User reviews

When Rob Zombie was offered the chance to remake Halloween, he went to John Carpenter to gain his blessing. Carpenter's response was, "Make it your own." Zombie has achieved something few filmmakers do in remaking a classic. He has taken the original version and added more meat to it.

Meyers's character development is very interesting. We first see him as a subdued boy who (allegedly) kills small animals to feel superior, then follow him as he progresses into a repressed, zombie-like murderer who kills everybody he comes across. When comparing the 1978 Meyers with the 2007 Meyers, the latter version is much more frightening (though, Tyler Mane deserves much credit for that). Carpenter's Meyers is a robot; Zombie's Meyers is a monster.

Zombie's ensemble of supporting actors is one of the film's strongest aspects. Most of the Devil's Rejects cast returns, all portraying much different characters. Danny Trejo and William Forsythe give particularly memorable performances.

In light of today's Hostel/Saw horror violence, Halloween is rather tame. While it certainly surpasses Carpenter's version in both content and intensity, Zombie practices some restraint in how much violence is shown, leaving much of the horror to sound effects and imagination.

I honestly don't understand why people are so hard on this movie. The ending drags on for a bit, but otherwise it's a pretty solid film. Remakes have become regular ventures. You can either resist them and be unhappy with half of the movies released, or welcome them and hope for a good ride every now and then. Halloween is a great popcorn flick! Just sit back and enjoy yourself.

One of the only reasons this movie is hated so much is because Rob Zombie chose to remake it. Everybody said, "the movie should have never been remade, it was fine the way it was." I agree. But he was not just remaking it, Rob Zombie also made a back story for about a good 40 minutes and explained more about how Michael went wrong. And Rob Zombie said he did not want this to be like John Carpenters HALLOWEEN. He wanted it to be his own vision of this movie as if Carpenters never existed. Now some things I liked about this movie was, First of all, the death scenes were great. 2nd, it actually portrayed how real teenagers act today. 3rd, this was a great plot and showed how Michaels Life was and how he became so evil. And third, for once in a lifetime, this Michael Myers actually scared me more than the Halloween movies usually do. This movie has some good acting and killing scenes, and a great unexpected ending. Overall, I give Rob Zombies HALLOWEEN, a 7/10, or a 3.5/5.

This movie is underrated

Yes its not an oscar movie bue i really like the character development of Michael.

I normally dont like horror movies, i think most of them are pretty cringe.

But this one is worth a watch.

This movies takes a different approach to what makes Michael Myers terrifying. In the past his inhuman mas murders were shocking because of the absolute lack of emotion and more machine like manner in which things occur. Zombie offers audiences a background on myers. Where before the terror came in the lack of explanation, Zombie creates terror by showing how empty and how reasonless he was at 10 years old.

An interesting note about the movie is after Michael at 10 you never see his face. This part may not be different from standard Halloween movies, but unlike those, in this film you have already seen Michael's face as a boy. This then leaves the audience placing the boys face beneath the mask of the 30 year old monster making the idea of these overly brutal killings more difficult to chalk up to another death in a slasher flick. The movie gives less focus to Lori Strode and much more focus on Michael and his progressions from 10 to 30.

Zombie makes the smart call of not completely taking his own new plot line, but also not creating an exact carbon copy, leaving in specific scenes and details but still skipping over some of the more memorable ones. No, it is not John Carpenter's movie remastered, but then if you want that just run it through some filters to make his movie look new. Instead, this movie feels like a Zombie movie but in all the right ways. Best Halloween in a very long time.

Until now, all we know about Michael Myers was his strange and powerful will of killing. But in this one, we witness the born of his rage, disappointments, the reason of his unlimited hate on people and the sense of being wild. So far, I was thinking that he will not stop until his last family member is finished. But when you watch it, you will find the "real" answer of his purpose. The story is different than the original and I think you will like, even you will ask yourself if Michael is totally guilty or not. I mean, I believe that you will start to think he is not a callous killing machine. Recommend you to watch it in a late time of the day.

On paper, a "Halloween" remake looked interesting. Zombie tries to go back to the character's origin and reinvent him - it's a recent trend in Hollywood ("Batman Begins," "Casino Royale," the upcoming "Incredible Hulk," etc.), so it's not quite surprising that Hollywood greenlit the project and it got the push it received.

