*** Official HALLOWEEN (2007) Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

Thanks Jon. I had thought Myers raped Annie since there's a chunk of footage that seems to be missing from the time Laurie reaches the house. The aftermath of Lindsay when her father finds her seems worse than we last saw her.

I want to address something that Travis posted in his review from the review thread.


I think anyone going into this films knows that it's not a direct remake so as you said in your review, those going into the film and expecting a direct remake is going to hate it. I hate the film not because it isn't a direct remake but because Zombie can't write a story to save his life. He uses the same characters, the same settings, the same talk, the same sex, nudity and so on. Zombie keeps saying this film is set in IL but why in the hell does everyone talk and act like they're in TX?

Another problem is the actual setting of the film. I believe Michael was a kid in the 60s and then the "present day" is in the 70s. This makes sense since the music being played, the dress code, the long hair and so on yet Zombie adds a cell phone. Even in the characters here, there's no way to tell them apart from one another because they all talk and act the same. This is a very weak point with Zombie the screenwriter. Even in his previous films the good guys talk the same as the bad guys. No one has their own personality because they all share Zombie's personality or outlook on life if you will.

I agree that this is Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN and not Carpenter's so it's unfair for people to attack this for not being like the previous film. In my review I give credit to Zombie for trying something new but just because he tries something new doesn't mean it has to work. Even if you get Carpenter's film out of your mind, as I did, this film is still horrible compared to the rest of the toture/porn horror movies out there. The SAW series, BLACK CHRISTMAS, THE HILLS HAVE EYES and various other "porn/horror" films had more going for them. They were all very graphic with their violence but it just wasn't the violence. Those directors could show the violence and make it disturbing. The violence in HALLOWEEN is just there for the sake of violence. Those films also manages to create an atmosphere, which, IMO, Zombie never does here. Hell, it doesn't even feel, look or smell like Halloween so this film could have been set on any day of the year.

To me, this is Zombie the director not being able to pull off the film. I think his story idea could have been pulled off with a better director and screenwriter. Perhaps this screenplay and story could have worked on its own but it doesn't work as a HALLOWEEN film. That would be like Zombie making a Frankenstein movie but making the monster a vampire. Or making a F13 remake and having Jason be a redneck truck driver who likes to molest children.

I'm sure several reviews hate this movie because it's not like the Carpenter film but from what I've read, the majority of the negative attitude comes from what's on the screen and not what people want the film to be.

 

[DavidPla]

Check out this quote from Rob Zombie himself that I believe was in 2002.

Q: How do you feel about big budget remakes of Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre?

Zombie: I feel it's the worst thing any filmmaker can do. I actually got a call from my agent and they asked me if I wanted to be involved with the remake of Chain Saw. I said no f***ing way! Those movies are perfect - you're only going to make yourself look like an a**hole by remaking them. Go remake something that's a piece of s**t and make it good. Like with my movie (House of 1000 Corpses) I have elements of Chain Saw in it because I love that movie so much, but I wouldn't dare want to "remake" it. It's like a band trying to be another band. You can sound like The Beatles, but you can't be The Beatles.

http://www.iconsoffright.com/IV_RZombieAYG.htm

 

[Travis Brashear]

Fair enough, but I had my fair share of action in the latter years of high school and I'm standing by the fact that 18 year-olds don't know how to f**k like that...technique doesn't come until your '20s.

 

[TravisR]

Oh yeah, the sex scenes were the typical sex scenes that you only see in movies and most people don't know their around the... equipment until their 20's. I'm talking about their language- I found that to be believable based on how me and my friends talked in high school.

And by the way, that was an excellent review that you wrote. I didn't agree with everything but you certainly wrote a nice review.

 

[Alf S]

Ooops..forgot to check back in after I started all this..

Overall I thought the whole thing was pretty forgettable.

WAY WAY too much of the young Michael (almost a damn hour worth!) and once all that junk was done all you got was a quick wham bam cliched Michael going on a killing spree...by the time he starts I pretty much didn't give a crap about what/who he was gonna kill...it was all done so cheesy I lost interest...no real scares during that whole section of the flick (heck even the first part was lacking many scares).

The dialogue was so bad and by the end it was laughable to hear them..."Is that the boogie man!!??" BAH!

