Six years after Michael Myers last terrorized Haddonfield, he returns there in pursuit of his niece, Jamie Lloyd, who has escaped with her newborn child, for which Michael and a mysterious cult have sinister plans.
Three years after he last terrorized his sister, Michael Myers confronts her again, before traveling to Haddonfield to deal with the cast and crew of a reality show which is being broadcast from his old home.
The residents of Haddonfield don't know it yet... but death is coming to their small sleepy town. Sixteen years ago, a ten year old boy called Michael Myers brutally kills his step father, his elder sister and her boyfriend. Sixteen years later, he escapes from the mental institution and makes his way back to his hometown intent on a murderous rampage pursued by Dr Sam Loomis who is Michael's doctor and the only one who knows Michael's true evil. Elsewhere a shy teenager by the name of Laurie Strode is babysitting on the night Michael comes home... is it pure coincidence that she and her friends are being stalked by him?Written by
Ultimately, this remake fails on all levels for me.
Here's a short-list of SPOILER-FREE points, items in this movie that just flat-out don't work whatsoever:
* Michael Meyer's background - I personally felt this didn't work. The overdone home-situation (by-the-book psycho-making circumstances, it seems), the constant cursing, the laughable song-choice in one scene - you'll know it when you hear it! Zombie tries to make Michael more "human" (although he's invincible later-on?), but ends-up painting a caricature of white-trash dysfunctionality that does little but inspire laughter.
* The language (cursing) - come on. Enough. Does every scene have to be crammed to the hilt with four-letter words? We get it, you like cussing! Well done! Try some original, realistic dialogue for a change.
* The dialogue (non-cursing) - do teenage girls really talk like that? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I know a fair number of ladies in their early-20's, and they don't all talk like prison-inmates. Did whoever wrote the dialogue actually check to see if kids TALK like that these-days? I'm pretty skeptical, personally. Most of the non-teen dialogue is pretty much dispersible and half-baked. No memorable lines in this movie. And one of the lines that was ported-over from Carpenter's original, "Was that the boogeyman?", got a HUGE LAUGH in the theatre I saw it in. Not a good sign when the audience is laughing at the dialogue.
* The violence - OK, I knew it would be more violent than Carpenter's original, but the truth is this is an UGLY MOVIE. I'm not saying that I wanted a pretty, inoffensive picture, but the ugliness (and duration) of the killings -- and there's A LOT of them -- just doesn't fit this movie for me. I swear Zombie was just trying to take-up extra screen-time by letting the actresses overact every single death-scene. And this is related to my next point
* The characters - why should I care if Michael kills them? We NEVER get to know a single one. There's barely a moment of character-development before the knife flashes. So we don't get to know the characters, therefore the killings don't resonate whatsoever with the audience, yet those killings drag on and on and on. It's pointless. In the original, we got to KNOW Laurie, we spent some time with her, and we related to her (feelings of not belonging, inadequacy, etc etc). In Zombie's Halloween, she's just a girl who runs and screams. Actually, they all are. They're notable only for the nudity. I have porn. I don't need this movie. Pointless.
* The plot-holes - too many to list. A few include: Knowing how to drive? Knowing where Laurie is babysitting? Knowing where Laurie's parents live? Finding the right sized jumpsuit for a seven-foot-tall man? Being invincible (since the supernatural element is removed from Zombie's version)? And for the love of all that's scary, WHAT YEAR DOES THIS MOVIE EVEN TAKE-PLACE IN? Cell-phones share screen-time with 70's haircuts and 80's Koss-style headphones (in a scene outside of Laurie's school)....? The movie is riddled with errors and head-slapping "WTF?!" moments.
* The music - it's nice that he incorporated a lot of Carpenter's music cues into this, but it's done pretty sloppily (esp. the opening theme). Moreover, the rest of the soundtrack is dismal. They mix in 70's songs with a bland, crappy "score" that fills EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN SPACE in the movie. When will modern horror directors learn to use SILENCE as a tension-builder? There are scenes in this movie that COULD have been effective, but instead of letting the audience slowly realize what's happening, the "score" pushes this generic "BRAAAHHHHGGG!" sound into our faces, as if we can't figure it out for ourselves. For f*ckssake, let the audience WORK for their terror. Don't just slap us in the face and think we'll enjoy it.
* The look - this is an ugly, ugly film. Where Carpenter's original was clean, crisp and - at times - quite colourful, this remake seems to have been shot through a steel-wool pad. It's ugly. The colours (what few there are) are muted. The compositions are, well, barely noticeable. And - as is the norm these days - it seems Zombie couldn't afford a tripod. It's shaky-cam aplenty here. At times, it's impossible to tell what is going-on, the camera is shaking so badly. There's NO STYLE (to match the lack of substance). I ripped on the Texas Chainsaw remake too, but at least there they seemed to possess a tripod. Rob, if you can't afford to rent a tripod, just lean the camera against a 2x4. Seriously. It works.
Overall - it's crap. It isn't scary, it isn't engaging, it isn't entertaining. It's a poor-man's version of a great film. It would never match the original (for me) anyways, but I was hoping to at least be entertained. I wasn't. I had my face pushed into a pile of ugliness that I didn't care about. Bravo, Rob Zombie. Now try making a real movie.
229 of 455 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this