But the problem that arises while doing this with "Halloween" is that it comes into conflict with the concept of Michael being purely evil. Although I can understand what Zombie was trying to do by exploring Michael's background, it contradicts the whole point of the original. By providing a reason and displaying a human character on screen, you give the character a soul - and despite what Zombie may claim, this does NOT make Michael scarier. It makes him an average movie serial killer: a guy with a messed up life as a kid who snaps one day and goes on a killing rampage.

Is it scary? No. Gory? Yes. Realistic? At first. And if it were a movie about a serial killer, it would work. But it's not. This is a movie about a monster, a soulless creature; a boogeyman, as per the original film. Monsters aren't scary when we know they're flesh and blood.

Carpenter had a way of framing the action in the original movie. Michael stalks Laurie in her hometown, but we never see any real flesh behind the mask, we never really see him moving around like a normal human being. But we do here. He stands in the middle of an open road, in front of three teenage girls walking home from school, and they all see him. He stands there for a few moments, then trudges away off-screen. We actually see him walk away, instead of just appearing and disappearing as he did in the original film. Which method is scarier? The answer is clear.

Zombie spends 40 minutes or so building up Michael's character before he escapes from the ward. We see him killing animals as a child (and torturing them, too), a stupid subplot with his mom as a stripper and a typical school bully, and a promiscuous sister. The sexual talk is frank and disgusting - the mom's boyfriend (husband?) is talking about how cute her daughter's butt is, and at this point in the film we're not sure whether he might even be the father. It's just shock for shock value. Zombie has a tendency of this - blunt violence and blunt dialogue combined - and in a film like this, it seems cheap and fake and unnecessary. The heavy emphasis placed on the swearing - and I mean this literally (as in, the actors place a noticeable emphasis on the profanity they use) is almost unintentionally funny. Zombie cast his wife in the role of Michael's mother, and she can't act at all.

Donald Pleasence got stuck with the most unfortunate lines from the original film, but we were willing to forgive bad dialogue because of how well-made the film was otherwise. Here, Malcolm McDowell gets the worst of two worlds: he gets to handle an under-characterization with bad, bad, BAD dialogue AND a generally weak film to boot. The sequences with McDowell's version of Loomis are all completely clichéd - Zombie clearly writes his dialogue based on other films' dialogue. The "intimate" scenes at the mental ward between Loomis and Michael are awful. McDowell struggles with typicalities of the genre, such as the Dr. Who Wasted His Own Life By Devoting It To Someone Else's (he explains to Michael that his wife left him and he has no friends because of how involved he became with the case - and the dialogue itself is straight from any cop-vs.-killer flick). The recent film "Zodiac" had a similar theme of men losing their personal lives due to obsession over a murderer, but it was handled better. The whole Loomis character should have been dropped from the remake if all Zombie wanted to do with him was use him as a deus ex machina, by the way.

Overall, this feels like a redneck version of "Halloween," which is going to offend some people, but I can't think of any better way to describe it. It's trashy, vulgar, and silly - and hey, that's fine, if that's Rob Zombie's motif and he wants to make movies pandering towards that sort of audience. I have nothing against it, and I think it may work with some films - I can imagine him making a good re-do of "Natural Born Killers" (although I hope it never, never happens!).

However, when you're remaking an iconic, legendary, incredibly influential horror film - don't cheapen it by "reimagining" it with horror movie clichés and shock-value material. The very worst aspect of this remake is that it simply isn't scary at all - it's a typical slasher flick, a homicidal-man-on-a-rampage flick, which ironically is exactly what Zombie said he wanted to avoid.

The first film was eerie, spooky, and unnerving because Michael's motivations were cloudy and we weren't sure whether Laurie was right or wrong when she said he was the boogeyman. We only knew one thing: he wasn't entirely human.

But ever since that original movie, the filmmakers have attempted to keep expanding upon Michael's history: the second film developed a motivation for his killings (Laurie was his sister), the fourth offered more clues at his background, and now we come full circle with a complete remake of the original film.

