Halloween (2007) Poster

(2007)

User Reviews

Add a Review
1,081 Reviews
Sort by:
8/10
Rob Zombie directs..Halloween, yes, you heard me, the remake, what's wrong with that?!
lorcan-618813 February 2018
Even though Halloween: Resurrection was a complete success at the box office, that did not change the fact that the film was extremely awful to fans and now leaving behind Laurie Strode to die, it was official there would be no Halloween: Vengeance or Revenge or whatever, Part 9. Anyway, after the settlement of the Halloween franchise, fans were then treated to a remake by Rob Zombie. I personally enjoyed Halloween, the remake, I had so much fun watching it as I only finished it and it's sequel last week but like Halloween 3, this film should not have been a remake for Halloween, this film was way too gory and dark for a remake of Halloween, at least Rob Zombie just say in the credits "Inspired by 'Halloween'", I don't think putting this down as the remake was very necessary, thats honestly the only thing that was bad about this film, it just should not have been a part of the Halloween franchise and just a stand alone film even if there were a few scenes Zombie did really good giving you deja vu back to the original film. Anyway, Halloween is actually a really fucking good horror film but as a Halloween remake..no
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible
christmascookiemonster26 January 2018
Rob Zombie might be able to direct but he can not wrote dialog. All of his characters all sounded like White Trash. They were so raunchy that you didn't care if they died. There was no sympathetic characters and no characters that 99% of the population could identify with!

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"
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Somewhat enjoyable
hferdon23 January 2018
Here's the thing: I've been watching all of the Halloween movies back to back and I've enjoyed each one for different reasons, but the one that kind of pulled me off of the kick was this movie, the 2007 make of Halloween. I'm the kind of person that feels if there is going to be a sequel to any movie, you need to continue the story with the same actors and the same type of storyline. This version kind of diminished my excitement for several reasons. 1: I've ignored the fact that in every movie, there's a slight sex scene which is tacky for every kind of movie, especially for horror/ thriller movies because the eyes should be on the killer hunting down the victims, not woman's boobs and a man's butt. It's just very trashy. 2: I understand that Rob Zombie wanted to tell his version of Halloween because it's a refreshing and different look at the infamous story of Michael Myers, but I felt the movie to be too raunchy with not just the boobs and butt, but also that grotesque sex scene in Michael's cell. It was absolutely stomach wrenching and was definitely throwing me off from watching the movie. 3: The actor who played Michael Myers looked to be 35 and Laurie to be like 15, when in reality, it should've been different because in the original movie, Laurie was born 2 years after Michael was admitted to the hospital, making them 8 or so years apart, so they got it a little different. 4: One thing I can give to Rob is that he gave the audience a good idea of how Michael could've turned evil because he had a horrible home life, which can turn anyone into a psycho, but even giving us that idea was a little too risque and flamboyant.5: I'll also give him points that Rob tried to stay pretty much true to the original with the fact that, like the original, Michael escaped after years of therapy, goes back to his old house, and starts planning on how to start making his killings, even having the original music when Michael was around was a great idea. 6: I understand that even with a continuation of a saga like this that you don't have to go exactly to the word with the original story, but it would definitely help because when you have different actors, it doesn't feel like the same story, and should be considered to be called something else. 7: The fact that Laurie was so wimpy when Scout portrayed her, she was a brave woman taking on Michael; it's just sad.

The reason I gave this movie a 4 is becasue:

Pros:
  • 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.


Cons:
  • 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!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
My review for the Unrated Director's cut. MUCH better than the theatrical cut
Michael Myers is the best19 January 2018
The reason why I made this account because I want to review the director's cut of both of the Rob Zombie films. I gave the theatrical cut a 5/10 and I got the unrated director's cut of the movie on Christmas. I gave this movie a 7.5/10 because of better story telling, and the script flows well. I still hate the white trash theme of the movie. Yeah I know their is one scene that's uncountable but I ignore that scene. Is it worth buying? It depends if you hate or love the theatrical cut of Halloween (2007). A better version of the film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Awesome Film
rick-f6 January 2018
This is Rob Zombie's remake of the original Halloween. It is a little bit slow to get into, but it speeds up. This film focuses a bit more on Michael Myers' childhood and when he finally snapped. Basically the events before he was locked up and assigned to Dr. Loomis. The movie is pretty long and there will be a few moments that are cringeworthy toward the end, but keep in mind they are adaptations from the original so if you're a fan of the original then you have to cringe at both since he followed the manuscript of the original pretty much toward the end. If you're a true horror film fan and fan of the Halloween series you will absolutely love this film for giving you more depth into the character of Mikey Myers. This film is a masterpiece compared to most horror films that don't place much emphasis on developing a character and building up suspense to keep you on the edge.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Halloween ('07) ~ 10/10 ~ Rob Zombie's Halloween is one highly misunderstood gem of the genre.
brandinfennessy-775311 January 2018
HALLOWEEN 2007 Dir.: Rob Zombie Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Scout Taylor-Compton

