Badmovies.org Forum

I saw Rob Zombie's remake today and I cannot recommend it.  The first half hour or so is actually pretty good.  They spend a lot of time showing Michael Myers as a kid and how his home life (stripper mom; slut sister; mom's alcoholic, lazy, abusive live-in boyfriend; bullies at school) contributed to his psychological problems.  But after he grows up it becomes a routine slasher movie.  It was nice to see Ken Foree in a small role, though.

I knew going in it'd be a slasher flick.  Rob Zombie directs, it's a remake, and we're in the SAW/Gore generation.  Knowing all this and accepting it, I really did enjoy it.

I love the original by John Carpenter and how that was more suspence based.  Eh.  To each their own I guess. 

It isn't like the original was any good.

But on another note, why do all movie serial killers have to have a history of abuse? There is no evidence that abused children grow up to be anti-social adults. Why can't the serial killer be some spoiled rich kid for a change?

f@#$ this movie with a capital F. aside from many flaws, my biggest gripe i don't want to blurt out for those who might not have seen it yet, but those who have probably know what I'm talking about. for the record i didn't go in comparing to the original (except for the one scene i speak of above.) i watched it as a movie on its own and i still think it sucked.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0144084/

Kindest regards,

Kevin P.
http://www.wtf-film.com

SPOILERS!

Well, I saw it last night with a group of friends.  My wife and I petitioned for Superbad but ended up getting ruled out 4-2.  So, Halloween it was....

First, let me say this movie is f***ing dark.  I'm not talking dark in the moral sense, I'm talking DARK.  If it wasn't a daylight scene then I couldn't tell what the hell was going on.  This is especially true for the ending.  I couldn't tell much of what was happening in the last 30 minutes or so.  Not that I cared.

My other problem is that the beginning of the films seemed like "Devil's Rejects Lite".  F You, F This, MotherFer, Faggot, blah, blah blah.  The inital tone of the film turned me off from the beginning and couldn't get me back into the film from that point.  Everyone in the film, with the exception of the underused Danny Trejo, talks like a redneck sailor.  This includes to some extent little innocent Laurie Strode who likes to call her friends "b***hes" quite often.

Another problem with the film is that it is so unintentionally funny.  Watching little Michael Myers sit on a curb crying while his mother is stripping instead of taking him trick-or-treating would actually work, if Nazareth's "Love Hurts" wasn't playing over top of it.  I couldn't help but start to giggle at the scene, and that was only the beginning of the humor.  A few minutes later, little Mikey is going on his killing spree through the house and puts on the iconic white-Shatner mask.  He then stalks his sister around the house with it on.  Seeing this midget version of Michael with the iconic mask on is actually creepy for a moment but then we get shot after shot of him and it becomes downright hilarious.  I was caught in an unstoppable fit of laughter as were most of the others in the theater.  I know damn well that was NOT Zombie's intention.

Most of the critics out there really liked the first third of the film with Michael's backstory.  Me...well, I HATED IT.  I didn't like the kid playing Michael, and the "humanizing" of him just doesn't work.  After Michael escapes fromt the asylum, everything that had been previously established disappears.  He turns into the old Michael Myers that we used to know except now he's a F'ING TERMINATOR at about 20 foot tall and 1000 pounds of muscle.  Zombie really missed the mark by hiring Tyler Mane as Michael.  The Shape shouldn't be a huge hulking destroyer of a man, he should be just a normal guy.  That's what made the original so scary.

Also, the kills in the film don't work for me at all.  Zombie sticks to normal weapons and kills to try to hold some authenticity to the film, but I would have actually liked some interesting kills.  Kills by baseball bat, knife, etc aren't that interesting anymore despite Zombie's attempts to make them so.  Not only are the kills boring but Zombie's "shaky-cam" style made me want to vomit.  I can handle a bit of shaky-cam but when I'm already straining to see what's happening in the all of the darkness, it gets a bit annoying.

Then there are the breasts.  Now I'm a fan of breasts, trust me.  But I found in this film that anytime a new female character was introduced, we would certainly see her breasts.  It got a bit redundant.  To be honest, most of them are not very good except for the girl who plays Lynda, who still doesn't do a good of a "job" as PJ Soles in the original.

