IMDb > Halloween (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Halloween More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 1057 reviews in total 

77 out of 112 people found the following review useful:

The Worst Of The Recent Horror Remakes

Author: rightunite from United Kingdom
27 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The original Halloween film created an almost perfect stalk and slash film which used tension and atmosphere to set the tone for a chilling Halloween night.No explanation was given or needed why this 10 year old boy killed his sister or became the crazed but emotionless psycho that we all came to know.

Halloween 2007 decides that we need an explanation and spends half of the film trying to show us why Michael became what he did.His mum is a stripper, his dad a foul mouthed alcoholic and his sister a bit of a tramp (oh and he kills animals yawn).Instead of just killing his sister when he was kid he now kills everyone who opens their mouths in a bloody and brutal way (something the original avoided).

It's almost half way through the film when we are introduced to Laurie and her friends and they have to be some of the most vile characters in the Halloween series.From this point on after his ludicrous escape Michael kills everyone in sight (i was half expecting the extras to get killed) and the film manages to miss the point completely of what Halloween was all about.

The Dialog, the acting, the cinematography even the costume is all horrible and the directing is like a high school lesson in how to make a cheap horror film.

It's a mess and a big one at that, the critics are going to have a field day with this.Evreyone had fears about what Rob Zombie would do to this film and unfortunately they have come true.Tension has been replaced by blood, murder and cheap thrills (i think the body count is about 5000).

Leave well alone and rent the original

Was the above review useful to you?

46 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

Poor Take on the Original Classic

Author: cewasmuthiii from St. Louis
22 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I went into the theater with very few expectations except for one: This new Halloween movie was going to have great atmosphere and chills. I was confident it would be one scary movie and I was really looking forward to it.

The first ten minutes go by and I'm laughing quite a bit. I thought to myself, is this supposed to be a comedy? Am I in the wrong theater? I figure maybe Rob Zombie made it funny at first as an odd way to hook the audience.

Suffice to say, I'm still waiting to be scared. This movie had no atmosphere and did not scare me in the least. Sure, some of the killings were gross but none were scary. And where was the 1970's style horror atmosphere? I thought Rob Zombie loved 1970's style horror movie making (as do I). Halloween is 1970's horror served up on a silver platter.

This isn't a bad movie overall, very average if you ask me, but it is a less than stellar Halloween remake or re-imagining. It just doesn't work as a different take on Halloween. It's almost as if Rob Zombie took an old story he created about a kid with a totally messed up family life who becomes a serial killer and said, "Hey. I'll just make this kid Michael Myers." His "explanation" of Michael Myers, while very well acted especially by the little boy, just didn't ring true to me. The boy becomes a serial killer because of a bad family life? Cliché and uninspiring to say the least. The footage of him in the asylum was even worse. Awful and boring are words I would use to describe the asylum footage. And the writing and acting for the Dr. Loomis character was laughably poor. It got to the point where I laughed every time he was in a scene.

*** Spoiler*** And the ending. The endearing quality of the original 1978 film is the ending. The imagery of seeing Dr. Loomis looking out the window at the spot where The Shape should be is the most compelling and powerful portion of the film. I literally was so scared I couldn't even move when I saw the original the first time. Fantastic imagery and a fantastic ending to the movie.

Rob Zombie chose to include the silly "Laurie Strode is my sister" add-on angle from Halloween II but chose an ending that is neither clever nor endearing. It's your average bloody girl somehow is lucky enough to survive and kill the knocked out bad guy. Folks, that's not what the original Halloween is all about.

I guess I assumed wrongly that Rob Zombie understood what Halloween was about originally. Or, maybe, he didn't have complete creative control as claimed. Either way, what I saw was a decent horror movie but a very poor take on the original Halloween.

Was the above review useful to you?

48 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Pure evil turns into anti-hero

Author: alucard617 from United States
21 October 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, as a movie in general I though was less than average. As a remake, it was *beep* horrible. People will always say, "Oh this is a different movie, not the original, don't compare." It's a remake, how could you not *beep* compare First, I always had a problem with a back-story, Michael was pure evil without one. Michael was so evil because he had no reason to kill, he just did. He was pure evil in human form, there was no rhyme or reason for what he did. Okay, a back-story doesn't have to be terrible, but it answers nothing.

