Short Ends and Leader

The PopMatters Film Blog

Film / Short Cuts / In Theaters 

31 August 2007

Short Cuts - In Theaters: Halloween (2007)

Rob Zombie gets it. He understands implicitly what makes horror such a potent genre for fright fans. He’s not quite a full fledged master of macabre, but he’s getting there in amazing leaps and outstanding bounds. Frankly, the grumbling from terror devotees was all but expected when it was announced that John Carpenter’s seminal slasher film, Halloween, was poised for the mandatory post-millennial remake. After all, with already in the can disasters like The Fog to reference, and Zombie’s status as a novice director (the magnificent The Devil’s Rejects not withstanding), there was cause to be concerned. Very concerned. So as the summer season casts its final lots this weekend, the lack of publicity and bifurcated buzz would suggest that all the trepidation was warranted.

Well, that’s garbage. Halloween is brilliant. It’s a stroke of slice and dice genius. It represents some of the most solid film work this growing fright night giant has ever brought to the big screen, and it argues for putting real fear aficionados behind the lens of your latest take on a tale of terror. This is not a rip off of Carpenter’s archetypal effort. It’s also not a sloppy, substandard attempt to cash in on the fanbase’s love of an original masterwork. Instead, this is a genuine and heartfelt tribute to the man who made masked killers relevant in a decade dominated by aliens, giant sharks, and existential human dramas. When it comes to other pioneers from dread’s determined past, Zombie is first and foremost a follower. His unabashed love for the monster movies that make up his novel, no holds barred aesthetic, is obvious in every frame of this brutal, shocking spectacle.

If you don’t know the premise – and Zombie messes with it enough to warrant a repeat – here’s how Michael Myers becomes a maniac. As a kid, young Michael is abused. His horrid stepdad undermines him emotionally, and his mother withholds love as part of her lousy lifestyle coping skills. He is also picked on at school, teased for his mom’s career choice (she’s an advertised stripper at a local dive) and the resulting bullying and bad home life have driven him to a very dark place. He kills his pets, and has frequent violent outbursts. One Halloween, he snaps, and the result is a half dozen corpses. Hospitalized under the care of Dr. Loomis, our jaundiced juvenile doesn’t comprehend the gravity of his actions. After another murderous attack, he turns silent for the next 15 years. On the eve of his prior atrocities, Michael escapes from the mental hospital. With one goal on his mind, and Loomis hot on his trail, he intends to make everyone pay for what they have done to him.

With the focus on Michael as a young boy, and the obvious initial sequences that ask us to sympathize with his sickening psycho-in-training, Zombie is out to, of all things, humanize this killer. Not to apologize for him, but merely clarify. By turning him into a flesh and blood, three dimensional person, we’re better prepared for the senseless mayhem to follow. It’s hard to describe how effective the first act is. While he’s definitely doing nothing more than a hundred FBI profilers and their explanations regarding the grotesque groundwork that predicts future slaughter, Zombie gets us to experience, and better yet, recognize, why these elements result in a desire for death. There is also a clever mask motif which helps complicate the case even further. Michael often expresses that he is ‘ugly’ and ‘not himself’, and the face-shielding symbol is a wonderful way of reminding us of his past…and his penchant.

At its core, this new version of Halloween focuses on those most primal of emotions – rage and fear. The characters here are not smart aleck a-holes scoffing as knives are brandished at their drunk and debauched faces. Instead, Zombie really emphasizes the inherent terror of the slaughter sequences we witness. Individuals plead and panic. They fight back in fits of blind horror and suffer in ways that are more realistic and repulsive than some showy stunt special effect. This is a very bloody and brutal film, but Zombie never goes for gratuity. Instead, it’s all a matter of explaining and expressing how fright fuels a human’s instinctual desire to live. Conversely, Halloween is also heavy with anger. This is a mad movie, a narrative soaked in the infinite ire of a powerless persona seeking security – and some self-serving revenge – from a rotten, regressive existence. Michael is an abomination because he can only be satisfied by suffering.

When Carpenter created his film nearly 30 years ago, he was working as a journeymen hoping to branch out into the realm of the artist. He cribbed from Hitchcock and Hooper, as well as drive in titans like Bob Clark. His version of events was all about style – the extended tracking shot that starts the film, the moments where Michael and his intended victims play an apprehensive game of hide and seek among the massive shrubbery of Haddonfield. For his part, Carpenter was going for the glory as well as the gonzo, and that’s why his brilliant merging of vision and vileness still works today. Zombie’s efforts are no different. There are amazing directorial flourishes in the film, including a compelling use of freeze frame as well as an evocative moment were all movement stops except for the camera, which swings around to capture the young Michael in menacing, dead eyed mode. Anyone who says that Zombie is not a full fledged filmmaker should have their critical credentials revoked. Of course, with the way horror is routinely marginalized by the mainstream for the masses, such a sentiment is not such a surprise.

