Halloween (2007) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
1,091 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Not impressive and unrealistic on too many occasions.
xavier11715 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This comment is for people who have already seen the movie. The way Michael Myers is able to break through the chains and kill four prison guards, and not get hurt at all is insanely unrealistic. Also regarding that scene, they would've had that whole killing on a hidden camera, and more guards would go to Myers and attempt to stop him. That part was where I really became upset with the film. Other unrealistic parts of the movie were when Dr. Loomis shoots Myers I believe three times and hits what seems like around the heart every time and Myers still gets up no less than two minutes later and continues to kill people with ease. Also on a couple occasions when people would have a gun pointed at Myers and not shoot and give him time to destroy them, that made me think, "What the heck are they doing not shooting this maniac? They have a perfect shot every time yet they seem to freeze up." And when the girl stabs Myers in the neck, or maybe it was the back, but if it was the neck there is no way he is surviving that, yet he was able to just pull the knife out of his neck, and continue trying to kill the girl. There are other parts that were really just not impressive and it made me highly disappointed with the quality of the film. It seemed to me that Rob Zombie and others who wrote and had a hand in directing and writing and producing the movie just wanted to make it as bloody as possible and just focus on the shock value, but there is more to a horror movie than just making the people in the audience throw up in their seats after being overwhelmed by gallons of blood spray throughout the silver screen. I wouldn't recommend it, you can spend your money in a more wise way on a better horror movie.
44 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Poor Take on the Original Classic
cewasmuthiii22 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I went into the theater with very few expectations except for one: This new Halloween movie was going to have great atmosphere and chills. I was confident it would be one scary movie and I was really looking forward to it.

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I assumed wrongly that Rob Zombie understood what Halloween was about originally. Or, maybe, he didn't have complete creative control as claimed. Either way, what I saw was a decent horror movie but a very poor take on the original Halloween.
48 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
You're No Michael Myers
kirbylee70-117 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Rob Zombie has made a career of all things horror. From the musical group White Zombie to his own solo career, in comics with his monster fighting character El Superbeasto and into films. His first two forays, "House of 1000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects" tied into one another nicely with the second film being a sequel to the first. But with his third film, "Halloween", Zombie falls short of offering not only scares but signs of a developmental director.

Everyone already knows the tale of Michael Myers, the psychopath from Haddonfield, IL, who murdered his sister only to be committed to an institution he would later escape from with the intent of more killings back home years later. While that is the basis for Zombie's film, it is not a remake but more of a retelling, a reinvention of the same character.

Here we are offered young Michael and the household he grows up in that forms his life. Michael's mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) is a stripper, saddled with a new husband (William Forsythe) who is disabled and a ne'er do well more interested in yelling at the kids than in offering any sort of role model. Michael's sister is a trashy sleep with anyone teen who dresses provocatively and does little else. All of this is not lost on Michael who spends his time killing his pets and taking photos of them. What we are being offered is a textbook glimpse as to why a youngster becomes a serial killer. The nice middle class family shown in the original is tossed aside for this new group. And in this first portion of the film, the problems Zombie has are apparent.

Zombie has filled three films now with the same characters. Sure, they may have different names and different small time characteristics, but the fact remains that he focuses on the dysfunctional family and their housecleaning inabilities. Yes, it seems that all families in Zombie's world can't clean to save themselves. Not only that but they all have the same dingy look to their living quarters as well as references to pop culture. The house Michael grows up in could be a home that the Firefly family would feel comfortable in. It all looks the same and that detracts greatly from the viewing experience, unless of course you'd never seen another Rob Zombie film.

Comparisons to the original film are inevitable and this will most likely be the downfall of the film in the long run. Michael goes overboard with his murderous rampage as a child in this film unlike the original. Where no blood was seen in that film, it flows freely now. Perhaps this is due to the changing times, but it adds nothing to the scares of the film or the character. It does make him a more brutal killer, leaving him one without a touch of sympathy. But the mindless killer from the original is replaced by someone we feel absolutely nothing for now.

Once finished with the whole back story of young Michael, his family and the kindly Dr. Loomis (Michael McDowell) who takes care of him at the institution, we move forward 15 years to when Michael escapes and heads back home. The body count increases once more as he kills everyone he comes into contact with their, including a worker who had befriended him. Once out, the story becomes more familiar, almost a duplicate of the original shot from different angles, with different actors and focusing less on the character of Laurie Strode, the central character in John Carpenter's version.

Laurie and her friends are nothing more than meat to be slaughtered by Michael in this one. There is no development of character, no reason for us to think of them as more than teens in peril that we have seen in hundreds of other slasher flicks. While we cared about the original teens, this time around they seem less human and placed in our way for two reasons: to be killed by Michael and to offer more exposed flesh than the first.

By the film's end we are offered the traditional sliced and diced teens, gratuitous nudity and enough blood to make a special effects company weep for joy at the size of their bill. But we have gained nothing in the iconography that is Michael Myers. While we are given more background on him, we care less about him than we ever did.

Worst of all is the fact that Rob Zombie, a director that showed such great potential before, seems to be telling us after only three films that this is all he has to offer. Stories told from the same world, a world that blasts apart the whole "Father Knows Best" world we would all like it to be. In his world, there is no caring parent. And when they are caring, they are twisted in some revolting way.