About the ONLY entertaining thing in it was seeing the random cameos by some offbeat TV actors of days gone by.

Overall I'd give this turkey a 4 out of 10.

 

[TravisR]

That one's in the original so you can blame John Carpenter and Debra Hill for it.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Ah, but that line worked in Carpenter's...not even remotely in Zombie's. It's all in the delivery and neither party in Zombie's handled that (admittedly problematic) dialogue well at all.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

For me the one scene in Zombie's film that best exemplifies how horror films used to be made and how they're made now is the scene where (minor spoiler) Annie and Paul are having sex on the couch and you see Michael walk up and loom over them, this is a referrence to the scene in Carpenter's original where Linda and Bob are having sex in the bed.

Now, the difference is we actually see Michael in all his glory in Zombie's film but we only see his shadow on the wall and his breathing in the original. This to me represents a flaw in how horror is done today, now everything must be shown, the villain must be visible where as before it was only suggested that he was there.

IMO, in-your-face does not equal good horror, I love when things are obscure, suggested and hidden, I don't need everything spoon fed to me to be scared by a horror film. Bottom line for me, this film may have it's merits, in fact having a day to reflect more on it I find myself wanting to see it again because there were things that I liked about it, but those merits don't erase the fact, again for me, that this new film did not need to be made at all.

I applaud Zombie for trying this, but IMO he should have used his resources to come up with an original story and film.

 

[Lucia Duran]

I miss older horror films and the way they were done with scary simplicity. Not in your face blood and gore, but great intense scenes that made your skin crawl. Sometimes I feel as though the audience of today is so desensitized when it comes to violence and gore. They just aren't scared by the little things anymore, but need to actually see torture and murder. It is very disturbing to me.

I'm just not feeling the same about horror movies as I use to.

 

[JonZ]

Well the thing is when Halloween was made , it was new. But Carpenter filmed Halloween so perfectly. Myers is seen in long and medium shots. Over the shoudler. The breathing is such a great tool to use while hes stalking the girls. We can see him, but not in detail, until the the films nears the end.

Since then we've had decades of horror movies, all amping up the violence and such. So filmmakers solution seems to be to amp it up more. But to me, its the wrong solution.Which is why it really works to go back and us the older style of raising tension - by making us guess whats out there.

Look at the scene in Batman Begins, where Batman is stalking the thieves at the dock. That was more affective at raising tension and psyching you up than anything here. We've been looking at Myers for decades. Zombie said he wanted to make Myers scary again and failed. Hes not scary, nothing is when you seen it in every frame.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Exactly, Jon, Zombie seems to have convinced himself that the only way to make Michael frightening again was through sheer brute force, he fails to see that sometimes subtlty is the best way to achieve that and that it can be even more effective than the strong arm approach.

Michael will always frighten me on some levels, I can imagine having a nightmare about him pursuing me and that's all it takes to make me pee my pants but he's suffered from over exposure through the years and sadly I don't think there's any way to recover what he once was on-screen.

 

[Jordan_E]

Myself, as far as the second half of the movie is concerned, it seems like Zombie is assuming everyone knows the characters and doesn't bother with, oh, writing. And assuming makes an ass outta u and ming...and ming doesn't appreciate that at all!

 

[Travis Brashear]

But one has to keep in mind that if he did that, he'd be vilified for doing nothing more that aping Carpenter. You can gripe with complete validity all day long that a remake of HALLOWEEN was not necessary (as a fan of Zombie's take, I'll even agree with you), but if one is going to exist, Zombie owed it to himself as a filmmaker to present Michael Myers and his violent exploits in a whole new manner.

 

[TravisR]

I love how Michael Myers was almost seen as a ghost (or The Shape as he's called in the credits) in the original Halloween but I think Zombie came the closest to having moments of The Shape than most of the sequels ever did. However, those Shape moments were mixed in with alot of brute force (to steal John's decription) Michael Myers stuff too and that brute force took away the suspense that could have built up.

 

[Brian Kissinger]

Just throwing in my two cents here.
Personally, I kinda think this movie was a no win situation for Mr. Zombie, and I was greatly saddened when I heard he was doing it. I think the man has style (even if you want to argue that it's a "one note" style.....personally I think Mr. George Romero has a "one note" style) and I think he can deliver a very good film. Unfortunately, he didn't do that with this film. But, I don't think this is the type of film best suited for him.