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
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A compelling alternative to Carpenter's original
jeff-theis44 December 2017
Despite all the criticisms that have been hurled at him over the course of his filmmaking career, Rob Zombie never fails to present an entirely unique vision with a definitive style, even when remaking one of the most beloved horror classics of the modern era. Remaking such a revered film is always going to be a risky task, and Zombie's retelling of John Carpenter's original has been polarizing to say the least. It has been decried by fans for failing to live up to the original's spirit, and of demystifying one of cinema's most iconic boogeymen, Michael Myers. It's obscene and violent, whereas the original is restrained and understated, and explicitly deals with Myers' psychology, which the original decidedly kept vague, save for the occasional "pure evil" speech by Donald Pleasance. Indeed, this remake differs so heavily from the original that it becomes something entirely different, which some will use as a criticism, but I can't help but commend. In an age of cynical cash-grabs, the Halloween sequels being perfect examples, this re-imagining opts to use the Halloween mythos as the means to tell an entirely different story, and to convey an entirely different experience. As a "Halloween" film, it can be seen as a disappointment, but if viewed on its own terms, it's a deeply unsettling and emotionally provocative tale of a twisted family reunion.

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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Someone Funded this Joke of a Film???
sonnybunz1 November 2017
Horrible actors...are you serious? This is embarrassing to even try and stomach your way through. What an utter insult to John Carpenter and Debra Hill. This mess is a who's who of washed up and wanna be actors. The story is ridiculous.. a dysfunctional family? How Psych 101! Very low end high school project work here. A spoon fed script written for an audience of low intelligence. I mean go ahead and rent it for "stupid movie night" for laughs. Apparently the director needs to stick to shtick music and leave classics to the classics.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Was that the Boogeyman? As a matter of fact, it was. He's just not as good as the original one. That's for sure.
ironhorse_iv31 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's Halloween; everyone's entitled to one good scare. I just wouldn't pick this remake to watch. This horror movie directed by music artist Robert Cummings AKA Rob Zombie, just wasn't as entertaining, it should had been. Don't get me wrong, while, this ninth slasher movie in the film series was financially successful at the box office, its reception among critics and fans were very mixed. For me, I didn't like it, at all. While, I'm willing to give it, some praise for, trying to do, something new, & not being a shot-by-shot remake like director Gus Van Sant's 1998 remake of filmmaker, Alfred Hitchcock's 1960's masterpiece murder mystery, 'Psycho'. I just couldn't get, with the idea of Zombie turning, the main villain, Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) into a tragic sympathetic figure. It goes against, everything that the original creators, John Carpenter & Debra Hill, was going for. He's isn't supposed to be, love or like. It's not like Frankenstein's Monster. Myers is supposed to be pure evil. He's supposed to be, the mythic, elusive bogeyman who can't be killed, reason with, or even captured. In the original 1978 movie of the same name, Michael (Nick Castle)'s goal is to terrorize and murder, everybody in Haddonfield, including Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis). His motive for terrorizing is supposed to be unknown. It makes him, a lot scarier. Here, his motive are somewhat clear. He comes across, as a killer with standards. Only killing those, whom threated or mistreat him, in anyway. He rarely kills any innocent people. Most of the victims, he depose off, here were violently unlikeable, that he come across, as an anti-hero, more than villain. If he does kill somebody, innocent. He show a lot of guilt. To add insult to his evil persona, his escape from the sanitarium, was just a genuinely attempt to try to reestablish a brotherly relationship with his estranged sister, Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) rather than, just plain old killing spree. In the end, while I get Zombie's nurture over nature approach to