It also should be pointed out that the acting here is superb, with performances that really sell the entire sordid storyline. Oddly enough, Malcolm McDowell is one of the weaker links. He’s far from bad, but his Dr. Loomis is not given much to do except act as a catalyst for the last act police hunt. On the other hand, the director’s wife, Sherri Moon Zombie, finally emerges from under her husband’s nepotistic shadow to give a wonderful turn as Michael’s messed up mom. There’s a tenderness and a tentativeness in how she interacts with her son. As the young killer, Daeg Faerch is fascinating. He does a great job of precariously balancing his underage demon between kid and killer concepts, and Scout Taylor-Compton is fine as Laurie “Scream Queen” Strode. Perhaps the biggest revelation among many is former Halloween heroine Danielle Harris. When she was younger, she played the original Michael’s niece, as part of the fourth and fifth installments of the franchise. Now, she is Annie Bracket, and her interaction with the new slayer is sensational. It’s a brave, bravura effort.

Upon reflection, one has to feel sorry for Zombie. The overblown press who believes horror is nothing but entertainment excrement to be endured on behalf of an ever shrinking paycheck are going to ream him six ways to sundown. They’re going to reference the original (though it’s a guarantee most have not see it in 29 years, if ever) and call it a day, using Carpenter as a crutch to argue that Zombie should have never been handed the remake ropes. Similarly, current horror fans who consider Scream the genre’s shining post-modern moment and lack the basic context to consider anything different will complain like cowards about how ‘routine’ and ‘not scary’ this take on their hallowed hack and splat is.

In both cases, they’re missing the bigger picture. In the first film, John Carpenter was concentrating on the citizenry of Haddonfield. Michael was a monster – the real bogeyman – and for them, it was a question of survival. In Halloween circa 2007, Rob Zombie decided to focus on the fiend. As with most senseless crime, the victims are important, but not iconic. No, in this case, the making of a murderer and the consequences of his cravenness are what really intrigued this fan. The result becomes one of the smartest, most shattering horror films in a very long time. Don’t worry if you end up liking what you see. The wet blankets usually come around once the wool is dry. No, Rob Zombie definitely gets it. And if you do as well, then you’ll understand exactly what’s so special about this amazing movie.

—Bill Gibron

 
Bookmark and Share
Share

12:27 am | | Permalink | Comments (75)

Comments

After reading your review, I have become convinced of one thing.  Your name is a pseudonym and you are really Rob Zombie masquerading as a reviewer.  Either that or Rob and Dimension paid you a hefty sum to write that review.  Honestly, you’re using words to describe this movie (and, yes, I’ve seen it) that should be reserved for movies like The Godfather and Schindler’s List.  And we should feel sorry for Rob?  Are you serious?!?  That is the most ludicrous statement I have ever read in a film review and you have destroyed any and all credibility by including it here.  We should all be so unlucky getting $20 million to make a film.  Since you are a “film critic” I will be re-visiting this site in a few months to see your end of year ten-best list.  And, since you have used the words “brilliant”, “genius” and “superb” in your review (and I’m assuming you don’t believe those words could be used to describe ALL movies), I had better see Rob Zombie’s Halloween sitting at the top of your list or you will have proven yourself to be a sham.

Comment by Dave from Maryland — August 31, 2007 @ 1:25 am

WOW! That’s a really well-written review! I think you might be right about the movie, and I’ll see for myself later today. You were correct in pointing out   that Zombie will be torn to shreds over this movie and the notion that a remake was the appropriate action will be thrown around like a hot potato—Hell, Variety’s reviewer even said he’d rather they had continued where Resurrection left off instead of remaking the first one…DID THEY EVEN SEE RESURRECTION? What a piece of utter trash!!! I’ve learned to just ignore the critics when it comes to horror movies, especially slashers, and I’ve been much happier as a result.

Comment by Don from Georgia — August 31, 2007 @ 1:37 am

What a loada crap, what drugs is this guy on?

You my friend, have cemented your reputation as the most worthless, pandering “critic” on the planet.

Have you seen the right movie? LOL!

Maybe a better question, how much were you paid?

If you seriously think this is a good movie, your so called opinion is totally worthless.

Your whole review is bigger joke than Rob Zombie’s rape of John Carpenter’s classic!

Comment by Jake — August 31, 2007 @ 2:08 am

I think you can feel however you want to feel about the film, but the explanations that you gave were nonexistant. The only things decent about this film were the acting and the occasional stylistic direction (I’ll give you that one, I thought the title card was one of the most badass devices ever). The characters were terribly one-dimensional, the writing was weak and cliched, and the dialogue never ceased to be vulgar, for whatever reason. Rob Zombie made no effort to “explain and express how fright fuels a human’s instinctual desire to live,” because if you listen to any interview or comment he has regarding this film, he doesn’t appear to make it seem any more challenging. I’m glad that you perceived it that way, but the fact is I refuse to believe that that was your exact reaction in the theater. This was an entertaining movie, but frightening? Genuinely scary? Nope. Brilliant and genius? You’re completely out of your mind. Notice how there’s no reference to the Carpenter version in this post.

Comment by Chris — August 31, 2007 @ 2:41 am

Actually, hold up a minute, I take that back. I will address the issue of the original movie because I think it’s immature of you to bash detractors before they even say anything. Rob Zombie said himself that the film would not turn out to be a copy of the original Halloween, when in both the workprint and theatrical versions there are numerous scenes and lines of dialogue lifted directly from Carpenter’s Halloween- and pointlessly executed with ham-fisted delivery. Malcolm McDowell’s “evil” lines are pretty much Pleasance’s lines reworded (and frankly, they. You’ve gotta be a complete douchebag to claim that the naysayers of this film are “using Carpenter as a crutch,” when Rob Zombie is doing just that.