My main problem is with the "slasher" genre in general. I'm not a big fan. Perhaps when Mr. Carpenter first unleashed Halloween on the public, it may have been great. I never got around to viewing it until the dregs of cinema had polluted my brain with all the cheap knock-offs, and by then I had figured out the formula: Have a holiday/special event-enter a madman/wronged individual-enter teenagers/young adults-try to figure out a new way to kill them but make sure at least one person gets their throat cut.

Mr. Zombie is not that type of filmmaker. He likes to give you (perhaps too much) character. And I think that is evident in the early part of the film. Like it or not, you get to know just exactly what type of environment young Michael is living in. And (for what it's worth) I agree with many here, that this part of the film pretty much ruins the Michael Myers mystique. But, that doesn't take away from the fact that this is what Zombie does best, and that he did it well here. It just doesn't work in this film. I think that Michael's mother and stepfather (I'll grant you that not much effort was given to his older sister) are far more fleshed out and concernable than any characters at the end.

And this makes me wonder. Did Zombie "lose his will" with everything after Michael's breakout and thought it would be best to try and keep to the original? You know fans would have screamed bloody murder had the whole film had absolutely no connection with the original. Did the execs (Oh those damn evil execs.....they always get all the heat don't they) push him to try to come back more to the original? We may never know, but I do believe this: I don't think he just ran out of ideas on what to have Michael do next. And I'm pretty sure his heart wasn't in much of anything from the breakout onwards.

 

[Chad R]

Exactly, Zombie needed to do his own thing -- and the fact that he didn't is where he failed.

Whereas at first I was apalled by the idea of remaking HALLOWEEN, it was eventually pointed out that one of Carpenter's best films is in fact a remake. But what Carpenter did with THE THING isn't what Zombie did. Carpenter went back to the original source and wasn't slavish to the Hawkes film. Zombie's biggest mistake was that he was TOO faithful to the original HALLOWEEN.

If he had kept the bare bones idea -- serial killer stalking babysitters on Halloween night -- and threw out most everything else he might have had a chance at succeeding. I'm sure the Weinstein's would have insisted on the mask and the name Michael Myers, but that's all he should have kept. He needed to start with new characters for the girls, no sister mythology, he should have changed most everything. Instead he just copied Carpenter and invited comparisons. Any flack he gets for this remake he brought down on himself.

But, this is overthinking the movie which is something I promised myself I wouldn't do.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

At the end of the day, even with all the problems the film does have, I still enjoyed it and i'm sure that with the passage of time i'll come to like it even more. By the time the dvd is released i'll be totally primed to buy it and like it as a film all it's own.

I definitely liked this MUCH more than Halloween Resurrection, I hated that one the instant it ended.

There are certain remakes that I love instantly, the Dawn of the Dead remake is one of those, some take time and need to digest a little.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I will place myself in the "miss" camp on this one. Just to give an understanding of where my head was at while going into it, as many know I am generally against needless modern remakes of older films which are already established as good solid movies, yet sometimes I have been pleasantly surprised. While I acknowledge John Carpenter's classic 1978 original as a good and important horror film, I have never really thought it was "excellent", and that was part of the reason why I didn't mind checking out Rob Zombie's variation. I also gave Zombie the benefit of the doubt because I was completely knocked out by his film THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, which I thought nailed the feel of the '70s exploitation schlockfests perfectly.

So, my impression here was that the new HALLOWEEN just might be the classic example to use for when an unnecessary remake is a complete waste of time and effort. And I suppose one of the good things about having seen it was that already I have been running Carpenter's classic over and over in my mind, and it fares stronger than ever before by comparison.

As usual after just seeing a new film, my thoughts are all over the place. For starters, I am in the camp who felt that the cursing and "F bombs" went way overboard, and the script was not very well written. I didn't care for all the misplaced rock music used throughout the movie, though one shining exception were the couple of instances where the chilling "Don't Fear the Reaper" was placed into the mayhem (it worked in the original, and I guess this tune is "Halloween Friendly"). But I thought it was a sin to have the patented "Halloween Theme" (plus other standard cues) and "Mr. Sandman" strewn about, as if to make us think this was something as special as the older films had been.

