*** Official HALLOWEEN (2007) Discussion Thread (2 Viewers)

[Travis Brashear]

Ah, but we're arguing seperate points--you refer to the scripting (which, as a fan of Zombie's take, I agree suffers most when it feels it must adhere to Carpenter's original script), but I was responding to complaints about its aesthetic style.

 

[Travis Brashear]

By the way, as some of you might have seen, there are currently two different HALLOWEEN review/discussion threads going, which has me perplexed to no end. I'd written a lengthy review from an (obviously unpopular) positive viewpoint in that thread, which some of you have read, and even quoted, but since the vital and robust dialogue seems to be happening in this thread, I'd like to copy-and-paste it over here in the interest of counteracting the tidal wave of negative feedback and offering a sense of "equal representation". For those of you that haven't read it, please do so and I hope you'll be willing to, if not out-and-out agree with it, at least consider it with an open mind:

Unhidden spoilers abound--READ WITH CAUTION!

Then I shall be the voice of the opposition.

I went into Zombie's arguably unnecessary remake of Carpenter's classic already certain it was going to be a disaster of cataclysmic proportions but, you know what? I was wrong. For anyone who loves both Tim Burton's BATMAN and Christopher Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS, you may have exactly what it takes to appreciate Zombie's from-the-ground-up reimaging not so much of Carpenter's narrative but the fundamental nature of the Michael Myers character. You see, it is absolutely essential that you divorce the Carpenter film from your mind when you see this movie and approach it solely on its own merits and goals. In fact, as has been noted in the negative reviews above, it is when this film attempts to crib directly from Carpenter's original scripting that it most suffers, blazing through the introductions, then subsequent murders (or attempted murders), of the three high school female friends without any regard for proper character development or cultivation of atmosphere. But I'm getting ahead of myself--back to what Zombie is up to here with the Myers character, and I think the fundamental failing of certain critics to recognize: Carpenter's film was a thinly-veiled supernatural piece, whereas Zombie's is not. In Carpenter's film (and taken to the extreme with the sequels, but always building off of Carpenter's groundwork with the first two films), there is no need for a backstory because Michael Myers is not created--he simply becomes The Shape. In any meaningful sense, there is no human Michael Myers anymore--he is either possessed by Evil itself, Evil as an physical force, or becomes said Evil (though the former seems more valid to me, in light of the sister storyline and other elements of the sequels, predominantly in Part 5; Evil itself would have no need or desire to be tied to human lineage, but Evil could get quite a kick out of making a possessed person kill off all his loved ones). Dr. Loomis understands this fundamentally, and flat out tells us in (on the surface) histrionic lines like "he's not human" and "this isn't a man" and, of course, "I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply...Evil!" This provides a context for the bizarre twist we discover in Myers charater late in the first film--his utter indestructibility. No matter how insane any person in this world could be, simple physics determine that Myers would have been dead a couple of times over before the first sequel could have seen the light of day if he was just a man. But Evil itself doesn't...can't...die. Carpenter's Michael Myers is truly not human at all, but a supernatural archetype.

Zombie, on the other hand, has no concern with flights-of-fancy horror--his Michael Myers is steeped in gritty, dirty reality, in the science of psychiatry. He is at all times a real, flesh-and-blood man, a warped mind, sure, but a creature whose Evil comes not from outside the human condition but is cultivated by its basest elements. When this Myers survives a stabbing and a trio of gunshots, we know it's not because Evil is regenerating him, but (similar to the effect of certain drugs, or heavy bursts of adrenaline) because his maniacal rage is driving him to soldier on. I doubt anyone in the theater questions if Myers is dead at the end of Zombie's movie, but in Carpenter's, Myer's decimated head would have surely simply reformed, T-1000-style, for another go-around. It took me awhile to grasp this innate truism about Zombie's take versus Carpenter's (the early part of the film was beginning to irritate me because I was expecting all that backstory to lead up to a presentation of the same Michael Myers character I'd known for 29 years, and the two do not mesh) but, when I grasped the inherent character difference, everything about the film, and how Zombie chose to shoot and script it, came together for me in an epiphany. Many of the things I was missing about Carpenter's film--the studied cinematography, the slow, agonizing build-up to something happening--had no application here; Carpenter's film was about the horror of knowing something bad is coming and dreading what it would be; Zombie's horror, which is admittedly stripped of dramatic leading tension, is the horror of being in the moment of that "something bad". Zombie's murder sequences are intensely violent and disturbing...and deliberate. For whatever pacing problems there may be with the footage connecting the murders, the murders themselves play out as realistically as any I've ever seen on film, and Zombie never lets you make an early exit when you want. He holds the terror out well past the point where it's fun for the audience, and more power to him--the equation that horror movies = fun has become most disquieting in our modern age. It's as if he's daring the audience to enjoy what they're seeing. This Michael Myers is a true serial killer, not the kind that can only exist in the movies, like Carpenter's original, but the kind we've all seen living in TVs and newspapers and, god forbid, maybe even our own neighborhood, and witnessing their murders should not be thrilling but chilling and sickening and horribly final. In the new HALLOWEEN, they always are.