I haven't given up on Zombie yet though. Having recently signed a two picture deal with the Weinstein's, perhaps he will show us he has more tricks up his sleeve than he let on. But if he returns to the carny soiled world he's offered in three films to date, then it looks as though he's a one note director. Let's hope he offers us more. It's in there somewhere.
46 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Destroying a Classic!
mikestaley7823 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I like a lot of viewers had high hopes going into this movie. Usually I am a Rob Zombie fan, as he has made some good horror flicks in the past. This however was not one of them. I agree with a lot of folks that the back story on Mikey's upbringing made him seem human and not as scary as the original. The original Michael never uttered a sound except the disturbing breathing sounds uttered from his mask. This character talked for probably the first 30 minutes and actually was kind of funny when he was talking to Dr. Loomis. He seemed like a dorky kid who one day started slaughtering every person he encountered except his mother and baby brother? sister? I thought it was a boy until the plot developed further. When he grows up he is ridiculously huge and looks like a member of Slipknot. From here the movie really begins to derail badly. Shamelessly ripping off lines from the first movie, quick sex and even quicker violence is only half the problem with this movie. My personal favorite was the Ben Trammer reference from the first movie that was thrown in there for obvious comic effect. Where Rob Zombie really failed in this movie was how Laurie Strode was portrayed. In the original Jamie Lee Curtis was a sweet, naive girl who was scared to talk to boys and had an innocence about her. This incarnation of Laurie Strode is your typical high school slut,and ultimately we don't care if she lives or dies. My least favorite part of the movie was the darkness of it and the insane fight scenes between Mikey and Laurie. For like the last 30 minutes they are fighting in what seems like pitch black. I understand what Zombie was trying to do, but it was annoying. Because of this, the viewer really did not know what the hell was going on. Laurie was in the walls, the ceilings, the fence and the whole time Mikey was jabbing his knife or stick into these attempting to kill her. It was hard to even see what was going on. Then the movie has a false ending and then really ends. Who cares at this point? What a shame. My high point of the movie was seeing the lovely Danielle Harris topless for about ten minutes. All in all this movie was a waste. Poor story, bad coloring in the film, although nice topless scene with Danielle Harris. Preceed at your own risk.
45 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Should be required viewing in film school for what doesn't work
Sam Williams15 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
If I had a cool fake last name and a semi-successful pseudo-metal band in the 90s, maybe I would be approached to direct a "retelling" of a horror classic to make a ton of money for the studio.

If I was, I would keep in mind all the elements that made Halloween '78 so popular and leave them exactly how they were, such as prolonged steady-cam shots to give the sense that of The Shape's point of view, a minimal but chilling soundtrack to add to the tension, a brave heroine who isn't a helpless idiot, and keeping the antagonist off screen for at least the first half of the movie to build the tension. This was the formula for all the "great" horror and suspense movies, such as Psycho, The Exorcist, Jaws, and the first Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and I would keep true to it in my Halloween remake.

The only things I would fix in my retelling would be little things that my larger budget would certainly allow. I would make the sets of Haddonfield, Illinois in October look less like Southern California in April. My actresses portraying teen-agers would not be in their late 20s or early 30s, and I would eliminate small holes in the plot like the opening scene of Michael's sister making out with her boyfriend upstairs for only 40 seconds before he leaves, and the sheriff responding to a break-in at the hardware store during normal business hours (usually, burglar alarms don't sound during shoplifting.) I would also pick a year that my remake was supposed to take place and stick to it. I wouldn't confuse the audience by having people with sort of retro fashions and hairstyles driving pristine cars from the 60s and 70s and kids on stingray bikes that haven't been seen in 25 years, but at the same time modern police cars and cell phones.

I understand Rob Zombie's temptation to answer questions that all of us have had about Michael Myers, such as why is he so intent on killing people and why does he insist on wearing a mask? The problem is, in answering the questions and telling about Michael's background, Michael becomes more human and therefore less scary. Even Zombie's choice of explanation is suspect. The audience expects a tormented kid from a crappy home to turn out disturbed, but a bad kid from a seemingly normal home seems a lot scarier, since it could happen to anyone. (Halloween '78 got this part right as well.) Not everything in this movie is completely inferior to the original, hence my rating of 4 stars. The sets look thousands times better than the original. The actresses seem more believable as teenagers than in the original, and we get to see a lot more of them. The new scene of Michael ripping up floorboards in his old house to get his mask and knife was pretty cool, too.

As for the rest of the movie, it is an interesting study in what truly comes across as suspenseful on a screen. Is a powerful, 6'8" antagonist scarier than one who appears and vanishes into the shadows? (probably not.) Does gratuitous gore and language actually distract from the suspense? (yes.) Does the inclusion of well known rock-songs for more than 5 seconds at a time really kill the mood? (absolutely, and it also interferes with the classic soundtrack. This was also a problem in Halloween 2.) Are dizzying, quick, MTV jump cuts scarrier than long, steady shots? (see for yourself and decide.) In a way, Rob Zombie had an impossible task of making a sequel (even if it was called remake or retelling) when everyone already knew about Michael and what was going to happen, thereby removing almost all of the suspense. However, that doesn't excuse leaving out the opening title sequence with a simple black background, pulsating theme music, and the off center, poorly-carved Jack O Lantern giving a sense of foreboding. I am almost certain there was a fantastic, eerie version of the classic 5/8 theme played on an out-of-tune honky tonk piano that was played in a trailer for Halloween '07. It would have worked perfectly for such an opening sequence, but sadly, it was omitted for the actual movie.