Comment by Chris-again — August 31, 2007 @ 3:15 am

Reading this a second time, it’s become quite clear that something is amiss with this reviewer. 

Referring to Zombie’s past films as magnificent(!) and hailing Danielle Harris’s role as Annie as a “brave, bravura performance” (this is especially intriguing since she’s hardly even in the film and I always thought that descriptions like that were reserved for roles like Charlize Theron in “Monster”) is one thing.  But if you read carefully, you’ll see that the entire review is a simultaneous love letter to and apology for Rob Zombie.  He’s careful not to insult Carpenter (until he refers to the original film as a “hallowed hack and splat”) while at the same time defending the new film and making arguments for all of the choices Zombie made.  This is akin to the sort of reviews that pop up on IMDB when someone involved in a production writes a review for their own film (and they’re always painfully easy to spot).

The tip-off, though, comes when he disses current horror fans, writing that they will “complain like cowards” if they are not completely enamored with the new version.  Think about that for a second.  This reviewer is saying that any horror fan who doesn’t think this film is the end-all be-all of horror is a coward.  Have you ever in your life found a legitimate reviewer to make such a remark?  The only person who would even think of doing such a thing is someone with an axe to grind.  Sir, I do believe that something is rotten here.  And it’s not just your review.

Comment by Dave — August 31, 2007 @ 3:46 am

well i just got done reading some garbage that this guy said about rob zombies halloween he was talking about how rob zombie didnt make it out to be like the first one made by john carpenter for on john carpenter didnt make halloween he just was apart of it two rob zombie’s version kicks john carpenters ass. nothing agains carpenter but rob zombie brought michael to a new level i think this one will blow the first one out of the water

Comment by Andrew Tinch from anderson indiana — August 31, 2007 @ 6:21 am

Thanks for the review.  Check is in the mail.  The amount will compensate for your total loss of credibility.

Comment by Dimension Films from LA — August 31, 2007 @ 7:29 am

Zombie is doing stuff the way he wants it, his visions just don’t work for most people. His backstory crap is what he likes, not what was good for Halloween.

Comment by Reu from dc — August 31, 2007 @ 9:50 am

okay…this movie is not anywhere near the original, but not as bad as everyone makes it out…it is similar to the idiocy of hollywood trying to remake hitchcock or blatantly ripping off old movies because they are devoid of new ideas…zombie has some talent as a director, but he needs to stop with the massive torture scenes and scare us beyond the obvious…the movie is decent, just not The Descent…which i thought was a seminal example of a new idea done incredibly well…

Comment by mark belnay from Denver, Colorado — August 31, 2007 @ 10:21 am

This movie was a piece of garbage. The dialogue was ridiculously stupid. At the screening I went to the audience was laughing hysterically througout the movie. By the end of the movie, there was no suspense. This review is way off the mark.

Comment by Samuel — August 31, 2007 @ 10:25 am

Here is how I look at this movie:  The original was scary because Michael had no motive, he was a blank minded killer and that in itself was terrifying.  Zombie in making this remake decided to show the other side of how this could happen in real life, where there is a lot of motive.  In a time where there are so many school shootings and kids are doing unthinkable atrocities due mostly to family abuse and/or neglect, I thought it was chilling to watch the young Michael begin his killing spree.  It was chilling because the way Zombie filmed it was dark, realistic, and I was thinking the whole time, this could actually happen, in ways, it already has.  The only difference being that the real life Michael Myers of recent headlines uses guns at school instead of knives at home. 
Carpenter brought us a Michael that is born evil, Zombie brings us a Michael that becomes evil through time.  I think it was brave to change the story and instead of remaking the original line for line (think Psycho), show us a different interpretation of how this night could have come about.  Is it as good as the original?  Honestly no, Zombie is progressing as a film maker and I was surprised at how good this movie was, however it still has its flaws.  However for any real fan of the series, seeing Michael become who he is can be pretty entertaining.  Maybe everyone is upset because they missed Michael having no motive?  Perhaps.  That is one of my favorite things about the original.  However I’ll give Zombie this:  he gave Michael a motive to kill and I thought it was almost effective as giving him no motive in the original.  As I watched the young Michael endure his family life and resort to killing animals to cope with what was going on, I couldnt help but think that this is surely happening with another kid out there right now as I write this, and his reaction will be just as violent.  I dont know if this is what Zombie had in mind when he put this movie together, but it creates a link with the real world that the halloween sequels have not even come close to since the original.  This is a Michael that could exist.  That is what makes any good horror film frightening, either the thought that this could really happen or at least its done in a way to where the rediculous seems absolutly plausible (think Exorcist).  The story of Michael as Zombie tells it already has happened in real life, and will happen again.

Comment by Marc — August 31, 2007 @ 11:14 am

Ha ha ha!!! You did not hear the painfully bad dialogue?? Did you??? Or even notice the sorry cliched serial killer motifs in this sad mess of a remake!!! What about the lack of any cool atmosphere that made the first one brilliant and memorable, well dude????
Have a read round the net, everyone agrees this is a total piece crap - except YOU, must be embaressing, seriously give up the game of movie reviewing, you are making a idiot of yourself, period!!!!!