Michael's true demonic core - the natural horror element of the series - is stripped bare and all that is left is a disturbed, abnormally tall redneck with greasy hair who hasn't showered in years wearing a silly mask going around killing people because he had an abusive family life as a child. Some things are better left unexplored.

One of my favourite horror remake is going to be 10 years old this year. That's crazy. I was in love with this film. I thought rob zombie done a great job reimagined a horror classic. The haters of the remake don't accept that zombie was doing putting a new spin on the 1978 John carpenter classic. Zombie said he didn't want to just do the same movie because it has already been done. The soundtrack was awesome for the remake. I liked we got more of Michael Myers backstory. I thought malcolm mcdowell done a good job as dr samuel loomis but he can't never replace Donald pleasence. He will always be loomis is my eyes and Halloween fans eyes also. I do admit zombie did fuck up the loomis character in the Sequel. It was the wrong approach of the character to just become a major dick. Remember a remake shouldn't outshine the original it's just another retelling of the story. All the casting was great. It was great to see one of my favourite scream queens Danielle Harris back in a Halloween movie. It was strange to see her playing the role of Annie because Harris was in her 30s and she was playing a 18 year old but she did pull it Of though because Harris is very young looking. I thought scout Taylor Compton done a great job as Laurie strode. She was very believable and u felt sorry for her. Sucks that Compton hasn't went on to bigger things because I think she's a good actress in my opinion. Plus she can do a great scream.

This is ok if you've not actually seen the original, but if you have? Turn around and find that version to watch.

Maybe do it in either case, really.

The new structure adds in more of Michael's back story, but that's to the detriment of tension. By the time we actually get to Laurie's story, I was ready to turn it off.

Not the actors' faults, although who could compete with the original cast? Not the music or videography--both sufficiently atmospheric.

Just a script that plods on a story that's already a classic.

In sum, this version? An average job.

I've previously been critical of Halloween follow ups, and some of Rob Zombie's films, but this one, I really enjoyed it.

The original is one of my favourite films, certainly my favourite horror film, it was a game changer, the iconic slasher movie. I had always shuddered at the thought of it being remade, but this, nowhere near the quality of the original, but it's a cracking movie, Rob Zombie dared to do the unthinkable.

I'd call it quite a respectful remake, they of course out a new spin on it, but they keep some scenes, they even keep some of the music, I suppose they knew full well that some things were worth keeping.

I loved the backstory of Michael, we see him go from troubled child to brutal killer.

What this film really is, is violent, it lacks any sort of suspense, there are no scares, or those moments when you see him appear from the shadows to give you jump scares, what you get is brutality, if you enjoy that, Zombie delivers.

It's pretty good, 8/10.

I'm not a big fan of the recent trend of remaking all the classic horror films of the '70s and '80s, but I decided to go see the new "Halloween" anyway, if for no other reason than I'd never seen any of the original films in a theater. (That, and I figured they couldn't do much worse than the god-awful "Halloween: Resurrection", the most recent entry before this remake.) IMHO the original "Halloween" is one of the greatest horror films ever, and certainly the best "slasher" movie (unless you count Hitchcock's "Psycho", but that's another topic.) I really expected to be let down, even though I haven't seen any of Rob Zombie's other movies.

For the first five minutes, I thought, "Great, they took this classic American slasher flick and turned it into a white trash festival." But once Michael started talking (which he never does in the original film) something clicked, and I was hooked. The new film takes the Michael Meyers "mythos" (if you will) and fleshes it out, giving the audience a frightening insight to the true horror that exists all around us before eviscerating us with the shocks and gore we really paid to see.

The movie loses some of its momentum when it jumps to the present day, when too often it reverts back to simply restaging some of the trend-setting scenes from its predecessor - Laurie staring out the window at school and seeing the weirdo in the coveralls and the white mask staring at her, only to vanish seconds later. But hold on, friends - just when you think you know what's coming, the new "Halloween" veers off on its own course, and from then on all bets are off.

One of the most significant updates to the "Halloween" legend is the development of Dr. Loomis, the Van Helsing to Meyers' Dracula. The original Loomis (played memorably by the late Donald Pleasance, who kept returning for sequel after sequel despite his age and - in later years - ill health) was little more than John Carpenter's answer to Captain Ahab. Each film saw him trying to convince another group of skeptical law enforcement officers of the imminent slaughter, never to be believed until the bodies started piling up. The new film's Loomis, however, is a more complex character; he's not the selfless hero the old Loomis was, but he's not quite a villain either, as long as one can forgive him for giving up on Michael to turn his experiences into a cottage industry of "true crime" books and public speaking engagements. When Loomis and Michael are reunited later on, there's more going on then can be seen in a first viewing.

Zombie's "Halloween" succeeds on all fronts. It brings modern touches to a format that had long since fallen into cliché without changing it so much that it becomes unrecognizable. It manages to restore the menace and dread of the iconic Michael Meyers character in an era when masked psychopaths usually prompt the audience to laugh rather than gasp. Most importantly, it delivers the goods horror fans demand but includes enough depth and subtext to make it more than just cinematic junk food.

In short, I was pleasantly surprised with this new version of "Halloween". Like Zach Snyder's redo of "Dawn of the Dead", the 2007 "Halloween" could never replace its predecessor, but does make for a very admirable companion piece to a horror classic, blending the old and the new into an entertaining and thought-provoking fright film.

Rewatching all the franchise, I can now compare this with all the other films and it is curious that this film works much better when it does something totally different, when it's not "so Halloween".

The first half of the film is fantastic. It's more like a thriller, a violent thriller. The second half starts well but it goes too far in the very ending (in fact, I'm not the biggest fan of films with multiple endings).

Either way, this is never a bad film. It's a totally different approach to the characters and story and I really like that (hate remakes shot by shot). It's much more violent, more brutal, more raw. It's less suspenseful, less atmospheric, less mysterious. Above all, it's different, but still good and much better than most of the sequels.

As positive notes, the "why Laurie?" works much better than in the original version, overall the acting is also way better, Loomis is as good as the first one (if something, even more credible here) and all that part at the hospital is fantastic. Negative...well, Laurie, unfortunately, is much less charismatic than the original one (the film is also much more about MM), the film sometimes feels too heavy and too long and and the score - still a masterpiece - is worse used, not creating the same level of suspense.

I'm an indie filmmaker, and Carpenter's "Halloween" is one of my pillars of the film-making faith. I was not at all happy when I heard there was going to be a remake.

Zombie's "House of 1,000 Corpses" was kind of decent, and I loved "The Devil's Rejects," so I was looking for a remake that butchered the original but was at least interesting to watch, which is more or less what I got.

In RZ fashion, it was intense at times, and beneath the un-needed profanity, blood, and nudity there was a captivating story, but there was ZERO SUSPENSE, and ABSOLUTELY NO REAL SCARES. As soon as the movie ended I told my friends, "This should've been called 'Michael Myers,' not 'Halloween.' Up until Halloween night of 1995 (or whenever the present was) it was an interesting and intense story, then it fell apart. Halloween night came way too fast, and there was not nearly enough time to get to know the girls (especially Laurie), and no real reason to care about them. I actually thought as I was watching it, "Wow, it's night already, how'd that happen?" Michael stalking Laurie while waiting for night to fall was sorely missed, and the lack of it took away the suspense that made the night terrifying... which is why this movie was not at all scary.

So, my $0.02, it should've been called "Michael Myers," not "Halloween." It was interesting until Lynda and Bob all of a sudden are at the Myer's house. Had there been more building to the end (Halloween night) it may have been more effective, but as it was it seemed unconnected and rushed, like RZ said, "I got this great back story on Michael Myers... oh, crap, I gotta remake the original film... here..." And, of course, it wasn't the least bit scary. It was intense, Judith's death was a little hard to watch, but there's a HUGE GAPING DIFFERENCE between something being scary due to suspense and something making you feel uncomfortable because it is intense, RZ didn't even come close to accomplishing the former.

Definitely not Carpenter's "Halloween," not a bad movie, not a scary movie, but overall an interesting movie... hopefully RZ drops some cut scenes to better tie the end into the rest of the film when it comes out on DVD.

I can't give it more than 5-stars because of how I feel about remakes, so on a remake scale of 1-5 I give it a 4, had the ending better fit into what came before it I would give it a 5... had it been remotely scary I'd break my own rule and add on another star.

Every story is worth telling, it's just how you tell it - Me. Have Fun!