Don't expect a lot from this movie (like being scared or entertained) but if you watch it to study what truly works in horror movies and what doesn't, it is worthwhile viewing. When it comes to horror, less is more, since nothing is more powerful than the viewer's imagination.

Remember that, Rob.
45 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Horrible remake and wannabe-horror movie
dotmrt21 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In the beginning we have a lazy-ass foul mouth (step-?) father nagging on everyone in the family. William Forsythe is a fine actor, but I think he really overacts on that one. Perhaps we are supposed to be disgusted of the father, but then I don't feel that we should need to feel sympathy towards Michael. Also the breakout of the ward was stupid. Guards are caught their pants down like idiots. And the "blaming scene" afterward is ridiculous. There are couple of another laughable scenes, like the girl in the end trying to get through the metal wire bed (which she actually manages) instead of simply going out of the house as the bad guy is blocked anyway. The movie has some incredibly dull and horrible dialog. And even charismatic Malcolm McDowell cannot save the day. I think that horror has been done so much better in numerous other forms that this movie is simply a redundant "money collector". To conclude my opinion, I was surprised and disappointed that was so little Rob Zombie on the soundtrack.
44 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Pure evil turns into anti-hero
alucard61721 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, as a movie in general I though was less than average. As a remake, it was *beep* horrible. People will always say, "Oh this is a different movie, not the original, don't compare." It's a remake, how could you not *beep* compare First, I always had a problem with a back-story, Michael was pure evil without one. Michael was so evil because he had no reason to kill, he just did. He was pure evil in human form, there was no rhyme or reason for what he did. Okay, a back-story doesn't have to be terrible, but it answers nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

This movie was not scary in any shape or form and it ruined the image of Myers. No longer is he pure evil, but a misguided and sympathetic fool who just wants love. By the end of the movie, I had to watch the original to chafe the bad taste in my stomach from this one.
49 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Did he even watch the REAL Halloween?
fatfredyfreak15 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Why must Hollywood continue to churn out these worthless remakes? I'll be honest and say I wanted to like this movie, but I went in with low expectations. But, really, has Rob Zombie ever actually seen Halloween? Michael Myers was a normal 6 year old boy from a normal family who, suddenly, for no reason at all, put on a halloween mask, grabbed a knife, and murdered his sister. Zombie's Michael is supposed to be 11, his mother is a stripper, his dad is AWOL, and everybody, EVERYBODY, cusses worse than a sailor. As a fan of Mr Zombies music, these plot elements don't seem very new or fresh. After 10 minutes or so, I knew this was going to be just like his first 2 movies, bloody, violent, and boring. The only thing he didn't ruin was the music, and I was surprised he didn't find some way slip a hooker and a f-bomb in there. And then there was the cast. The girl paying Lourie was too short,too young, and lets be honest, too annoying. By the end, I just wanted her to shut up and go away. When I heard who was playing Dr Loomis, I was relieved. But he totally phoned it in on this one. All in all, this is Mr Zombies worst effort yet.
48 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
My Review...Don't spend your money!
coco20006623 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
God Awful...don't bother! The original Halloween is such a classic and in my mind no need to be remade, however if your going to remake it, please make it a good one! I personally think Rob Zombie sucks when it comes to movies, not because there isn't gore and horror but just because he sucks at making the characters and story line believable.

In this remake, you don't know if your looking at scenes from the 70's, 80's or what, yet the guy who plays Donald Pleasant's character is carrying a very modern cell phone! Malcolm McDowell is a good actor and I am surprised that he went for this part, it was very weak and I feel sorry for him that he has had to add this to movies he has been involved with! On a side note, his character seem so self absorbed in the movie that honestly I am not surprised poor Michael Myers stopped talking, he was probably hoping the good doc would shut the hell up or eventually go away lol! I could see that maybe Rob Zombie was going for the more "real" Michael Myers, a screwed up kid and why he was that way. If left at that and nothing to do with Halloween, he could have had something really good IMHO, however the constant back and forth of making Michael Myers "real" as opposed to a remake of the old movie was just annoying and God awful! My advise, AVOID THIS MOVIE WITH A TEN FOOT BARGE POLE, as we say back in the old country lol! Or if you have to absolutely see this tragedy of a bastardization of a cult classic, don't even rent it, borrow it from some other poor sap that paid the rental fee!
47 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
diglers6913 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Well... where should I start?

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

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

So, it ain't a horror movie and it' ain't a drama! You can't even call it a thriller! Just a week film, Zombie made, 'cause we all know he loves horror classics (just as much as we all do)! House Of 1000 Corpses was really great (allthough it's much of TCM concept used in it), still it's amazingly fresh and creepy! Halloween was not! Sorry, Rob~ 3 out of 10!
50 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Rob Zombie Strikes Again!
eched24 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A few things should be noted before you read this review. I'm not a fan of Zombie as a director. All of his films have been sub par for me, and the only reason I saw this was because I'm having a bit of a gore fest and I heard that this version of Halloween did in fact have some blood in it.

I'm also not a big fan of the original. I thought the pace was a bit slow, BUT none the less the original Halloween was a film with a smart concept. IE. to show what evil would be like if it was simply a force of nature.