People say that this answers the question that had lurked in everyone's mind since the first 10 minutes of the original "Why is Michael the way he is." No it doesn't, at least not under the circumstances presented in the original. In that one, Michael has a nice and clean home with two well kept and fitting looking parents and a sister that seemed horny, but not a slut. In this one, the father is mysteriously dead and a filthy white trash piece of *beep* who has no respect for women, especially two very attractive ones, takes his place. The house is a decrepit place, the mother is a stripper, and it seems to be a white trash haven. Anyone can give a reason for Michael's rage in this way, just throw everything that was presented to the table in the original and put unoriginal stuff on it. The back-story itself is unoriginal and stupid.

The first 5 minutes already answer the question to Michael's rage, it's not drawing us in. Imagine the back-story starts with two clean and nice parents who are loving and in a nice home. That would be better because the audience will be engrossed with all these questions; "Whoa, what the hell, his life seems pretty nice. I wonder what will happen to make him evil." That is original and gets the audience interested right away because Myer's life seems perfect, but then an event happens and so on. In the remake, it looks like someone watched a documentary on serial killers and threw it in the movie. It's not original or new; it's used and boring. I wanted something that really surprises the audience about Michael and answers the question on his rage under the same circumstances as in the original, but in an unsuspecting and surprising manner.

All right, now for my biggest complaint in character development; Loomis. I remember in the original Loomis was a take charge type of guy who showed no mercy when he tried to find Michael. He never hesitated or gave up a chance to kill Michael because he knew he was pure evil. Loomis in this one calls Michael his best friend and is sympathetic to him. Then the next scene he is calling him pure evil and the anti-Christ. WTF. If Loomis thinks Michael is pure evil, why does he try to negotiate with him, hesitates to shoot him, and is remorseful towards him. The original had Loomis never resting till he found his evil patient. This one, he wastes time talking about his book and other crap. Especially in this one, Loomis should be more eager than ever since Michael kills 5 people as opposed to 1 as a child. People will say this Loomis is so much more caring and polite. Lets think for a second.; Loomis has spent 15 years of his life trying to get through Michael. He soon realizes Michael is pure evil and tries to get him transferred; People think he's an idiot and what happens? Myers escapes and they blame the whole thing on him. Would you be *beep* polite after all that and now you have a murderer on the loose and only you know how he works? I sure hell as wouldn't. Loomis in the original was more realistic, knew what he was dealing with, and took every chance he had to kill Myers before he kills anyone else.

Now let's look at the slasher himself; Michael Myers. They took a true and pure evil villain who tortured and murdered his whole family and made him into a sympathetic anti-hero who only wants to be with his sister Laurie. Michael never tries to kill Laurie in this one, at least not in general circumstances. Instead, he tries to be with her. Michael used to be a villain who stabbed and tried to strangle his sister, but now he's just a loving, but murderous, brother. The only times where he appears to want to kill her are times when he's reacting in anger, not evil. Michael used to be the villain everyone was rooting for to be killed: I still love the scene where Loomis shoots the hell out of Michael in the original. This one, Michael is not evil at all, just some misguided fool. I can't watch this feeling sorry for the villain.

The movie itself is used and boring; the stuff used from the original is rushed and a cheap knockoff in this one. The murders are rushed and someone gets killed every 2 seconds. My favorite kill in the first one was when Michael strangled to girl with the phone line because it looked so painful when she was gasping for air. This one, he just grabs and her and 2 seconds later she's dead. The murders and stabbing sounds are fake looking and sounding and the gore is way too exaggerated. One person gets stabbed one and then there are oceans of blood.

This movie was not scary in any shape or form and it ruined the image of Myers. No longer is he pure evil, but a misguided and sympathetic fool who just wants love. By the end of the movie, I had to watch the original to chafe the bad taste in my stomach from this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

49 out of 57 people found the following review useful:


Author: diglers69 from Latvia
13 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well... where should I start?