Due to this character change, we are witness to a rather dramatic shift in the sister dynamic as written between the two directors; Carpenter's Evil Shape wants to terminate the entire Myers family line (as I've said before, I've always felt that whatever vestiges of the human boy Michael Myers remain inside the body of The Shape are being tortured by the possessing Evil by making him kill his own loved ones for no other reason than because Evil relishes the suffering of others) but Zombie's more overtly tragic Michael wants to preserve his sister, which answers the question a poster made above about "why kill Laurie's new family and friends?" Because, for this Myers, Laurie represents the only truly pure, innocent thing in the world. All other people she comes in contact with are a threat to that innocence, and stand to rob her of it as many others robbed Michael of his earlier in life. In Myers's view, only he and Laurie should survive the night--everyone else is fair game for eradication. That is, until Laurie lashes out at him and, in doing so, joins the ranks of all the other people in the world who have failed and disappointed Michael. This scene conjured an emotion in me I'd never encountered in eight previous Myers outings--pity. Every human system has failed this poor soul--the friend, the institution and now, utterly and with finality, the family. By the time we get to the final frame of the movie, a photograph of two soon-to-be doomed innocents, I felt hearbroken...a feeling I'm used to in dramas but almost never in horror films. It's a testament to Zombie's storytelling prowess, and a testament for defending the validity of a remake as, if not necessary, then at least worthwhile.

Lastly, in describing the virtues of Zombie's take on the material, I cannot give enough kudos to the fact that he was able to successfully accomplish a full dramatic arc in one film that eight prior films failed to accomplish. Namely, that Laurie Strode survives her forced tour through hell and manages to take that motherfucker right out of the planet. This is so dramatically perfect, and really the only valid, meaningful way that this storyline can be ended, HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION's offing of the previous Laurie Strode be damned. And hats off to the man for giving a hearty F.U. to those who'd want to try to milk this version of HALLOWEEN into an additional endless franchise.

These accolades aside, the film is certainly not without its flaws: the pacing is erratic, the characterizations of the girls are unbelievable (they swear and screw like 30-year old prison mates, not high school girls) and paper-thin (this is somewhat forgiveable when one takes into account what Laurie's friends represent in this version versus the original--Carpenter's film is about the forces acting on the victims; Zombie's is about the forces working on the assaulter--but still wholly unforgiveable in terms of the Laurie character herself, who is substantially better written and performed in Carpenter's on every level), the take on Loomis loses the fervency of the Ahab-and-the-Whale approach of Donald Pleasance, the timeline is hopelessly murky, supposedly taking place 17 years after 1978, but with present day cars, fashions and cell phones, etc. However, ultimately, if one is able and willing to absorb this film completely independent from Carpenter's vision, it emerges as a very brutal and effective tale of its own. Carpenter's tale came from a time when we felt powerless against and without comprehension regarding forces of chaos. Zombie's film comes at a time when we have a much better understanding of the forces that create our real life monsters, and we've found that those forces are us. To summarize it a little more concisely, it is an atheist's take on HALLOWEEN, whereas Carpenter's was a theist one. It's an amazing reinvention, one that does not surpass or render moot the original by any means, but one that certainly holds its own alongside that original, and that's no small feat.

 

[Radioman970]

Just checking in.

Yep, this Halloween was kind of weak as far as the movie goes. But I really had a terrific movie-going experience anyway since the audience I was with ate it up. I mean ATE IT UP!! It was fun seeing a slasher at the movies again. Oh! To go back to the 80s and do this same thing every single Friday!! Slasher, slasher, slasher!! Heh heh heh!

I felt the theatrical version rated a 6/10. Not bad, but certainly not great. The workprint at home was a better experience overall. I liked some of the scenes that were removed. I thought the workprint escape scene was better even with the off-putting rape bit. I'd give the workprint a 7/10. Hopefully the DVD release will feature a new edited version with the best of both versions. I'll be buying it certainly.

Anyway, sorry most here hated it. I guess I pretty much agree with a lot of the negative comments, however I was able to enjoy it for what it was. I'm like that. I felt it was worthy of my $7.