It was a unique interpretation of what evil could be like. This was not some killer with a motive to his crimes. This was not something that could be explained or reasoned with, it was just evil, and that was it.

It was such a simple, yet interesting idea. So many films try to explain away inhuman acts, and Halloween just said screw it and didn't explain a thing. For that alone I understand why it is held so highly, even if I couldn't get into it.

Anyways, If you have seen Halloween the original, then you've seen this. This isn't a recreation of Halloween. All this is, is a two bit back story stapled onto the Halloween we already have. Myers is given a back story, which obviously isn't needed because why doe Myers even need a motive? Once the back story is done(I admit it is a long back story, but only cause it's dragged out) the original Halloween starts. Entire scenes are shamefully recreated. Lines from the original are used instead of new dialog. Really, the only 'new' things this film brings to the table is blood(which isn't needed, despite my gore fest), nudity, the two note back story, and a rape scene, which fits in with Halloween about as well as a flying pig in Friday the 13th.

Other then that, every scene from the original is simply reused, and poorly.

The scenes that Rob does add come off as jokes. There is an actual scene, not kidding, that plays Love Hurts to make us feel sorry for Myers. There Myers is, crying his eyes out, and about to kill his whole family, and the song Love Hurts is blaring over the film. I have never seen such a cheap scam to get a tear from the viewer.

The list goes on and on for flaws in this film, but I'll just stop it there. Happy Halloween, oh, I mean Christmas. Man, even the release date was screwed up.
48 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Rob Zombie - You ruined my childhood, you selfish little man.
worldriot7 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
And so it goes that Rob Zombie, great horror mastermind and irrelevant metal vocalist, takes on one of my personal favorites in the Hollywood horror genre and promptly reduces it to the value of a single piece of dog feces.

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

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

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

In closing, if you want to see a classic horror film, see the original Halloween. If you want to see a classic horror film get completely raped and pillaged, see Rob Zombies Halloween.
52 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Not Worthy of the Title
atlanticcanuck6 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I went in with an open mind. After all, it is not easy to remake a classic. Especially when the original Halloween was perfect. Nonetheless, this movie is a major disappointment. It starts off well enough, and I did enough the background of Michael. However, when it gets to present day, the story line skips through sections and you get the feeling of bad editing. Plus, all the jumping around leads to no character development and a group of teenagers we could care less about. To put in plainly, there is no suspense in this movie. Even though Zombie adds his own touch and scenarios to the story line, he never gives the audience a feeling of dread. Unlike the original, there are no moments of, "run'" "look out behind you" and all the edge of your seat stuff. It's just cut to scene, kids are killed, cut to next scene.

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

At times this movie feels like a remake, at times a sequel, and at times a re-envisioning. Never does it feel like a good movie. definitely not worthy of the title.
51 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
SOOO Disappointing
fryet20 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start by saying that the original "Halloween" is by far my favorite horror flick ever. I have the original movie poster from 1978 framed and hanging in my basement. I'll also admit, I have the Michael Myers doll that plays the music. Huge fan. So, when I heard RZ was remaking this, I was a little peeved. Then I started to see some of the previews, and actually became excited about it. So, I DID go in with an open mind. The best way to sum this up, is that RZ COMPLETELY missed the point of what made Michael so scary in the first place. The fact that there WAS no reason, no conscience, no sense of ANYTHING. He was, and I quote, "purely and simply evil." He IS, in essence, the "boogyman". Trying to shove down my throat the fact that he became like that because his family was white trash is NOT scary. If I wanted to watch Jerry Springer, I would have stayed home. RZ if you read this, you need to realize that gore does not mean scary. It was not necessary in the 1978 original, yet that remains some 30 YEARS LATER the GREATEST horror movie of all time. What does that tell you????
53 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An Abomination to horror films, or any film for that matter.
matt_frisby31 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The first half an hour is almost unwatchable. Two people in the theater left and never came back. I have never felt the urge to leave a theater mid-movie but for some reason (my $5.00 or perhaps sheer boredom)I decided to stick it out.

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

Do not throw your money away nor fool yourself into thinking this may be just another bad remake. Instead, rent a 'real' horror movie like "May", "Feast", or "The Host" -Matt (A huge horror fan) P.S. I would rather watch a poorly produced marathon of "Freddy's Nightmare's on the Chiller network than have to undergo another viewing of this film. Blah!
55 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An abomination
Dan Grant10 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I think Rob Zombie is a talented film maker. I thought his first two efforts were perfect homages to the genre he professes to love. He subtly tipped his cap to the pinnacles of the genre and yet still managed to show us his own style. When I heard he was taking on Halloween, it made me nervous. Halloween is the best of the bunch. With all due respect to Psycho, which Halloween tried to emulate, Halloween is just so much better than any other horror film ever produced. I realize this is not an empirical statement, but the quality of Halloween and the influence it has over a plethora of horror films is. There is simply no getting around it, Halloween is the best of the best. I say this because for Zombie to want to remake the pinnacle of horror takes a lot of balls and it had better of been a faithful retelling of the story or it won't work.

This film sadly doesn't work. In fact, it stinks.

Rob Zombie either has no understanding at all of the Michael Myers character, or he just doesn't care. Perhaps he needed a hit after his first two films were well received by the critics, surprisingly, but did little business at the box office. Or perhaps he thought all of today's jilted youth would flock to it and somehow relate to the Myers character.