Comment by Jason — August 31, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

This review is laughable for it’s naivete’, amongst other things but let’s get to the bottom line of why it’s a complete waste. The only “new” territory here is the inclusion of Mike Meyers’ childhood. This concept was the WRONG DIRECTION to go to. Rob Zombie demonstrates a true lack of understanding as to what made the original so terrifying. Mike Meyers character is “the boogeymoon.” Any attempts to explain this or “humanize” him are a total mistake. Once you try to explain him you lose the mystique—the very thing that made him scary. This film does for the original “Halloween” what “Hannibal Rising” did for “The Silence of the Lambs.” This review is ludicrous! P.S.—Seeing cameos of people like Dee Wallace (The Howling), Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead), and Udo Kier (Andy Warhol’s Dracula) only makes us true horror buff’s pine over better movies and better horror movie days.

Comment by Jake S from Seattle, WA — August 31, 2007 @ 12:45 pm

This reviewer accomplishes something few reviewers can - alienates the reader, insults the intelligence of his audience, and tosses out wild hyperbole that eliminates any credibility even before the reader can see the film being discussed.

This reviewer’s embarrassing version of journalism only makes you wonder: How much was paid to Rotten Tomatoes to get a link to this garbage?

Tip to any other wanderers who accidentally got here: read everything else on Rotten Tomatoes for accuracy and skip on by.

Comment by Greg from Seattle — August 31, 2007 @ 12:49 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

Regardless of whether or not this movie deserves this review (it doesn’t), Bill Gibron definitely needs to back off on the elitist horror fan characterizations.  I don’t have any statistics, but to say that most movie reviewers have not seen the original Halloween is at least presumptuous.  His attack of Scream fans is equally silly, and really it doesn’t make much sense.  He seems to be confusing that movie for (some of) those that followed.  How many slashers can anyone name that were as clever and well-made as Scream?  Anyway, I will see this movie tonight, and I hope I like it as much as Gibron.

Comment by Kyle from Omaha — August 31, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

Wow, there’s some pretty mean stuff getting thrown at this reviewer. I’m sure he can take it, but man, some people are mean and angry. Maybe their moms were strippers or something when they grew up.

Anyway, I haven’t seen the movie (nor any Rob Zombie movie), but as a fan of the original (and H20 actually), I’m curious. I may or may not agree with this reviewer, but if I disagree I don’t think I’ll come back and tell him he’s a stupid, worthless whore of a writer who only wants to have Rob Zombie’s babies.

Comment by Rob — August 31, 2007 @ 1:29 pm

You are wrong. The original Halloween was only about suspense. Zombie missed it completely. There was no suspense. None.

Comment by Joel Potrykus from Grand Rapids, mi — August 31, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

Three words for this critic;

stop smoking crack.

Comment by Dr Wynn — August 31, 2007 @ 5:41 pm

I agree whole-heartedly with Gibron’s review. Rob Zombie’s re-make, no re-envisioning of Carpenter’s original Halloween is brilliant. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, and it’s not to say the movie doesn’t have its faults, it does. Perhaps 10 or 15 minutes could have been edited out for clarity’s sake, but I don’t mind those minutes being there, after all a portrait is being drawn. And I do have trouble with Mike’s lifeless mask being such a symbol for his insane brutality that it needs an iconic tribute. The initial murders the young Myers commits would have been much creepier if done in the clown mask, but regardless of this, what Zombie made is brilliant.
  (To those who argue, how can a man kept 15 years in a small room of an institution become so strong? I’ll tell you – he’s not a man, he’s the devil. Just look in his eyes).
  This film is not a portrait of a mid-western suburban town that is clasped in the strangle-hold of a maniacal killer and slashed into fragments that no longer resemble many of the neighborhoods in which we live. No. The focus is on Myers and how he terrorizes Haddonfield for…what? His own redemption of course, as warped as it may be, and that’s part of the movie’s success. Mike Myer’s quest for redemption by slaughtering those who made him what he is. The wonderful back-story enables this reading.
  I was on edge most of the film. Carpenter’s vision held Myers in the shadows, the shape that is never clearly seen, and that is part of what made his version such a frightening success. Since Zombie focuses on the character, we see him a bit more. But that’s not to say he isn’t creeping in every shadow of the film. Those pauses where Myers steps back to scrutinize his slashed victims are definitely harking back to Carpenter’s original, and something Zombie uses to great effect.
  We can see Carpenter’s Halloween was a true influence on Zombie’s filmmaking. And like all great artists, Zombie took his influence, without anxiety, one step further and gave us a true, heartfelt account of one of the most horrific characters ever created for film.
  Believe me, you will cringe and feel every bludgeoning blow, every stainless slash of this film.

Comment by Christian — August 31, 2007 @ 8:26 pm

As a huge fan of the original Halloween, a huge skeptic of remakes, and a firm believer (until seeing “Halloween” tonight) that Rob Zombie had no business directing movies, I was prepared to hate this film. I find myself surprised to say that, while Carpenter’s original is still the better film (and will ALWAYS get points simply by being “the first” to invent the tone and technique of the modern slasher film)... I actually did enjoy Zombie’s version.