the source material. It really does kinda ruins the mystic of the psychopath, big time that Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) was trying to paint. One of the reasons, why I love the original movie, is how little, we know, of him when he was little. For starters, he really seem like a normal kid, living in the middle class neighborhood, who just happen to snapped. His odd behavior seem to come out of nowhere, leaving more suspense and mystery on why he did it. Here's, in this remake, it's pretty obvious & stereotypical with his abusive, poverty-stricken family that Michael would grow up to have problems. It's a little more predictable & dry. It's also far too gruesome and visceral exploitation for my taste. Look, I know, that the family scenes are meant to be unpleasant, but 40 minutes of hearing loud annoying yelling, is not entertaining. It's just plain old obnoxious & somewhat unwatchable. He took it, too far. Zombie could had, lighten up the whole film, a bit. After all, he did make one of his actresses, Kristina Klebe, break down, mentally, during filming. Not only that, but he did crap on the fans, by having actress, Danielle Harris, brutally stab to death in the nude as Annie Brackett!? That was really uncalled for, seeing how many of the horror fans was rooting for her as the likable, Jamie Lloyd from 1988's 'Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers', as a child actress. That was a bit distasteful. Not, everything in this movie, needed to be 'in your face' shock value. Sometimes, less is a lot scarier. It really need to know, how to be subtle. The original movie was scary enough with seeing an unknown dark presence stalking you with the sinister soundtrack, playing in the background, it didn't need gruesome and visceral depictions of rape, animal cruelty and suicide, with oddly time music to get the fear, across. Because of this, the remake come across, as a little too gimmicky. It tries too hard to be, disturbing, that it forget to be, entertaining. It even forgot, to be, realistic. The film has a lot of really dumb decisions like the way, Michael escape & how the William Shatner's mask was introduce. All of those kill scenes are also highly, over the top & clichés. Often done to death, in previous, Rob Zombie's horror flicks, such as 2005's 'The Devil Rejects' & 2003's 'House of 1000 Corpses'. Like his other movies, this remake does have Unrated 'Director's Cut' version. However, it's really shallow. It's just more unoriginal gory kills, than anything with substance. It honestly really not needed. Just stick to the Theatrical Cut, even if the last third, is a rushed version of 'the Babysitter Murders' sequence from the first movie, with lousy badly-written version of Laurie whom come across, as more mean-spirited than the original one, fighting off, somehow, a being who looks more like a steroid-fuel, Jason Voorhees from the Friday the 13th film series than a normal guy without the mask, could be, your neighbor. What was Myers, doing in the mental hospital!? Lifting weights! Was Dr. Loomis; his spotter!? Gees Louise! The guy is over the top, jack! Mane was over-casted. Talking about casting. I did like McDowell as Dr. Loomis. I like how they fit, more on him, in the movie. I just wish, the movie went with a schizophrenic approach with Myers, rather than the abusive angle. I want it to be something in the same vein as 1973's 'The Exorcist'. In short, I can concede that a good kid snapping is more shocking than an at risk preteen. Overall: While the first movie popularize, the Slasher Movie genre and inspired other similar franchises. I really can't recommended, watching this reboot. It's not good at all. It will forever, live in the shadows of the original film. That's for sure. Ready to disappointed, those who become aware of its presence.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Happy Halloween again!
Eric Stevenson31 October 2017
I figures it would only make sense that I would celebrate Halloween by watching what else, the movie "Halloween". Well, not the original. The remake. This film is notable for being the longest slasher movie ever made. Yeah, I was wrong about "Wes Craven's New Nightmare". Well, it's really hard to pin down. The version I saw was two hours long whereas most versions are just one hour and 49 minutes long. I'm going to count this as the longest because it technically is. This movie spends the first thirty eight minutes showing Michael as a child. His actual kills do appear do make up for half of that running time, so it's pretty well paced.