Let's revisit the original 1978 Halloween. The film presents us with a child who, for no apparent reason at all, stabs his sister to death. As Dr. Loomis tells us, there is no rhyme, no reason and no understanding behind his eyes. He seems like he is a normal kid with a nuclear family who just takes a large knife and slaughters his sister on Halloween night. It is simply evil that motivates him. This idea that an incarnation of evil could just snap is what made the film so FRIGHTENING. He spends the next fifteen years in an institution just waiting. He doesn't speak or move or show an intelligent signs of life or even a modicum or human understanding. He just waits for Halloween night and then guided by evil, he escapes.

IT, Michael Myers escapes Smith's Grove and heads to Haddonfield and goes after his only remaining family member. Why? Who knows. It is never really explained. But we are left with is pure and unadulterated evil, on a mission of death.

Dr. Sam Loomis was the only person who knew this. No one else believed him or took heed to his warnings. They just left Loomis and his pet patient alone. Loomis' world has become one that is spent making sure that Myers never leaves Smith's Grove. It drives him almost to the brink of insanity. He wants to make sure that Myers is never let out of the institute.

These themes are tantamount to what made Halloween such a brilliant piece of film making. I don't think another movie will ever capture the feeling of evil and doubt and fear quite like Halloween.

When you look at Zombie's white trash version, the first five minutes of the film are like a slap in the face and it makes you cringe.

Zombie literally slaps you in the face and decides to give us a reason as to why Myers is the way he is. And what do you think that is? He is from a white trash, trailer park family. The evil and disgusting step-father, the stripper mother and the whorish sister. The family speak like drunken sailors and go on about things that just don't resonate. And then of course you get Myers being bullied at school. So we have the personification of evil being evil because his step father is a jerk and kids beat him up. Are you kidding me?

So basically Michael Myers goes from a character that represents complete evil and lack of humanity, to a tortured nutcase that snaps. When in the original, he was just E-VIL.

What is also terrible in the film is the writing and the dialogue of every character. Where Carpenter and Debra Hill shared the writing duties in the original, Zombie does it all here and his juvenile rantings of the female characters in here is just wrong and even his kindergarten like interpretation of Loomis is terrible. Malcolm McDowell is fine as the good doctor, but Zombie betrays him with psyche 101 babblings of what he thinks Loomis would say.

What makes it that much more frustrating is that Zombie says he loves films like Halloween and Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And instead of emulating what made those so effective, he dumped all over the Halloween legacy. This might have been a decent horror film, but it is not a Halloween film. He doesn't understand Halloween, Myers, Loomis or any of Carpenter's brilliance. He hacks away at it for the Facebook generation and it is a nauseating experience.

This movie resembles more of a rock video than it does an iconic horror film. And that is sad. Even worse is kids who haven't seen the original might actually like this repulsive version.

This is the worst horror remake ever, and that includes Psycho.

60 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
It just didn't get it..
The_Gemini_Killer3 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard nothing but positive reviews from friends and family when I decided to check Zombie's version of Halloween out for myself. So you could say I was looking forward a nonstop thrill-ride of some sort. To say it simply, I couldn't count the numerous times I yawned through-out this terrible movie. Rob Zombie had made it clear to his audience, to see this for a movie itself, don't try to compare it to the original. But what you don't understand is that when you're remaking the classic best horror movie of all time, it is impossible to just forget the original completely, especially when several scenes came STRAIGHT from the original.

If anything, I'd call this a remake of The Blair Witch Project with better cameras, since half of the movie was done in the dark and with hand-held cameras, which made it impossible to really see anything and just create some massive migraines for the entire audience. It was hard to watch and what you did see, you wish you hadn't. Zombie said he approached this film from a serious angle, but all I heard in the crowd was laughter.It was either too fast, or too slow, or just down right annoying to watch.

Something else that bugged me about this film was the people who said "Finally! We get to see what made Michael the way he is!" And no, you don't. You get to see Rob Zombie's version of what his own impression of why Michael does what it is he does. In which, it completely treads on the original, of an average built guy being able to do things that only someone much stronger would be capable of doing. Zombie's solution to this problem was to hire a giant actor who COULD break someone's face with his bare hands, rather than just someone full of such evil and having the power to take a bullet and still get up.

It was more of a 'craptastic' prequel if anything at all, showing Michael's youth of being a redneck in a family of lazy and greasy people. The way Zombie set it up, apparently, is that Michael was full of such rage due to the fact that his mother was a prostitute ... Yeah. Something Rob Zombie has failed to do three times in a row now, was to make you sympathetic for the victims. Just doesn't show them long enough to make you miss them when they're gone. Most of the movie was done with little Myers in the hospital, so the last thirty or so minutes of him randomly killing people goes by so fast that you don't really care. He tries to cover this up by playing sad music like "Love hurts" when someone special is killed, but all it did was get more laughter for a reaction.

The major character changes were all that but flawless, Don't get me wrong, the actors did their jobs well, it's just they were given the jobs that they never should have done. To show so little of key characters like Dr. Loomis and then to rid him away so quickly.. The entire cast, good actors I can say, just were all terribly wrong for their parts. Danielle Harris is the perfect example, reduced to play a teenage slut after her major involvement in the prior Halloween series? When you make a slasher flick, the object is to cast people you want to survive, not a cast of faces and whiny little voices that you wish would be killed off sooner. It just didn't get it. The film was nothing short of disappointing, which is as was expected as soon as I heard that Zombie had been set to direct. I honestly do think that if someone were to ever ask "Would you do a prequel to House 1000 and show where Otis came from exactly?" Zombie would reply with "Halloween."

In the end, this movie was just like every other recent remake of something classic that shouldn't exist but does, and now we just have to deal with it. . In my opinion, which is all I can offer, is that this is the best example of what a true insult to the horror genre could ever be. I always said that one day a remake would pop up that might open up peoples eyes as to the real damage remakes are doing to horror, and now I just have to point at this. Honestly, Halloween was just not the film Rob Zombie should have remade, and the movie itself stands as if saying "This is what you get for not letting me remake 'Texas Chainsaw Masscre' instead!"

Simply and yet sadly said, it was for todays generation where true horror no longer exists. That's all. :(
59 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
I want my money back Mr. Zombie
oh0801001 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
WTF WAS THAT!!! One Question Zombie did you watch the original, because you got it all wrong. You're not as famous and the original Halloween, so to take it and screw it like you did totally suck. You have just destroyed a classic. Anyone who gave this movie more that one full star is not a real Horror fans. Zombie's Michael Myers is a Fag, white trash boy looking for some attention. John Carpenter's Michael Myers lived in the suburbs; parents loved him, but he was taken over by evil "pure evil" the devil, he killed because of the rage in him.

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

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

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

Don't waste your time going to see this movie, because $4.25 is way to much. Go have a value meal; you'll be a lot more satisfied.
59 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
It felt like watching two movies... and they both sucked!
marcus_stokes20004 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers

On HalloweeN night, 1978, 10-year-old Michael Myers (Daeg Ferch) kills his abusive stepfather (William Forsythe), a bully who taunted him, his sister Judith (Hanna Hall) and her boyfriend.

Only survivors are his stripper mom Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie) and infant sister, 'Boo', who weren't in the ONLY TRASH HOUSE IN A LILY WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD.

He ends up at Smith's Grove Asylum and begins to meet with Dr. Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), who seems to have been turned into some kind of Gale Weathers ripoff, who was also his school psychiatrist, various times, so much that Loomis feels they are best friends (EW).

15 years later (or more? There are so many anachronisms), a magically ginormous Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) escapes from Smith's Grove, and kills, kills, kills... oh, did I forget that he also kills? Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) (three guesses on who she is and no, the first two do not count), Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Lynda Van Der Klok (Kristina Klebe), are making plans for HalloweeN night, but they are all invited to a KILLER party...

OK, first thing on, people who say that this is better than the original are complete and utter MORONS. Each and everyone of them. I'm THROUGH with being understanding and forgiving! Secondly, Rob Zombie is a cheater and a hack! The first part of his movie looks like parts of 'Devil's Reject' and 'House Of 1000 Corpses' I saw on Youtube, and it is utterly ridiculous.

It seemed Rob Zombie had mistaken 'HalloweeN' with 'Carrie', what with his trying to make us feel compassionate for Michael... hey, Rob, the two movies have both PJ Soles in it, but the resemblance STOPS THERE. OK? The second part is even worse; Michael without any reason kills Laurie's parents, without any reason kills Paul, without any single reason doesn't kill Annie... you guessed it.

If he wanted Laurie, why would he kill all the others (including Lynda and Bob)? Why did he kill Paul? If his objective was to be rid of anyone else in Laurie's life, he should've killed ANNIE. SHE IS LAURIE'S BEST FRIEND. PAUL ISN'T LAURIE'S BOYFRIEND, ROB ZOMBIE! YOU MORON! I have been really offended by Rob Zombie's idea to bring Paul in only to have him killed in place of Annie, and by his idea of bringing Laurie's parents in only to kill them is even more unforgivable.

Laurie, Annie and Lynda were so annoying I didn't care about them, Paul was a little better than them, so I really got offended when he died stupidly like that, I hated Loomis' death, I detested the ending, I really abhor the new 'human' Michael Myers, and am aghast at how the IMBECILE American audience gobbled up this putrid (even the way it's filmed looks dirty) prequel/remake/reinvention/whatever!

I hope that Dimension stays true to its word and NO SEQUELS TO THIS ABOMINATION.

The fact of it existing is already a Hostel-like torture to anyone who has good taste.

HalloweeN (2007): 1/10. (I hope I could give it even LESS).
61 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Rob Zombie, I am a forgiving person, but this is going to take a very long time
Kristine1 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK, now my problem with Halloween(2007) is this is a film that DID NOT need to be remade. Halloween('70's) was absolutely perfect in every aspect, in my opinion, it's the scariest movie of all time. But when I heard that Rob Zombie was on to direct this movie, I actually thought for a minute there was a possibility this may be a good remake. I saw it this morning at the theater, I am in absolute disgust. Just it's not like he just re-made the movie into his own idea, no, he took some of John Carpenter's excellent ideas and just made them into crap. Now I'm separating this from the original, Halloween(2007) was actually by itself a bad film. Which really disappointed me since The Devil's Rejects was done so well, this was just a typical stupid unoriginal slasher movie. Now, Rob had a good idea where he developed Michael's character in the beginning, where we had a better idea on why he became Michael Myers. But after that, everything went downhill, because Rob just rushed all the other IMPORTANT characters, so they got no development what-so-ever.