I think that in order to enjoy this version, you have to be of the opinion that both movies present different ideas of “Death.” What it is, how it comes for us, and how we will react when it arrives.

In Carpenter’s original Halloween, Death is scary because it is portrayed as an inevitable fact of life. Michael Myers was not humanized in the original because he’s not supposed to be “a man” – there’s a reason why that film constantly refers to him in mythic proportions: “pure evil.” He is, for the purpose of Carpenter’s vision, simply a walking symbol of impending Death. He is the grim reaper coming to suburbia. Expressionless. Unstoppable. Unavoidable. He is a Fate (as that teacher in the original harps on!) that will claim us all… even when we’re not prepared for it (hence the young, pretty, naive and unprepared babysitter victims). for a role as babysiterr-mother, for sex… and for death), and even when we think we’re safe (in the warm autumn comfort of picket-fence Americana). He does not speak, because there’s no need for explaining. He does not give chase, because we could never out run him, anyway. And he keeps “coming back one more time” until he claims his prize. Because when it’s your time to go… it is simply your time to go. I believe that’s also why the first film is concerned with suspense, rather than action. It is about death’s constant presence. It looms, just as Michael does during his day of stalking, always slightly out of frame… until night falls, and the bell finally tolls for thee.

On the other hand, I thought Zombie’s “Halloween” took the perspective that death, horror and mayhem are (to some extent, at least) avoidable threats. Michael is a man, not a symbol. He is not born under a bad sign… he is born out of circumstance. He treats human life with disdain because that is what he was shown. He has no sympathy because he has hardened himself against abuse. And the death scenes reiterate the idea of death somehow being negotiable – victims do not pass silently with a quick scream, as they do in the original. Rather, they beg for their lives. Zombie takes pains to emphasize their panic, their reluctance to accept what is happening, and their will to SURVIVE… not just their will to run from death (there’s a subtle difference there).Unlike the original, they do not recognize Michael for the angel of death that he is, but choose to flee in vain. Rather, they firmly believe that it is NOT their time to die, and that fight, not flight, is the solution. We may criticize that the film is about action instead of suspense, but that is because suspense is at odds with this film’s concept of death. Here, death is not a regrettable but unavoidable fate. It is a surprise! It takes you, quite literally, kicking and screaming into the grave.

It’s also worth noting that in the original, Michael has no motive. This reinforces the idea that Carpenter portrays him simply as an angel of death. In Zombie’s film, we are not even sure… Does Michael WANT to kill Laurie? Or does he try to find her because she is his last link to love, and thus his humanity. While he treats her violently, it is never explicitly explained whether he wants to kill her – in fact, it is implied that he may just want to capture her, and keep her. In the grand finale, when he rushes towards her with arms wide open, tackling her to the ground as she prepares to pull the trigger… is it a final attack… or should we see it as him seizing that intimate hug of love from his baby sister, before she makes it impossible?

The original “Halloween” is a scarier film to me, because I find its interpretation of death to be scarier. I also prefer it’s omnipresent “eeriness” to Zombie’s emphasis on chase scenes. But that is simply preference. Zombie is not a great filmmaker, but I was surprised to find that I believe his “Halloween” is a good, solid, acceptable interpretation of an age-old question: How will death come for ME?

Comment by Scott from Boston, MA — August 31, 2007 @ 10:18 pm

So i fuckin loved this movie. Rob Zombie did a near perfect job of taking a classic and modernizing it and i was thrilled that he didnt make a carbon copy because nobody wants that. Also, i was really exited about seeing more blood and swearing because i dont know about you guys but those are two things i want in a movie. I swear a lot and i so should people in an R rated movie. I loved the entire movie start to finish and i was, for the first time in a long while, actually and truly impressed with a horror movie. I saw the Halloween movies on fuckin Halloween as a kid. My birthday is the day after Halloween so its always been a huge holiday for me, and thus ive become quite the fan of the horror movie genre. I saw the first Halloween when i was about 6 and i about pissed myself in pure fright. My cousin owned the mask and used to scare the shit out of me when i was sleeping. Ive always thought that this was the scariest movie id ever seen. Ive never been one to be frightened by monsters or zombies or things of that nature, but its the true sick fucks of the world that keep me up at night. I think thats what makes Halloween so scary, is that any sick fuck out there could put on a mask and kill people with a fuckin knife. Rob Zombie’s Myers was way fuckin scarier than the original in my opinion because he is portrayed as a real human being. The original is too supernatural in my opinion and the lack of knowledge about him just makes him all the less scary. Knowing about his childhood and seeing that he is really just one of us, a human being is that scariest thing in the world in my opinion. True terror comes from the things that threaten our lives. And i think that Rob Zombies movie created the perfect example of that particular terror.

Comment by Brian from Orlando, FL — August 31, 2007 @ 10:50 pm

Wow, you’ve just lost all credibility as a “critic”.

Can’t wait to read some snippets to our listeners on tomorrow’s Splattercast.

Comment by Deadlantern.com — August 31, 2007 @ 10:56 pm

Hmm. Look, we have had 7 other attempts at continuing this franchise and now we finally get to see wbat caused Michael to become erm, Michael.