Just a note. I can't understand why so many are against remakes. I know there have been some real stinkers recently, but over the years remakes have been quite enjoyable. I don't need to name them but if one was to do a little research you'd see a long line of great remakes. I once read a comment about Shakespear being redone over and over again and generally people don't complain so much. I'm sure Will would agree that Friday the 13th as a remake has a lot more potental than Halloween. I'm thinking it'll be great!!

 

[JonZ]

Well thought out and intelligent post Travis.

When referring to Carpenters intended relationship between Myers and Laurie though, remember The Shape was never intended to be Lauries sister though. That was a idea thought up for the sequel.

 

[Travis Brashear]

No, but he was intended to be her brother! ;-)

Seriously, though, it may have been an idea brought about in a sequel, but it was in a Carpenter-penned sequel, a vital point, so I believe it has merit in the comparison in approaches.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Really?

[*pauses...pauses*]

Really?!

 

[BarryS]

Yes, I felt she brought a charming innocence to the character and really seemed like a fun-loving teenager as opposed to Jamie Lee Curtis' introverted nerd. Scout just seemed more like a teen girl than Jamie Lee. I know Jamie Lee was only 19 or 20 when the film was made, but she looked like she was around 25 or so. There's nothing wrong with her performance as Laurie Strode, quite the opposite. It's positively iconic. However, I like the new Laurie and she seems quite a bit more like the teen babysitter type to me. I really bought her fear of Michael Myers too. She's terrified of him, yet somehow under the surface there's the feeling that perhaps she shares some kind of connection with him. That's just my reaction. Maybe I was just imagining things. I liked her, anyways.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Hmm, I guess I understand your logic, and your defense of a more socially popular Laurie but, to me, those changes in her characterizations robbed her of any appeal at all--she was annoying, shallow and, as such, failed to cultivate even a fraction of the sympathy from me that Curtis's Laurie did. She was the major weak link for me in an otherwise worthwhile reimagining of the story.

 

[BarryS]

I didn't find her annoying. Annie and Linda on the other hand, did annoy me quite at bit at first, but grew on me. I really grew to like Laurie as the film progressed.

 

[Malcolm R]

Maybe I missed it in the film, since it didn't seem to be discussed here and I thought was a pretty obvious oversight, but how did adult Michael Myers identify Laurie Strode as his little sister? She was an infant when he was locked up and he had no contact with her in the intervening 17 years. The only person who seemed to know the sibling connection was the Sheriff. It would be damn difficult to simply "recognize" her on the street after 17 years had passed.

Also, does Zombie go out of his way to cast the ugliest males he can find? The women were all pretty hot, but then they all seem to be banging the fugliest creeps in town. To think that at least some of these attractive women wouldn't be dating decent looking men is ridiculous.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I think it's the same as in Halloween II, Michael's evil instinct just sort of led him to her.

As for the males in his films, could not agree more! And he insists on roughing them up even more to make them all look like trailer trash from hell. I don't know about you but I feel like I have to jump in the shower and give myself a good scrubbin' after watching his movies.

They make me feel dirtier than a roofer in Arizona in July.

 

[Radioman970]

I do see your point. But you know what? Many great looking women are attracted to these types! It's true...look around!!

 

[DavidPla]

I guess it's the "write what you know" for Rob Zombie. Compare him with his wife.

 

[Radioman970]

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Just for fun, check out this thing I did with my Halloween diorama, I installed a tiny blue light above it to simulate Dean Cundy's amazing lighting...

 

[Dennis Castro]

This is part of a post I had on another thread...

As remake or re-telling of Halloween it falls mightily short.

I just recently saw Carpenter's Halloween again uncut for the first time in years. After I felt like taking my DVD of Zombie's version and drop kicking into the Ocean(I live two blocks from the Ocean north of Boston).

 

[Radioman970]

Yep, it's best to watch it on it's own terms. It's actually not that bad a film unless you just can't shake that fact that it's a remake of a classic.

Looking forward to some stuff about Zombie's next project, T-Rex. A teaser...

 

[Michael Elliott]

He swore it wouldn’t happen, but… Variety reports that Rob Zombie will script and direct a sequel to his HALLOWEEN remake for Dimension Films. Titled H2, the movie will be out in time for Halloween 2009.

h2zombienewsLike 1981's HALLOWEEN II, Zombie’s follow-up will pick up directly where its predecessor left off, focusing once again on Laurie Strode after her brother Michael Myers’ killing spree. Other than that, Zombie promises, the two features will be nothing like. His main concern now is getting the screenplay ready to shoot by next March. “We’ll be hauling ass,” he tells the trade, “and that’s the problem making a movie called HALLOWEEN: If you come out November 1 or after, nobody cares. If it was called anything else, I’d be fine.” He adds, regarding his change of mind about the project: “I was so burned out. [But] I took a long break, made a record and I got excited again.”


Film News