Mike Myers is a tormented kid, his mom is a stripper, his step dad is an alcoholic jerk, his big sister treats him bad, and he is picked on at school. But he kills small animals as well, leading him to go onto bigger things, like humans. He massacres his family, excluding his mom and his baby sister, he is taken to a mental institution and escapes 15 years later and is going after Laurie, his baby sister who is now grown up and is preparing her and her friends for a night of hell.

The acting on the teenage girl's parts was just horrendous, like extremely bad, I was actually hoping for them to get killed, how sad was that? Laurie was just a whiny little priss, not at all likable like Jamie's performance, same with the other two girls, they couldn't live up to the other performances. These girls were just annoying, not likable at all, while the other actresses at least had that going for them and made them likable vicitims. But it just seemed like they wanted their 15 minutes or some kind of big break, because it didn't even take them 10 minutes to take their tops off. On a movie on it's own, it's just too unoriginal and I'm disappointed in Rob because I thought he was really improving. Comparison to the original Halloween, perhaps Rob should have read the tag line THE ONE, THE ONLY, HALLOWEEN, because this was a huge slap to John Carpenter's face on his brilliant classic.

250 out of 361 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
A pointless, pitiful, pathetic excuse of a move!
flumpman-14 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was always sceptical about this movie being a huge fan of the JC original which has remained my number 2 favourite movie of all time for the past 15 years or so - and boy was I right to be! Rob Zombie, who I personally feel has directed two great horror movies with 1000 corpses and Devils Rejects, has completely and utterly ruined a classic movie! Yes I know he was never "remaking" the original and he was always planning on "re-telling" the story from a different perspective - but seriously Mr Zombie, why bother? All you have done is taken great characters and a great story and just made it into a useless, pointless piece of twaddle which should be locked away in movie hell forever! I think spending 55 minutes of movie time building up a character we already know was just stupid, I think making the likable main girl from the original into a foul mouthed, sex obsessed plank was just a waste of time and I think all of the random killings were just plain unnecessary! I award you 1 star Mr Zombie for this terrible movie and that is just because I liked that bit at the beginning where you froze young Michael Myers running away from school and played the classic Halloween theme tune - if you hadn't put that bit in you would get 0 stars! Rubbish!
57 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Stick to grind-house horror, Rob—you're better at it!
BA_Harrison10 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
With its precise direction, slick cinematography, talented and likable cast, and excellent use of a particularly menacing score, John Carpenter's Halloween was a highly polished exercise in perfection. In contrast, Rob Zombie's 'reimagining' of the Michael Myers mythos is an ill-considered mess, delivering the director's grungy 'white trash' aesthetic, an incongruous soundtrack of rock classics, lots of gore and nudity, a raft of characters one couldn't give a damn about, and very little in the way of originality.

And perhaps, worst of all, Michael—the personification of evil in the original movie—is given a back story that robs the character of his status as 'the bogeyman'. He is now, like so many other movie killers, simply the product of a poor upbringing (his sister is a slut, his step-dad is a foul-mouthed drunk, and mum is a stripper). As a lank-haired ten-year old, poor little Michael is bullied, both at school and at home; one day he snaps, butchers his tormentors, and ends up incarcerated in a mental institute where he falls under the care of Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell). There he remains until adulthood, too dangerous to ever be released.

Not only is all of this twaddle completely unnecessary, but it is far too long in the telling, and, by the time Zombie has finished trying to make us feel sympathetic towards his psycho, a good 40 minutes or so has passed. It seems like much longer.

Anyway, Michael eventually manages to escape (thanks to a particularly dumb guard who is, for some reason, unafraid of 7ft tall mass murderers that are built like a brick outhouse), and legs it to his home town of Haddonfield to look for his baby sister Laurie—the only remaining member of his family.

From this point on the film gets even worse, as Zombie introduces his audience to the now grown-up Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton)—a thoroughly annoying and obnoxious teen with an even more unlikeable circle of friends—and proceeds to (loosely) follow the original's plot, stealing chunks of dialogue verbatim, whilst adding his own (mostly crap) touches and choosing to omit some of Carpenter's finer moments (the excellent closet attack scene is missing, for example).

After much screaming and bloodletting, but practically no atmosphere or scares, sole survivor Laurie is rescued by Loomis, who unloads his revolver into Michael. The End. Thank goodness.