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
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Beards,Longhair,whores
JimMax5207130 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
One thing, John Carpenter would never have had nasty looking people with beards,long hair and girls like whores. Michael (10) doesn't like anyone. He is ugly and has no interest in cutting his hair. His sister is a whore...Judith. His stepfather is a lazy slob with long hair and a untidy beard wearing a bathrobe and cussing out Michael's mom.

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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Wow. I wasn't a fan of Rob before this...now I'd like to see him go away and never come back
bobbywolfe-511-23069025 October 2017
Awful is not correct. This was such a juvenile attempt at recreating a movie. It's as if this man has never made a movie before. I mean that sincerely. The overuse of foul language, the terrible actor direction, the backstory that gets shoved down your throat. It's like he took some film classes...no, I'll even give him more credit...it's like he just graduated film school and decided to make a class project. It really looks like someone with a lot of money decided to make a YouTube video project. In that vain, it's outstanding. For a major motion picture that reboots one of the greatest movies of all-time, it's truly a joke.

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"
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Totally Pointless!
heratyplant7 October 2017
The early family is very poorly cast, some bad acting and a lot of things that just don't make sense from a plot perspective; when it jumps forward it time it looks & feels better, but still there's nothing here that's worth anyone's time. Plus, how the hell does Dee Wallace have a teenage daughter, she must be 70, great to see her though ;-) Also as some others have said, the language is way too much, in the original family, people very rarely spoke like that then, especially children. Stuff like this does make you wonder how it got 'Green Lit' it's sad really!!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Death comes to Hoddonfield
kapelusznik1824 September 2017
****SPOILERS*** Remake of the 1978 horror classic "Halloween" gives us a much deeper insight on the serial murderer Michael Myers state of mind and what drove him on his crazed and insane road to mass murder. It's Michael whom we see as an misunderstood and abused, by his classmates, young boy who turns his anger and frustration out on the world at large at the tender young age of 10 as he goes on a murder spree against all those who've been kicking him around. Having murdered some half dozen people before his 12 birthday Michael is sent to the Smith Grove Sanitarium for pre-adult offenders where he's assigned Doc. Samuel Loomis as his personal psychiatrist. It's Dr. Loomis who over time realizes that the young boy is pure evil and should be kept from society for the rest of his life and have his brain, while alive, dissected for future study to see just what in it makes him tic as well as murder. Michael also develops a fascination with masks that he makes himself out of paper and cardboard to keep anyone from viewing his face and dropping dead of fright from seeing it.

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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Abysmal
mariellealien23 September 2017
This feels like someone took the word cliché and went over the top to make it even worse. It was predictable in the worst way, it was just a mashupgoo of utter trash. And even worse, it was boring. I started playing sudoku after twenty minutes of watching this, and honestly I think that says it all. Avoid.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Just a lazy entree of Halloween reboots
Ilikehorrormovies16 September 2017
This film is bad mix with good. I just hate it how they use sex joke like any teenager would laugh at. Micheal does look good I have to admit. Their's good death scene in this movie too. As a fan of John Carpenter's Halloween films this is weak compared to the first one. The story line feels rush like this film needs to come out so bad. They're parts that are enjoyable and fails sometimes. I'd watch the Unrated Director's cut and it's good, a minor improvement.

Score for Unrated Director's cut: 7.5/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Reviews on this film are far to thought out
johnnyboy6204-117-18682813 September 2017
I do not understand how people can slate this film honestly this is one of the better remakes and has a new dark ominous tone and true psychology of a serial killer. Give Rob Zombie a break he done his best with this disassembled mass produced horror slasher film. Are people who comment on this really looking at it as a film to stand on its own merit or a film to stand up against all the other sequels because in my mind it does both. Now people who just do not like Rob Zombie should not be commenting on this because you are bias. Im not saying he is the best director of horror ever a lot of his films get cut and boiled down to the point they are unwatchable and some films miss a point of story. This one he had the story covered he just filled in the rest. Don't think many other directors could of done a better job and happy he got to do part 2 so surely he didn't do that bad.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Decent but not solid
Mike LeMar9 September 2017
The only problem I have with this one is why Michael killed Danny Trejo's character. All of his victims make sense for the most part except him. As he pleaded with him, he was always the one who was good to him. He stuck up for him. So, I feel for Michael except for that decision.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Behind these eyes one finds only blackness, the absence of light...
Paul Magne Haakonsen17 August 2017
I do enjoy horror movies and slasher movies, but always found Michael Myers to be inferior to the likes of Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger respectively. Why? Well, Jason has a personality despite being a silent killer, and Freddy is just cruel and toys with his prey, while Michael is just a nondescript killer wearing a mask.

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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Not bad but not great this is Mediocre Horror Movie !
Halloween (2007) This is a horrendous thriller horror film from the united states and is a 1978 horror remake movie titled the same, the film was directed by Rob Zombie and first aired on August 31, 2007.

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+!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
OK take on a classic
loganstarkiller-3762823 July 2017
Rob Zombie's Halloween isn't a complete piece of crap, but it wasn't a masterpiece. I know Laurie is the main character in this movie, but I feel like Michael is the main character because we like spent the first 30 minutes of this film with Michael. I do like how Zombie gives Micheal character in this movie, but it was a bit scarier giving Michael no motivation because it made him feel like a killer with no reason but to kill. And Laurie kind of comes off as an a@#hole in this movie. Although later on it does get better near the final act. Malcolm McDowell does give a solid performance and Danielle Harris is decent. On a positive for Laurie, she is funny in one part. The story is OK. OK film, but Rob Zombie should fix his mistakes if he makes another reboot. C+
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine1 July 2017
Well it has Malcolm McDowell, and he delivers in the master of accents kind of way.

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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Polarizing re-imagination of a horror classic
mjsmjs-4636220 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start by stating whats already been said in numerous reviews of this film....both positive and negative....It's a Rob Zombie film, and you have to know that going into it. This isn't a film for those with weak stomachs. If you aren't familiar with Zombie or his works, both musical and in film, take a little time to research him before watching it so you have a better idea of what you're getting yourself into when you press the "play" button on Rob Zombie's homage to John Carpenter's horror landmark.

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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Disappointing remake
P 3339 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Rob Zombie attempts his own version of the horror classic Halloween by John Carpenter. Now I know it is sort of the point that he doesn't make the same film again and that it is only loosely based on it. It's still bad though.

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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews