User ReviewsAdd a Review
Now Rob Zombie fans will hate this review but his "Halloween films" were good then why are they ignoring them and going back to the original film? This could of been good had someone told Rob "Can you make some of these people different"
The reason I gave this movie a 4 is becasue:
- Stayed pretty true to the original story with the characters and the location.
- Gave the audience an interesting look on how Michael turned evil
- Gave the audience a look into how Michael spent some of his time in the hospital.
- Gave the audience an interesting idea on why Michael liked masks and seeing his cell covered with masks of different colors.
- The way the movie ended was similar to the first movie in the sense that Michael was shot at the end of the first movie, and he was shot in this version.
- Different actors
- Bad actor portrayal of Michael looking 35 and Laurie looking 15.
- Didn't make sense on how Michael found the iconic mask in the floorboards of his family home when there was no mention of that mask in the beginning of the movie.
- Scout's portrayal of Laurie was too wimpy.
- Too much nudity to even fathom watching this movie again!
- Too much dirty cussing to make someone never wanna watch this movie again!
10*s out of 10
Halloween (2007) is, to date, Zombie's best film .. he has since had the wind taken from his sails; his recent cinematic outings have been the types of failures that people and critics alike always accused him of making - although, it seems obvious to me that he's only since fallen apart since this film ....... it's a masterpiece. I said it .. and it's true.. especially in context of how awful the genre, generally, can be. The Carpenter film is mysterious, yes, atmospheric as hell, yes .. but overrated .... now, please don't judge me - I consider myself a major lover of films , aka a true cinephile, and I am not a teenager or a Rob Zombie fanboy .. but this film here, albeit idiosyncratic and purposefully expository, is genius, and a superior film to the original film , whose influence far exceeds its actual greatness; the 1978 film's influence and reputation - whether deserved or not - made up the minds of the remake's audience even before they saw it ... laypeople and critics alike sat down and expected Mr. Zombie to try end emulate Mr. Carpenter ,, but he did not .. he instead made a detailed, hyper-realistic, epic-like, postmodern insta-classic, at least within the genre .. and I always grade in context .... the Zombie remake has its own heart and its own character, and with the brutal, unwieldy, idiosyncratic style that Rob Zombie used to subject audiences to .
I've heard a lot of people complain about the backstory here .. they seem to say that too much motivation is given for Michael's 'evil'; they say Zombie humanises him too much with the child abuse, poverty, socio-politics, etc ..... well, all that has been exaggerated by fans of the original and its larger (technically poor) franchise... well, this Michael Myers just isn't quite as existential, lol .. but not much motivation AT ALL is provided by Zombie beyond general child abuse.. and all this remake really suggests is that Michael is a 'perfect storm' of various colliding factors; i.e. nature AND nurture .. Zombie, however, does NOT systematically break down why Michael becomes a killer .. this aspect of the remake I think just serves as the biggest symbol of the two film's differences, and, therefore, laypeople go on and on about it ....... the truth is: it's obvious from the first viewing that not at any time did Zombie want to emulate, or replicate, or rework the original film .. he just took 'Michael Myers' as a big, monstrous, horrifying myth, dissected it/him, then reassembled it/him in a brutal, jagged, and even surreal film - one which is just not meant to be compared to the original film any more than it has to be ... basically, I believe that what the laypeople have seen as unnecessary, detrimental backstory/motivation is just Zombie's hyper-realisitc, ultra-violent 'image' (so to speak) of what Carpenter relays in the original when little, angelic, bloodless Michael snaps and kills his sister -- it's essentially just Zombie's TRANSLATION of that .. not much more .... everything about Michael snapping - at its essence - is as 'out of the blue' as when Michael snaps in the 1978 original.
10*s out of 10
The most substantial criticism of the film is that, by exploring Michael Myers' psychology and by humanizing him, it removes what made him so effectively scary in the first place, as the audience now has the opportunity to gain a sense of familiarity with him. However, that's presuming the intent of the John Carpenter's original onto this film, which set out to accomplish something entirely different. Rob Zombie has no interest in keeping Michael Myers in the background, but instead, makes him the central focus in order to trace his psychological evolution from demented child to enraged psychopath. This Myers isn't so much a personification of evil as he is a manifestation of rage whose humanity is stripped away over the course of the film. The original reinterpreted the boogeyman in a suburban setting, but this re-imagining takes you into the boogeyman's world, and forces the audience to experience his life through his eyes. Perhaps not the most effective slasher fodder, but personally, I found Michael's continual descent into madness to be disturbing, provocative, and even, perhaps, a little sad. Taken on its own terms, the film is a chilling portrait of a deranged mind, and the impact he has on those around him. Despite accusations to the contrary, the film deals with the theme of violence more than it exploits it, and the explicit gore is used to convey the uncompromising brutality of the carnage which Michael leaves in his wake. The foul language and vile characters desensitize the audience just as it does Myers, and while I could admittedly have done without the white-trash element, it feels more like a component to the story than a simple cliché.
This is all, of course, without mentioning of the technical aspects of the film, which I find superb across the board. Say what you will about Rob Zombie's ear for dialogue, but visually, this film boasts a haunting atmosphere, and proves that Rob Zombie has speaks the language of cinema fluently. The performances are all convincing and engaging, especially from Taylor-Compton and McDowell. Taylor-Compton's Laurie has been criticized as being a stark deviation from Jamie Lee Curtis' portrayal, but her performance, save for an admittedly terrible introduction, is appropriate for Zombie's vision. Her bubbly charm and happy-go-lucky attitude both serve to make her an endearing character, especially in her babysitting scenes, and to also provide to juxtapose her with the brooding and enraged Michael Myers, played to perfection by Tyler Mane.
McDowell has likewise been criticized for not living up to Donald Pleasance's intensity, despite the fact that this, again, is an entirely different take on the character. McDowell plays a more conflicted version of the character, who regards Michael as a danger to society, but also as something of a kindred spirit, even something as a friend, which is as perverse as it is fascinating. McDowell instills the role with sincerity and compassion, and creates a sympathetic character out of the good doctor, especially in the asylum scenes where he desperately tries and fails to help his troubled patient regain his humanity.
Of course, fans of the original will take issues with the liberties Zombie took with the material no matter what, which is perfectly within their rights. Film is a subjective experience, and your perspective on a film will depend, in large part, on personal taste and preference. That said, if one is to judge this film, they should do so on its own terms, as they should with any film, because one is to do so here, they could find the merit of the film that I found. Some fans might even be enraged at the very thought of these films, and couldn't believe that someone could enjoy it. They might look at this film and ask, "was that the boogeyman?" In fact, I do believe it was.
We do get nice callbacks to the original film. It was nice seeing those elements from such a good movie. I'm going to admit I'm probably being kinder to this film than I really should because it's really not that good. I still praise these people for making a well paced story out of such a lengthy horror film. It is kind of annoying to see Michael's origin make up such a large portion, but it's not bad. It was interesting to see him talk as a kid. Boy, do I love that theme music. Well, that's it for Slasher Month and thank God I'll never have to do that again. Hey, it's November. You know what that means? Direct To Video Month! **1/2
Judith has no interest in taking Michael trick-or-treating.
Michael unleashes his fury.
Malcolm McDowell will never be Donald Pleasance. DP was the better Dr.Loomis. Zombie doesn't want Michel's victims to fight back or attack Michael. Michael is grown,doesn't bother to wash his hair,feet,or shave.
This is a total turkey. skip it.
Well, I'm being very kind to him. This is truly something that most critics would probably rip to absolute pieces. There's nothing about this movie that makes it worth seeing. If there was no original, this movie would be in the garbage. Even the Loomis character can't save it.
Even his music is terrible, just as an aside. Hate to say it but it is. Rob seems like a cool dude, but I just don't see any talent in anything he does, especially this "movie"
The story plods along for some 15 years when Michael now an adult with supernatural powers-He works out for hours at a time in his jail cell- breaks out of his confinements and heads straight for home-Hoddonfield-just in time to celebrate Halloween-his favorite holiday-and take care of some unfinished business. That by murdering those he feels did him wrong over the years including family members while he was a resident there. There's also the fact that Michael's kid sister Laurie Strode still lives there and, after murdering as much as half the town, wants to start a new life together with her as brother & sister.
***SPOILERS*** By the number horror flick with a new and improved as well as deadlier Michael Myers doing his thing-murdering-far more people then in the 1978 version. And even getting to use the William Shatner Halloween mask, that he found in the attic of his former home, like in the original to cover his face so he can't be recognized by the police as well as the public so he can keep on killing totally unhindered as well as unnoticed. As for the thankless Dr. Loomis he ends up being one of Michael's victims when he tries to talk him into giving himself up to the police as well as the men in the white suits before he ends up murdering the entire movie cast. It's in fact Laurie who not knowing just who Michael really is who ends up putting an end to his rampage by stabbing him with his own butcher knife only to have him, like he always does, come back to life and surprise her as the movie finally comes to a close.
Score for Unrated Director's cut: 7.5/10
Now, I do enjoy Rob Zombie's music, but his foray into directing has been a somewhat up and down experience; some movies have been quite good, while others were just downright bad. However, for the most part of his vision of Michael Myers and the early years that formed him was quite good.
Most of the movie takes place during the childhood years of Michael Myers, and this is where Rob Zombie shines as a director, because the character gallery here is just phenomenal and the dialogue is very suited for the characters. However, once Michael is grown up and finally dons the iconic mask, then Rob Zombie sort of loses the edge and the movie doesn't have the same punch to it, seeming more like a deflating balloon of sorts. Why? Well, because the killer just randomly shows up at places and mostly just observes people. And the last 30 minutes or so of the movie is just one prolonged chase scene. Now, I do believe that having chase scenes is a must for a slasher movie, of course. But a chase scene that lasted for about 30 minutes and wasn't even all that thrilling? Nah, it just didn't really work out for the movie and it felt like a drag to sit through.
What really blew me away here with this 2007 "Halloween" movie was the immensely impressive cast list. Oh boy, Rob Zombie really managed to get together a whole bunch of iconic actors and actresses. It was a particular great treat for the horror fans to see people like Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, William Forsythe, Udo Kier, Clint Howard, Danny Trejo, Ken Foree, Sid Haig and Dee Wallace in the movie. Now, IMDb lists Bill Moseley, but he was only in the theatrical cut of the movie, so I guess I didn't see that version because I didn't see him in here.
Rob Zombie's 2007 "Halloween" was more of a background builder for the Michael Myers character, a prequel to the series in a way, but then again, not entirely a prequel. It was indeed a great addition to the franchise.
For a slasher movie, then there weren't all that many deaths, and the brutality and severity of those scenes that were there just weren't in your face outstanding from so many other slasher movies.
All in all an entertaining movie, but be prepared for more character Building than slashing.
About 10 year old Michael Myers who killed his sister And her stepfather right on Halloween night. After that incident Michael was put into a mental hospital. 15 years later, Michael ran away from the hospital and returned to his hometown to find his little sister who lives in a small town called Haddonfield, a series of murderous events terrorizing Halloween Night in that small town .. Halloween horror movie is quite good but There are various shortcomings ie less its tension, I have not watched the original version of this film that is Halloween (1978). If you like watching a horror movie then watch this movie. If not just search for another movie.
Warning: A lot of sadistic scenes, blood, nudity, dirty words .. The movie is for 18+!
But....1 star for being a reboot, out of principal, especially a reboot of a slasher film that, well, I always thought the deal with those was to keep adding and adding until you have to look up the Roman Numerals in Encyclopedias to make sure you're numbering them right.
Halloween MCMLXXVIII You know, that sort of thing.
But we will add one for Malcolm McDowell just because, yeah, he delivers.
So two stars: ** And then it seems like Zombies idea was to show a lot of nudity and especially a lot of naked women getting killed by a horrible male monster after committing the sin of fornication.
So three stars: *** And that is because he MIGHT--with a really big stretch on that--have been trying to do a satire thing of the slasher genre with all the naked murdered women.
But...he could have also been going for mainstream snuff porn.
I'm honestly not sure which way to go on this one...so We are back to two stars: ** Just because it really might not have been an attempt at satire and I sort of want to be sure.
And we can't add any more because well...
It was already made and when it came around in 1978 it was moody and atmospheric and, well, it really looked a lot like Halloween, only a nightmare version of it.
Zombie's remake feels more like a cheap version of Halloween and really, the outdoor shots that are supposed to give you the seasonal feel remind me more of Thanksgiving pick-up football games. They look and feel less like a nightmare version of Halloween than Season of the Witch's small Southern Town atmosphere.
And the horror parts, really, ANY slasher movie and, by the way, since when was Halloween about T&A? I thought Friday the 13th owned that stereotype and we went to Halloween for, you know, atmosphere and scares...at least in the first 2 films.
So really, I guess my point is that it has Malcolm McDowell and that is slightly redeeming. He's always fun to watch...even in his bad movies...like this one.
I'll start with the negatives of this film. Zombie, as a filmmaker, labors under a philosophy of "it's a horror movie, you're not supposed to feel comfortable watching it" and goes to great lengths to make his audience feel repulsed and horrified. Problem is he takes it too far in a lot of cases. And I'm not talking about the level or intensity of the violence in this film (more on that later...). Rather, the vulgar, sophomoric depravity present in character portrayal, dialogue, and scenarios. The opening scenes show just how dysfunctional young Myers home is. Zombie wants to show what helped create this monster, but his over the top approach is unnecessary here. The mothers boyfriend is a charachterized version of every abusive alcoholic white trash stereotype in the book, making him border on unbelievable. Many other characters have this same treatment inflicted on them, and in all honesty the film does suffer from this. I get what Zombie was trying to do here, show them in a raw, unfiltered manner, but it's overdone. Less would have been more here, and it would have been equally if not more effective. Zombie's style of doing this is what I would imagine turned most viewers off to this film. Zombie wants neither himself nor his films to be accepted as mainstream, he tends to go just a bit too far to ensure that doesn't happen, taking to a forced and transparent extreme in most cases.
The Positives... Casting...This film is overall well cast and actors deliver solid, believable performances in their respective roles, many delivering superior performances to their 1978 counterparts. Scout Taylor Compton as Laurie presented her in a manner that I felt created a more well developed, empathetic version than the Jamie Lee Curtis one.Casting Malcolm McDowell was brilliant on Zombie's part, and McDowell's Loomis was superior in every regard to Donald Pleasances droll, deadpan Loomis. The cinematography is a toss up, modern filmmaking practices aided Zombie in this regard.
The violence...I find the number of negative criticisms on the level and intensity of the violence present in this film ironic and frankly pretty laughable. It's a horror/slasher film, not only that, it was made by none other than Rob Zombie....what exactly were you expecting? Rob Zombie's type of violence found here is, in my opinion, superior to most other slasher films out there. Modern slasher films are always trying to outdo each other and themselves with a constant evolution of inventive, creative and grisly ways to do victims in. Zombie doesn't resort to this. The violence here is primitive, raw, brutal, savage, and animalistic. Which is exactly what one would expect from a raging psychopath. Nothing creative here, the killer isn't trying to make art, he just rips you to pieces any way he can. This adds a level of realism and believablity to him that most slasher villains lack completely. And this has been one of the polarizing aspects of the movie as well, many loyal to Carpenter's version have been critical of making Myers a plausible human rather than the inhuman embodiment of "pure evil" he was in the original movie. Which version you prefer is purely a matter of choice, Carpenter's Myers is the boogeyman...Zombie's is the kid that lives a couple of doors down the street from you. Zombie nailed his appearance too...gone are the clean, pressed coveralls and fresh, unblemished, uniformly colored mask worn by Carpenters Myers, replaced by old, worn, greasy-dirty coveralls and a decaying, cracked and aging mask...creating a much more horrifying visage than his 1978 predecessor. Which one did I find more believable and scary? Zombie's Myers, no contest.
Another criticism of Zombie's movie is his use of cliché material. First, I'd challenge any critic to name a single slasher film that isn't filled with them, it's a sub-genre you can only do so much with find the first place. Second, his use of them is as much of a nod to the predecessor film and others of the genre as anything else, I'll cut him some slack here on this issue.
The real major difference between the two films is that rather than just drop Myers into the film with a brief flashback scene and a bit of dialoge setting up the backstory, Zombie devotes nearly half his film to it, showing what helped create him and the events leading up to his escape, as well as helping explain some of his motivations. Again, this is a debated aspect of the film in comparison to the original. Personally, I like what Zombie did here, it further humanized the character and made him more scary in my opinion.
In conclusion, these are two very different movies. Zombie's version is loyal enough to the original, but more expansive, overall however it lacks the refinement and polish of Carpenter's version. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing....it doesn't make it better or worse, it just creates a different viewing experience than the original one does. If Zombie someday decided to re-release it after some additional editing, spit and polish, maybe omit a few parts of some of the earlier scenes, this film could easily jump up to the next tier in horror movie status.
If you're a horror movie fan and you don't mind wandering off the beaten path a little in search of something different, give this one a try.
The film adds an extensive "origin-story" for Michael Myers. This is entirely unnecessary in my opinion. It takes away everything that made the original memorable and interesting: Michael Myers never uttering a single word. Now it doesn't leave much to the imagination: He's a sadistic kid, bullied in school and at home except by his mother. He get's angry enough and kills everyone except his mother (not at home) and his baby sister. In the original, he's a soulless monster that kills without any reason. Here he comes off as a revenge killer in some parts (why he spares his baby sister) but then turns into a "kill em all" monster. Then wants to reunite with his sister who he wants to kill again eventually. Also the scene where it shows that he buried his trademark mask and kitchen knife in his home to retrieve it after 15 years is just bad and contrived. The same goes for him using the mask while killing his older sister as a 10 year old.
Furthermore, the suspense isn't as good as in the original. The original had a good buildup. This one here is basically just a simple killing spree from the moment Myers escapes. Some key scenes from the original were emulated but are nowhere near as good. The killer isn't that subtle anymore and comes way to close in the "creeper" scenes. The kills also happen way too fast compared to the slower and more deliberate first film.
Also, the fact that baby Laurie was shown in Michael's childhood years ruins the whole plot. He spares her as a child and then wants to reunite with her after 15 years. Yeah killing all her friends and family is probably a good idea. The original makes more sense: There's a sister he doesn't know about and comes to kill her too.
Overall a pretty unnecessary remake in my opinion. Better watch the original. It's shorter and to the point, and overall better written.