For some it was just what we were waiting for. For others it was an insult. But they do not put in what they think would make a good halloween movie.

The first thing to do in the event of watching any movie like this is remember it’s not the original, and there is no way to turn back the clock and make another halloween. It’s been done, and it’s been done to death.

And Zombie knew this. He knew he was up against it. He did what noone else has done in 7 sequels.

Don’t like it? fine ! that’s up to you. Personally I think that for the first time in about 25 years I am thinking of the movie halloween and feeling scared just like when I watch it.

If I had died *not* having a halloween like Zombie’s I would have felt that I missed something during my life. I for one am a massive fan of the original, more than any other horror movie because I like feeling scared, terrified. Not grossed out.

Thats what the original halloween did, scared me. Didnt make me feel sick.

This one? For a movie made in 2007 it’s pretty lame on the guts and sick part. But it didnt need to be. It needed to be scary. And when people are begging for their lives with their teeth smashed out, pleading, I was scared. You are witnessing what one of dahmer’s victims would have said and done. Helpless.

This movie is amazing. It’s not a ‘remake’ (f*ck I am getting SO tired of people calling it that) it is a tribute to fans. And it’s Rob’s toy to play with and he did what he thought best for it.
And I am so happy that he decided to FINALLY put some story into it and not produce another lame f*cking movie where a different actor dressed as Michael grunts and stabs people into chunks.

It’s new. Alot of people are afraid to see someone try something new. At least it’s nothing like any of the others.

As for the acting and dialogue? Christ. Did you expect a white trash family to talk pretty? what did you want? a family sitting around a table eating f*cking PB&J;?

Michaels mother (according to Zombie) was a stripper, her live in boyfriend was a piece of sh*t and her sister a slut. LMAO were you expecting them to be asking politely if they could pass the butter? PLEASE !

Anyone whining about this movie are just pissed off because they didnt get the chance to do it. Thats all. Those who are in love with it (the reviewer up there and myself included) can see it for what it is, a genuine tribute full of answers to those clever enough to have asked the questions about the first and second movies.

I love this movie, it’s awesome. I have already seen it five times and just like the original it scares me each time.

Thanks for the review there ! at least someone else sees it as I do. To the rest? lol I hope youre looking forward to the next one with a dumb rapper that cant act. Me? Ill take a Zombie ‘classic feel’ movie anyday.

Comment by Andy T from Ohio — August 31, 2007 @ 11:52 pm

Andy T -

Those of us who disliked the film aren’t necessarily fans of EVERY sequel in the series either.  Personally, I would rather they didn’t make ANY more “Halloween” films.  No sequels, no remakes…nothing.  Just let a classic sleeping dog lay.

Comment by Dr Wynn — September 1, 2007 @ 2:40 am

Andy T -

Also, if you’re tired of hearing people call it a “remake”...well, sorry, but that’s basically what the second half of the film was.

Sure, the first half was it’s own vision…and I give Zombie points for that.  But, the second half is like the Cliff’s Notes version of John Carpenter’s classic; except these Cliff’s Notes were written by a pure plaigarist.  Same situations, same (somewhat updated) dialogue, same death scenes (almost literally), same everything.  Also, the film utilized the exact same characters, same names, same title, same friggin’ original score (through most of the film).

If you’re tired of hearing people call it what it REALLY is…well, that’s too bad; because the fact remains…it is what it is.  It’s a remake…and not a very good one, at that.

Zombie kept saying before the film was released that the entire film was going to be different, fresh, new, etc.  He said that viewers wouldn’t be able to recognize it from the original.  Well, somewhere along the way he either copped out or got lazy.  Nice job, Bob.

Comment by Dr Wynn — September 1, 2007 @ 3:02 am

Andy T -

You wrote; “it is…a genuine tribute full of answers to those clever enough to have asked the questions about the first and second movies”

Please, indulge us with the brilliant answers provided to us by this film.

Also, those of us who are “whining” about the film happen to not like it because we feel it’s just NOT good filmmaking.  We’re not complaining because we’re jealous.  I said before and I’ll say it again; the world didn’t need another “Halloween”...remake or sequel.  Enough’s enough.  I would never have the audacity or ego to think I could make a better sequel or remake.  I would try something new and let the classic rest in peace.

Comment by Dr Wynn — September 1, 2007 @ 3:03 am

I just went to see this movie last night and I thought it was amazing.  It was very intense and Rob Zombie did a great job!  I’m just really glad all you people who thought differently think you can all do a better job than Rob.  It’s pretty pathetic that everyone sits here and gets off criticizing other people’s work, when you all should have more dignity for yourselves and do what he’s doing before you talk crap about someone for what he does,and Rob Zombie is someone that will ALWAYS make more money than you and is BETTER than you at anything you will ever do in your lives! Get a life!

Comment by ? — September 1, 2007 @ 7:21 am

Let me to you all the story of my friday night. After eating my bagel and cream cheese, I hurried up and took my friend home hoping to catch the 9:35PM showing…  we got there at 9:26 and they gave us tickets for the 10:20PM movie. Oh, and some racist black lady wouldn’t sell my one buddy a ticket cause he was underage. But anyway…

we went back in where there was a humongous line. It didn’t seem like we waited that long before they let us in. But anway, we actually found some descent seats. We all sat down yelling obscenities towards each other giving some people the chuckles.NOW…..

the lights begin to dim, and the previews come on. I personally love the previews, but this time around I did not see one good one. The lights dim alittle more until it was completely dark and for some reason with the packed theatre that it was I was expecting people to stop clapping, or even a faint scream to start off this horror flick. Well…

not one person clapped or said anything and I should have gotten the %#$^ out of there right then. This has had to be the worst movie and by far my saddest excuse for “wasting my money”. This film had barely any real scary scenes. It didn’t show anything more than what we already knew about michael, and last was they didn’t give me any kind of emotion besides being pretty mad that I didn’t go see “superbad” instead.

I really like rob zombie and his visual ideas, but as far as a story line, I think he flushed it. He tried his best to reach out, but there was no use.

After the movie ended…  I smoked a cigarette and said “wow, I can’t believe I stayed awake that whole time.”

SAVE YOUR MONEY !!!

Comment by Dave — September 1, 2007 @ 10:33 am

The first review I’ve read that’s actually fair to this finely made film.  It wasn’t perfect.  While the first half was interesting and disturbing, it wasn’t really scary.  But once Michael started killing people in town is when it went from disturbing to getting a little suspenseful, and then kept building slowly until the very end, when it completely went it’s own way from the original.  And the ending was perfect.

Comment by Andrew — September 1, 2007 @ 12:11 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

YOU HAVE GOT OT BE JOKING!!!!!!! I AM AND HAVE BEEN A HALLOWEEN FAN SINCE THE FIRST ONE. ROB ZOMBIE HAS MADE A COMPLETE JOKE OUT OF THE FILM. THE AUDIENCE SPENT MORE TIME LAUGHING THEN SCREAMING. HE WENT SOFAR OFTHE STORY LINE IT WAS ACTUALLY CONFUSING. HE SHOULD HAVE JUST MADE A MOVIE ABOUT A SERIAL KILLER RATHER THAN MAKEING A LAME ATTEPT AT RECREATING A CLASSIC LIKE HALLOWEEN.. I WAS SOOOO EXCITED TO SEE THIS MOVIE AND WAS SADLY DISSAPOINTED WITH IT :)

Comment by Vicci from NJ — September 1, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

“Please, indulge us with the brilliant answers provided to us by this film”

No problem :)

Who was Micheals mother? answered.
Who was his sister? answered.
What drove him to murder? answered.
Why did he kill his sister? answered.
Where did he get that mask? answered.
Why does he wear a mask? answered.

I could go on all day and night.
As I said, some were not looking for answers, fair enough. I was. I was absolutely intrigued by what and who Micheal really was.

I dont expect other people to like this movie. Just as I dont expect people to hate it. It is what it is TBH.

I wrote a review of Resurrection that was on my private myspace about a year ago. It had no relevance then because I had no idea that Zombie was doing another one. But in my review I put forward what I would love to have seen/see in a new version.

And I got everything I wished for, as possibly did the reviewer.

I’m not saying anyone is right or wrong, I’m just saying this -

Imagine the movie was EVERYTHING you wanted from it. Would you rant and rave about it? sure. Would it make you bias? no. Because it’s kinda like you wishing for a ferrari as your car and then getting it. Just because you are elated it doesnt mean you have faeces on your tongue OR are getting paid. All it means is you are happy and are penning your thoughts down on paper.

Oh. As for the remake? it isnt a remake. Period.

Remakes are clones, word for word copies. Why do you think when the movie crossed paths with the old one that Zombie changed around the timeframe (answer machine in the late 70’s? I dont think so) and the way the characters were. This Laurie was a tad naughtier than the total goody two shoes Curtis was.

Comment by Andy T again :) from OH — September 1, 2007 @ 10:01 pm

Vicci.
Firstly you DONT NEED TO SHOUT LOVE !

Secondly, proof reading over your post it seems you are pretty illiterate or were’nt trying.

Maybe this movie was a bit complexed for you?

There there, I just left NJ for OH, I can sympathise.. You have my condolences.

Anyway to counter your statements.

#1. Micheal *is* a serial killer.
I was best pleased that Zombie made him a human (well in essence) and not a stupid unkillable maniac from zoid!!!oneone (dramatisation added)

#2 he didnt try to recreate a classic.He reinvented one.

#3 as I said before this is *his* take on the original, not a copy, remake, clone, ya da blah.

Does anyone here actually know about Zombie’s past/background?

If not then try looking on www.wikipedia.com

And you’ll find that he’s more qualified to have a go @ furthering the halloween series than any one of us. He was a part of Tarantino’s grindhouse too.. Maybe if you looked into what kind of movie the guy creates you may better understand.

Infact, if you know who Rob was, you would have known what to expect, and you wouldnt be complaining.