I was really excited when I heard about this remake coming out! Did I like it? No! And here are the reasons:

1) It claims to be a remake, but it's a totally different story! 2) It ain't a whole new concept though, because the original Halloween plot is used (and in a pretty bad way).. 3) It's SO not scary.. It can hardly be called a horror movie! 4) The pr-story about Michaels childhood is SO cheese and naive (it could have been a good drama, but it's not, because of trashy dialogs and cheep storyline) 5) I got bored in the middle of the movie. 6) If you make a remake, you risk with everyone going to compare it with the original, and in this case the Carpenters movie is so much better!

So, it ain't a horror movie and it' ain't a drama! You can't even call it a thriller! Just a week film, Zombie made, 'cause we all know he loves horror classics (just as much as we all do)! House Of 1000 Corpses was really great (allthough it's much of TCM concept used in it), still it's amazingly fresh and creepy! Halloween was not! Sorry, Rob~ 3 out of 10!

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Rob Zombie - You ruined my childhood, you selfish little man.

Author: worldriot from Washington, DC
7 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

And so it goes that Rob Zombie, great horror mastermind and irrelevant metal vocalist, takes on one of my personal favorites in the Hollywood horror genre and promptly reduces it to the value of a single piece of dog feces.

I rated this film a 4 not because it had much value, but that I simply could not bring myself to give it the rating it truly deserves - a zero. The film starts off in decent fashion, giving us insight into the mind of the childhood Michael Myers, yet the film fails to explain why exactly this background is even relevant. All I know is that the little kid cast as Michael in the film looked like he did more drugs than Sheri Moon, who played his mother. That's a lot of drugs. The only scenes he didn't looked completely stoned in were scenes in which he inexplicably appeared to gain 75 pounds in his face. An odd phenomenon, and one of the few pseudo-interesting things happening in this movie.

Aside from the blubber-faced stoner kid, we are treated to a girl cast as the heroine who literally begs the audience to hate her. The person who actually did the casting for this film must have had serious drug/alcohol issues to cast the little punk Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie in this film. Not only does she display the single most annoying voice in the history of horror cinema, her character is one that I actually WANTED to see get beaten repeatedly with a blunt instrument. Her acting "skills" aside, her dress, her appearance, her character lines...all simply cried out "Please Michael, kill me for the pleasure of the audience". Unfortunately, like so many things in this movie, that wish is not delivered as Laurie survives through the entirety of this travesty of a film.

Terrible cast aside, let's look at key scenes that were omitted. The classic laundry room scene, the equally compelling scene where Tommy sees the "Boogey Man" carrying his victim around the neighboring house as he stares out the window....these classic scenes are totally gone. Scenes from the original that Rob did remake in the film are pointless, almost pathetic in their attempts to top the original scenes. And the fact that the film establishes Laurie is Michaels sister from the get-go is a terrible idea that completely erases the creepy "randomness" of Michaels attacks.

In closing, if you want to see a classic horror film, see the original Halloween. If you want to see a classic horror film get completely raped and pillaged, see Rob Zombies Halloween.

Was the above review useful to you?

50 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Not Worthy of the Title

Author: atlanticcanuck from Saint John, Canada
6 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I went in with an open mind. After all, it is not easy to remake a classic. Especially when the original Halloween was perfect. Nonetheless, this movie is a major disappointment. It starts off well enough, and I did enough the background of Michael. However, when it gets to present day, the story line skips through sections and you get the feeling of bad editing. Plus, all the jumping around leads to no character development and a group of teenagers we could care less about. To put in plainly, there is no suspense in this movie. Even though Zombie adds his own touch and scenarios to the story line, he never gives the audience a feeling of dread. Unlike the original, there are no moments of, "run'" "look out behind you" and all the edge of your seat stuff. It's just cut to scene, kids are killed, cut to next scene.

Even the cameos are wasted. Take the Spiderman movies for example. In each one, Bruce Campbell steals the scene he is in. This movie had countless cameos by some of the best in B movies and horror films. For the most part, none of them leave a mark.

