiler: Click here to view

Just got back from watching it.

Honestly, I'm very disappointed.

I thought it was good, but nothing more than that.

A few irks I had...

So the year that he broke out and was killing people again happened in 78 or 79, forget which. That's cool fine and all, but they had a girl talking on a cell phone? Also, if that happened in 78/9, and they showed him 15 years earlier wearing a KISS shirt, I have no clue how he would have gotten his hands on one of those.

Reason being: KISS started in 73. That would have been 63 when he was wearing the shirt and listening to God Of Thunder. By the way, he wore the Destroyer shirt and God Of Thunder was off that album, which I also believed came out in 76.

The original ending was better and I was disappointed with them having killed off Loomis.

I was really hoping to see Myers get stabbed in the eye.

I was pissed when they had him run and tackle Laurie off the balcany. Nowhere in any Halloween movie has Michael Myers ever ran.

The shit when he was a child was cool, but then again, originally I thought they said that he didn't ever speak one word to Loomis, yet they had him talking all the time for a while.

Just a lot of small things got me to not like the movie so much.

The part where he kills his step dad, sister, and sister's boyfriend is set in 78 I believe. And then the other killings were present day.

[zero]

For fuck's sake people, we have spoiler tags for a reason. I know the topic says spoilers, but be considerate. Some people want to talk about the movie without it being completely ruined.

And yes, the earlier parts of the movie are set in the late 70s/early 80s. It's roughly present day when he escapes.

And for the record, I'm not saying this one is entirely better than the original, I'm just saying the ending is far, far better. Does the entire movie eclipse the original? It's really too hard to say because the original is what started it all; there'd be no Rob Zombie the filmmaker if it weren't for John Carpenter's Halloween. But one things for sure, this isn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

Spoiler: Click here to view

As for him being pure evil or not, this is addressed when Loomis is speaking to the college students. Myers is a perfect blend of society creating a monster and his own demented mind. The only person in the world he cares about is his sister and he tries to bond with her and even she rejects him. Her rejection sends him spiraling out of control to wanting to kill her, Loomis sees this and assumes he is truly just an evil human being. Loomis never sees Michael trying to bond with Laurie or "Boo," all he sees is him trying to kill her. Due to his sister's rejection, Michael can't handle the pain anymore and once he sees her with a revolver pointing at his face, he grabs her hands and makes her pull the trigger. All Michael had left was his sister, who thought of him as nothing but a monster, which is understandable since he murdered all of her friends and family.

I think the most interesting part in the end is when Laurie is sitting on Michael's chest, how much her look changes to look just like the young Michael. It's one of the creepiest things I've ever seen in a movie.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Zero

[Nottavictim]

I don't get people who say "don't compare this to the original Halloween." What? Why the hell not? It has the exact same characters, title, and premise. Comparisons are inevitable. If Zombie didn't want comparisons, he shouldn't have made a remake. Zombie's remake is weak, but not simply because it is a remake, but because he tries to jam both Carpenter and his ideas together and that doesn't work. For example, creating a psychological monster and keeping him indestructible as Jason as Carpenter did. In fact, he has his own character, Loomis, disprove his original premise for Michael's origins. Not very good.

[Maxx]

Nottavictim, do you read what anyone else says?

Stop with the fucking spoilers. How many times do people have to say it? Christ.

You reveal any plot detail, its a spoiler, you reveal anything about how a character is developed, its a spoiler

put [ spoiler] [/ spoiler] -minus the spaces- around your post.

[Draevyn]

The main reason that I didn't like this movie as well as the first one is that it was too Zombified. I understand that horror flicks are usually about sex and violence but there were just way too many scenes with sex in it for me to completely appreciate it. It just seemed a bit over the top on that respect. I'm not sure I liked the change of how Michael was created. In the actual series, he was kept chained up and locked in the basement. Though I do give Zombie credit as one of his little nuances that he has and added to this flick was the ability to make you care about the "monsters" in his movie. Zero's last spoiler tag explains that in more detail, but I just thought it great that at the end, event he psychopath Michael Myers had that soft spot.

[BuddyAwesome]

Sorry for not using spoiler tags. I got home late and typed that without thinking.

[EddieRuckus]

It's all a matter of personal preference, and there weren't too many sex scenes, 3 really and that's quite small compared to some other movies that show the killer, sex scene, kill scene, sex scene, kill scene, sex scene, kill scene, etc. etc. I personally quite enjoyed this movie, being a fan of the entire Halloween series and watching every single one of them, including the non-Michael yet still interesting Halloween 3. The rest of my argument or feelings will be in spoiler tags in case I let something slip.

Spoiler: Click here to view

Just because Michael didn't run in the other series doesn't mean he can't run in this version. It's Rob Zombie's version, and if he wants Michael to run faster or stalk you faster, then let him. I'm glad they kept in the scene with the ghost sheet and glasses in, always loved it. I haven't watched the theatrical version yet, but I really enoyed the workprint, and if there is more gore, then hell yeah. I was actually cringing in some of the kill scenes, and that's coming from someone who watched SAW and Hostel and the new gore remakes without breaking a sweat.

The actual ending sounds awesome, and the rape scene wasn't that bad I thought, though I wish they would have had just had the upper body shots of the raper and then face shots of the girl instead of showing where the action was going on. That way they could have still had the whole humanizing Michael thing.

In the end, it's a re-imagining, not a remake as so many people like to imply it is. Carpenter actually told Zombie to make it his own, and not a re-make, and that's what Zombie did. I for one applaud Rob for making an interesting alternate version of Halloween, because that's what it is, his own version.

[Crybaby Bunting]

After reading some of these comments i'm thinking of going to see Halloween, but I haven't watched the origonal.

Should i go watch some of the earlier stuff to get to grips with the franchise or would they ruin the newer version? I mean watching the newer version would mean that i'm not going to be picky about what they miss out, but if the origonal has a better story or just more of a thrilling movie i might as well pick up a cheap copy of the origonal instead of paying full price for a sub-par movie.

[Toe]

Saying Myers shouldn't run is like saying zombies can't run just because George A. Romero didn't like them running.

[reyrey619]

And honestly, its not a big deal that he ran. It was only for like 2 seconds.

[Draevyn]

After reading some of these comments i'm thinking of going to see Halloween, but I haven't watched the origonal.

Should i go watch some of the earlier stuff to get to grips with the franchise or would they ruin the newer version? I mean watching the newer version would mean that i'm not going to be picky about what they miss out, but if the origonal has a better story or just more of a thrilling movie i might as well pick up a cheap copy of the origonal instead of paying full price for a sub-par movie.

The original has a great story, but Zombies works for what he was trying to accomplish as far as character development goes. I'd watch this new movie then go back and watch the originals actually because then you won't be expecting anything from this movie and will be able to enjoy it from a completely unbiased position

[Boogey131]

I liked it. I didn't go expecting a Carpenter movie, I went in expecting a Rob Zombie movie and for better or worse that is what was delivered. I swear to God people don't seem to understand the concept of rebooting a series. People(Not anyone here that I know of) kicked up a fuss when Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond because he didnt fit into the mould apparentely and now people are complaining because Micheal Myers...can actually move his legs faster?

Why shouldnt Micheal Myers be able to run? Isn't he human? The Carpenter original and its many sequels helped turn Micheal Myers, the murderer into a literal monster and now it seems people have forgot behind the mask, there is a human being, and looking at his build quite a fit human being. Now why can't he pick up the pace for two steps?

Spoiler: Click here to view

Other than some annoying non-murder scenes from Laurie I enjyoed it. I need to wait on the DVD to come out though so I can see the theatrical ending/altered death scenes. Though, I cant say I minded the pre-release ending much. Im really, really glad they made one movie instead of doing the origins for a sequel and keep the series going for another 20 years.