Anyway, for those who don't want to read this long post, let me shorten it up.  This film isn't terrible, but it is unneeded.  Zombie does make a film that is passable as a slasher but isn't REMOTELY close to the original.  It's a film that will be forgotten; a Halloween for the Saw generation.  It almost feels like Zombie was trying to make Texas Chainsaw Massacre rather than Halloween, but whatever...he's the director.  I just hope this film doesn't ruin his carrer.

Also, I have obtained a workprint of the film and vowed not to watch it until I had seen Zombie's theaterical version.  I'll see about watching it soon and see what's different.  Supposedly it's much better.  We will see.

WHA'?!  The original film is classic!

I'm right there with you on that part. I couldn't stop laughing when his sister is crawling down the hallway and he steps out from behind her with that adult sized mask on.   The girl in front of me and her boyfriend got really upset with me because I couldn't stop laughing during that sequence.

If Rob Zombie had just kept Michael Myers that age as a kid and done the entire movie like, he might have been onto something approaching genius.   :bouncegiggle: :twirl:

Some may consider the original Halloween a "classic" (Some even compare it to Hitchcock) but I'm not so sure...other than Pleasance, Curtis, and Soles, there are hardly any actors whose skills are really up to snuff...it takes a long time for anything to really get going, and the kills are way too clean...that wouldn't normally bug me in an older film, but in this one it does.  The moments where Curtis tries to kill the shape are more brutal than the shape's kills, save for the one where he impaled the one guy.  Other than these minor quibbles, It's a good film overall, but I'm not convinced it's as immortal and untouchable as everyone seems to think it is. 

Not that I'm saying the remake was any better...it had its good points though.  I'm not a fan of back stories, but I felt that in this one they showed what made this guy tick, but at the same time they showed that he was pretty much screwed up from the start, no matter what.  And the kills were enough to satisfy this old gore fiend.  It gave this Halloween a much needed sense of brutality. 

But on the other hand...it was just too long.  By the time it went into full slasher film mode, The plot just dragged on with all the killings intercut, going really just as slowly as the original.  I enjoy a good slasher, but trying to make one almost 2 hours long is asking a lot from even me.   And the ending is one notable place where the original has the remake beat.  The remake's ending is nowhere near as satisfying, and it's clearly not worth waiting nearly 2 hours for. 

It was a nice try...but I still can't recommend this film. 

One of my Dread Central colleagues sent me a copy of the workprint that leaked online and though it still it isn't a very good movie it so much better than the theatrical version it isn't funny. Different opening credits, scenes that are edited in a different order, a couple different death scenes, a whole bunch of scenes that include this thing called character development that the theatrical version seemed diametrically opposed to, a completely different means by which Michael escapes the asylum, and an entirely different finale that actually tries to focus on character rather than just having him smash up a house looking for Laurie. My guess after now having seen both is that this version didn't test well because it wasn't just a whole lot of mindless hyper violence like the theatrical version ended up being. Or it could be because Dimension produced the movie and they can't seem but help screwing up horror movies. How GRINDHOUSE got past them unscathed is baffling.

Another funny tidbit from one of DC cohorts. Malcolm MacDowell was scheduled to do some press for the film but cancelled it all at the last minute. The reason: hated the movie so much that he has vowed never to be associated with the horror genre ever again. Yikes!

Foy,

Thanks for the input.  I have yet to watch the workprint but I'm actually a bit eager to do so now that you've put in a vote of confidence on it.  I have it on disc, and may try to watch it on my set-top divx box sometime soon.

As for McDowell hating the film and not wanting to be associated with it......he did sign on to do two sequels if they were to be made.  Sounds like he's screwed himself into doing more of the films.

Given what becomes of him in the theatrical print of the movie, maybe they did that because he'd already made it clear where he stood on the matter by the time they called him back for the reshoots. Also, a story has already been getting reported online that Dimension has said they have no plans for a sequel. That's a pretty much the opposite of what one usually hears the weekend after a genre movie opens big. We'll see.

Malcolm seemed pretty enthusiastic about the movie in the behind the scenes interviews.

I've only seen the theatrical cut but from what I've heard from people who have seen both the work print/initial cut and the theatrical have said that the 1st cut worked much better.

(http://www.savesurge.org/surge/chris_myers.jpg)

Different parts in each cut work better than others. A lot of the theatrical cut works better as a 2007 violent slasher flick, a lot of the workprint works better as a more character driven movie.

I've heard rumors that they're going to release both cuts on the DVD via seamless branching.

Would be a good idea to include the workprint cut since there were some really interesting differences.