Halloween '07 is pretty much a failure on all levels: it's ugly to look at, boring to watch, and insulting to horror fans. What this film does do successfully, however, is drive home the fact that some classics should never be remade. Especially by Rob Zombie.
49 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
a horrifying blow to a once terrifying story
SHLaw2 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When I first heard that Rob Zombie was remaking the original Halloween I was more surprised then anything. I didn't know too much about Rob Zombie, but I did think that remaking the film wasn't the best choice. my thought was that if they did want to remake it then first they should do a FINAL Halloween sequel to finish off the Halloween series and finally give it an end, then film a remake for October 2008 (the 30th anniversary) but instead we get a rushed written script, rushed filming and production and a back story to a once terrifying character that proved to be overdone and drawn out. I could not believe how poor the dialog was, it was if the director believed that use of poor language was necessary in making a successful movie. the movie opens in a such a way that anyone who has seen the original will say that it does not fit the story. Michael's family is just pure white trash, what's the point of that. all the death scenes contained way too much gore, and every girl that was killed, had to be done while having sex and nude. a lot of the characters that we're killed, had no point to be killed. the second half of the film was completely rushed we didn't get to see much of the other characters. Scout-Taylor Compton is a gifted actress, but the script gave her no acceptable lines or enough screen time. the placement of carpenter's music does not fit at all. being the fan of Halloween that i am, i could not wait for the movie to be over. if a sequel is made to this movie i only hope that rob zombie is not asked to write or direct it. this movie makes Halloween resurrection look like a masterpiece, that should explain it all.
96 out of 134 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Utter Disappointment
DarkWolfman8 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time.It was worse then the House of Wax re-make and that was utter crap.It's bad enough that Zombies last two movies were pieces of trash.Too much cussing for one,then the plot was weaker then the original.Michaels mother being a stripper was stupid,should not have been in the film.Then with her killing herself later,moronic plot line,Michael talking was the worst part of it all.No part of the movie was worth talking about,not even the cameos of all the has been horror movie actors.If I could give this movie less then a 1 I would.The acting was immature and funnier then scary,like it was supposed to be.Its bad enough that Hollywood has lost it with all the re-makes of sorry horror movies,but when they start with actually GOOD horror and make this kind of crap.The movie studios should fire their creative teams and hire fresh blood.Even with all the blood and gore in this lousy film,I almost walked out a few times,first time in my history of loving movies.
64 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
Extremely disappointing
mastrim2 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers

I usually keep my opinions to myself about movies, but I really really feel the need to vent with this, and I feel better that I'm not alone on many of the things I felt were wrong with Zombie's so-called "re-imagining."

Firstly, they made Michael Myers too relatable. In the beginning the viewer is made to feel sorry for him, and is actually cheering for him to kill some of his prey (namely his jerk of a dad), which is exactly the opposite of what you want to do when you are trying to make a scary movie, as opposed to an over-the-top gory action movie. The viewer get's legitimately scared when characters that they care about are at risk, if the viewer doesn't care about the people about to be murdered, then those people don't come across as human, but rather as mere fodder.

Secondly, again with Michael Myers, he was an abused kid who takes his frustration out on small animals. This just brings back memories of NOES part 6... oh and apparently Myers was a KISS fan. Maybe it's just me but I preferred thinking of Michael Myers as normal kid with a totally normal upbringing who, for some mysterious and evil in how it blatantly contradicts reason, murders his own sister. It was much more creepy that way IMO.

Thirdly, they screwed with the time frame way too much. I would have preferred it if they kept the movie to the 70s, but instead they moved it to the present-day. Also, they say that Mikey murdered his sister when he was 10, but 17 years later (or is it 15? I could have sworn at one point in the movie they said it was 15) he returns to kill his other sister. In the originals, Michael Myers is 21/23 when he comes back, so he would have been about 6 or even 8, but not 10. I guess the viewer just has to assume that Michael Myers is 27 in the remake... not a big problem, but it's just annoying to see Rob Zombie take such liberties with the time frame. Really, I don't care how old Michael is or was... but I really wanted this to take place when it should have.

Fourthly, the pacing was all wrong for a Halloween movie. Unlike the first where the tension is allowed to build along with character development, in this the audience witnesses gory murder after gory murder with brief periods of character development squeezed in between (the bits with Laurie and friends especially feeling abrupt). There was much too high of a body count, and yes, there IS such a thing as too many fatalities in a horror movie, contrary to what Zombie and other gore-fanatics seem to think. In fact, as a movie on it's own, unlike the original Halloween, this one feels much more like a follower than a leader in the horror genre in that it relies so much on slasher clichés like nudity=death and helpless ditzy teens as fodder, speaking of which...

Lastly, what did they do to Laurie's character?!!! In the original she is an intelligent likable character, but in this she's a ditzy teenager, almost an exact clone of her two friends in personality. I really felt nothing for Zombie's "re-imagined" version of Laurie as she haplessly scrambled about, making sure to constantly scream for help so Myers can keep on her tail. The original Laurie was pretty crafty and, when backed into a corner, would try to fight back (ex: trapped in the closet and using a coat hangar). That kind of resourcefulness is totally lost on neo-Laurie who only fights back when Mike prostrates himself before her, allowing her to take advantage (but, not nearly as much as she should have) of his brief period of weakness. Also there was the end which was a big abrupt and anti-climatic "WTF?!" that signals to me that Zombie had no idea how to properly end this movie in such a way to provide the same chill that the original's conclusion had.

For a "re-imagining" there seemed to be very little imagination behind it. Everything that this film did differently than the original, it did out of either cliché or to merely add to the body-count. Seriously, it was just dumb, like "leave a metal fork with a homicidal maniac patient" dumb.

Now for the good... uh.. well I liked hearing some of the songs from the original movies in here, like "Mr. Sandman" (though I prefer the faster, happier version in part 2) and "don't fear the reaper" (which they played in two death scenes... just once would have alright, the second time around it was a bit much). I also liked seeing the young Myers and Dr. Loomis talking together at the asylum, I always wondered how their meetings went.
66 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful?
Report this | Copied to clipboardCopy link
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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