I'd echo that the first half where we see young Michael's breakdown and how he becomes a maniacal killer is more interesting, and at least Zombie attempted to do something different. But the second half just felt like the director had to go through the obligatory motions by featuring duplicate scenes straight out of the first HALLOWEEN, and then dropping names here and there like "Ben Tramer", just because it's what fans of the original may have wanted. None of these "homages" were directed with 1/10th the flair which Carpenter demonstrated, and the characters were also not as well defined, unsurprisingly. Laurie Strode and her two girlfriends were just stuck into the proceedings because I guess that's what's supposed to happen in a Halloween remake. Malcolm McDowell is no substitute for Donald Pleasence as the obligatory Dr. Loomis, but it's not so much the fault of the actor as it is the weak writing and having to follow in the footsteps of an already established characterization.

I hated all the cute cameos too. Eventually they are distracting as we play the game of "who can we spot next?". Even worse, the screen time was sometimes so brief that there was no point in casting some of these people in the first place... okay, so Brad Dourif enjoys quality time as the sheriff, but Udo Kier and his one dumb line would have been missed if you blinked. And I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but did someone besides me catch Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees as the redneck gun salesman?

I can see that near the climax of this thing, Zombie tried to take over the reins himself once again and get off the track of repeating the original film and tried to end it as his own baby. But none of that worked at all, and it was a fatal case of me just getting bored and wanting the whole thing to finish up so I could leave. Too much blood and gore, too much prolonged nonsense, and a final scene before the credits which really was a lousy way to wrap up the whole picture. Just a terrible and empty conclusion.

In an attempt to try and find something positive to say, I thought there were some good kill scenes now and then, and the boy playing the young Michael Myers was pretty good. The large actor who takes over later as a giant hulking adult version of the boy was truly deadly and imposing, and his famous "Shape Mask" was probably the best-looking since the first film.

But meh... what's it all for? So what? The John Carpenter classic gains even more respect as a result of this, and I think Rob Zombie delivered an indifferent and irrelevant film. It is just not needed.

 

[TravisR]

That was a fun cameo. And as much as I liked seeing Zombie's usual actors in tiny parts, I think my favorite cameo was Clint Howard.

 

[JonZ]

Joe, The guy playing Myers also was Sabertooth in the first Xmen film.


"it was eventually pointed out that one of Carpenter's best films is in fact a remake. But what Carpenter did with THE THING isn't what Zombie did."

But Zombie doesnt have Carpenters, or Cronenbergs imagination or talent(what was with that freeze frame shot with the Halloween title or Love Hurts?? Both unintentionally funny). If he was deadset on doing this, why not bring in a decent screenwritter. Especially if you want to talk about the psychology stuff. Tits hanging to the knees and skullfucking I expect from Zombie, not deep introspective material about what would make a young boy snap and kill. Without swearing,sex,dirt and sleeze Zombie is lost. I think it really hurt him to not seek help with the screenplay. Look at the interesting ideas being thrown around for Escape From NY. When I first heard about it, I wanted to poke my eyes out,after reading the script review on AICN Im sort of intrigued(Written by Ken Nolan -Black Hawk Down)

"And this makes me wonder. Did Zombie "lose his will" with everything after Michael's breakout and thought it would be best to try and keep to the original? You know fans would have screamed bloody murder had the whole film had absolutely no connection with the original."

But that what I think he should have done. The original idea Carpenter had when he was asked to do a sequel. Which was to explore halloween in differnt ways, without Myers involvement. This years Trick or Treat could have been a "Halloween" sequel.

I wouldnt have minded him actually doing his own thing.Forget about Laurie, Annie and Linda and do something completely different. Carpenters story slowly shows the progression of time. You felt it as you watch the film. It oozes atmosphere and "feels like Halloween".Thats not the case here, and the whole second half feels really rushed. Even some of the bad sequels got the feel/atmosphere of Halloween right.

"I think Zombie came the closest to having moments of The Shape than most of the sequels ever did. "

Also to say something postitive, one scene that worked for me and that I liked was when Laurie was hobbling to get away in the street with Myers on her tail