At times this movie feels like a remake, at times a sequel, and at times a re-envisioning. Never does it feel like a good movie. definitely not worthy of the title.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 62 people found the following review useful:

SOOO Disappointing

Author: fryet from United States
20 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start by saying that the original "Halloween" is by far my favorite horror flick ever. I have the original movie poster from 1978 framed and hanging in my basement. I'll also admit, I have the Michael Myers doll that plays the music. Huge fan. So, when I heard RZ was remaking this, I was a little peeved. Then I started to see some of the previews, and actually became excited about it. So, I DID go in with an open mind. The best way to sum this up, is that RZ COMPLETELY missed the point of what made Michael so scary in the first place. The fact that there WAS no reason, no conscience, no sense of ANYTHING. He was, and I quote, "purely and simply evil." He IS, in essence, the "boogyman". Trying to shove down my throat the fact that he became like that because his family was white trash is NOT scary. If I wanted to watch Jerry Springer, I would have stayed home. RZ if you read this, you need to realize that gore does not mean scary. It was not necessary in the 1978 original, yet that remains some 30 YEARS LATER the GREATEST horror movie of all time. What does that tell you????

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 66 people found the following review useful:

An Abomination to horror films, or any film for that matter.

Author: matt_frisby from United States
31 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first half an hour is almost unwatchable. Two people in the theater left and never came back. I have never felt the urge to leave a theater mid-movie but for some reason (my $5.00 or perhaps sheer boredom)I decided to stick it out.

I will admit the very ending where Michael is attacking his sister is not too bad. But overall, this movie suffers from horrendous acting, the poorest of poor character development, and a severe lack of creativity. Rob, please go back to making angry industrial rock.

Do not throw your money away nor fool yourself into thinking this may be just another bad remake. Instead, rent a 'real' horror movie like "May", "Feast", or "The Host" -Matt (A huge horror fan) P.S. I would rather watch a poorly produced marathon of "Freddy's Nightmare's on the Chiller network than have to undergo another viewing of this film. Blah!

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

A pointless, pitiful, pathetic excuse of a move!

Author: flumpman-1 from United Kingdom
4 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was always sceptical about this movie being a huge fan of the JC original which has remained my number 2 favourite movie of all time for the past 15 years or so - and boy was I right to be! Rob Zombie, who I personally feel has directed two great horror movies with 1000 corpses and Devils Rejects, has completely and utterly ruined a classic movie! Yes I know he was never "remaking" the original and he was always planning on "re-telling" the story from a different perspective - but seriously Mr Zombie, why bother? All you have done is taken great characters and a great story and just made it into a useless, pointless piece of twaddle which should be locked away in movie hell forever! I think spending 55 minutes of movie time building up a character we already know was just stupid, I think making the likable main girl from the original into a foul mouthed, sex obsessed plank was just a waste of time and I think all of the random killings were just plain unnecessary! I award you 1 star Mr Zombie for this terrible movie and that is just because I liked that bit at the beginning where you froze young Michael Myers running away from school and played the classic Halloween theme tune - if you hadn't put that bit in you would get 0 stars! Rubbish!

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

I want my money back Mr. Zombie

Author: oh080100 from United States
1 September 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

WTF WAS THAT!!! One Question Zombie did you watch the original, because you got it all wrong. You're not as famous and the original Halloween, so to take it and screw it like you did totally suck. You have just destroyed a classic. Anyone who gave this movie more that one full star is not a real Horror fans. Zombie's Michael Myers is a Fag, white trash boy looking for some attention. John Carpenter's Michael Myers lived in the suburbs; parents loved him, but he was taken over by evil "pure evil" the devil, he killed because of the rage in him.

Now I see why John Carpenter told "Zombie to make his own film, don't make the original" because he knew Zombie's Halloween would be a disappointment.

Sorry, but this movie will only get good reviews from ladies who want to have sex with Rob Zombie and men who don't have a clue like Zombie or want to have sex with him also.

Honestly, Zombie should be paying us to see this movie, "I want my money back, Mr. Zombie."

Don't waste your time going to see this movie, because $4.25 is way to much. Go have a value meal; you'll be a lot more satisfied.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 106: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history