Comment by Andy T from OH — September 1, 2007 @ 10:05 pm

Some of the posts defending this film have been the most daft and ridiculous things I’ve ever read. You mean you actually buy into that stupid Hollywood euphemism “re-imagining?” Have you ever seen the remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It was able to convey the same plot with completely different characters, a different setting (as related to the story) and all together different scenes. This is a fact yet it is considered a REMAKE. Rob Zombie’s Halloween is attempting to convey the same plot, ONLY WITH COMPLETELY RECYCLED SCENES, CHARACTERS, SETTING, DIALOGUE, etc. Here’s the plot for both movies “Child kills on Halloween, gets committed, escapes, and kills again 15 years later.” The fact that they provide backstory is inconsequential, it’s the same damn plot.

What does this have to do with any critique of the film? Nothing. I’m only responding to Andy T’s posts because he felt compelled to state this “fact” twice, as if it really mattered. I was entertained, but not scared in the least bit. What’s the point of making a horror film that’s not scary? The fact that you’re wrong about there being a difference between the term re-imagining and remake has nothing to do with the fact that I thought the film stunk; and it has nothing to do with the fact that you thought it was better than the original. I mean, I can go on about your nitpicking and cognitive dissonance, but whatever.

“he didnt try to recreate a classic.He reinvented one.”

That’s the equivalent of saying something like “Don’t call it a remake! It’s a REMAKE!”

Comment by Chris - for the third time. — September 1, 2007 @ 10:35 pm

ANDY T RE: ...answer machine in the late 70’s? I dont think so.

“Danish telephone engineer and inventor, Valdemar Poulsen is best known for his Telegraphone, which he patented in 1898. It was the first practical apparatus for magnetic sound recording and reproduction. It was an ingenious apparatus for recording telephone conversations. It recorded, on a wire, the varying magnetic fields produced by a sound. The magnetized wire could then be used to play back the sound.”

Guess you were born after the original HALLOWEEN was made.

Comment by Walley from Cali — September 1, 2007 @ 11:43 pm

Holy Moly,

We’ve entered an age where the reviewers get the reviews! Zombie rocks, he has originality, he shouldn’t have done a remake, but we have to deal with it so enjoy it. It’s fun! Not master film making.

Comment by Zob Rombie from Haddonfield — September 2, 2007 @ 6:59 am

Bill Gibron, your HALLOWEEN review hits the target: bulls eye!

Interesting that fans and critics often appreciate Zombie’s work, even though they don’t completely understand it. You do understand it.

Am not so sure Zombie’s movies are Horror - this one, included.  There’s an expressionist method, different from film to film, at work, plus an intellectuality that one could consider at odds with this kind of movie. 

HALLOWEEN’s first half hour, the part you write about most of all in your review, details not only the the emergence of Michael Myers, but also the birth of this genre. Step by step, we watch an American family disintegrate into chaos; the post-war baby boom crawling to its final destination.  “God is dead” prefaces HOUSE OF A THOUSAND CORPSES. Ingmar Bergman searched for God in his early films.  Zombie may be doing the same.

Comment by Nick Faust from Evansville, Indiana — September 2, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

Why do people seriously think that Rob Zombie is intelligent? Did you listen to the interview he did on Jimmy Kimmel, he said that he wanted to resurrect Michael Myers because the audience was too familiar with him, that he had become (his word) “gay?” People actually think Rob Zombie was thinking of social commentary while writing the first draft script (which was absolute bollocks)? Like I said before about the reviewer, it’s great that you have this perception, but you’re thinking way too hard about this film. Rob Zombie’s only intention was that to make the franchise scary, which he by and large failed to do. What’s more, in a recent interview, he said that IT WASN’T SUPPOSED TO BE SCARY BUT DISTURBING!!! This proves that the guy is full of shit. The movie also failed to do that. Ever see The Shining? That’s disturbing, and that does have latent commentary (on America’s savage treatment of indigenous people). Ever see Oldboy? That’s disturbing, and it altogether is a much greater film. I’ll always maintain that I was entertained by this film. Fact is however, I’m glad I didn’t pay to see it, and I don’t think I’d force myself to see it again. I get obsessive about these things, essentially because I’m a narcissist and I have no life.

I haven’t been “reviewing the reviewer,” I’ve been responding to it and everyone else’s comments with my opinion. It’s just mind boggling, people are defending a film, that by all means probably should not have even been made. It’s absolutely sad. People always complained that the sequels “ruined the character,” but they never actually realize that even if they did do another sequel, it could have been done well. What people don’t realize is that the direction of the series is pretty much in Malek Akkad’s hands, and he’s just as money-hungry and unaware of how to judge a decent horror film as his father was (RIP with respect though, obviously without him I wouldn’t be making this diatribe). It was his idea to do a remake, and his idea to recruit Rob Zombie. Throughout every review I read of The Devil’s Rejects (usually more praised than H1KC), the positive things that they have to say was that it was “stylistic,” “intriguing,” or “impressive.” Credentials like that may be all fine and dandy, but TDR was a horror film. Those words are not “disturbing,” “scary,” or even “chilling.” Malek Akkad does not care.

I have nothing more to say about the actual film, because I don’t feel like repeating myself. If anyone wants to hear more, I can talk about how Rob Zombie’s intentions in writing the script were grossly out of focus. Anyone remember the early interview in which Zombie made complaints that Michael’s “mask was random,” that he had “the only pristine mechanic’s outfit available,” and that Donald Pleasance’s character was flat. For someone who claims to be a longtime fan of the movie, and also claims to be doing something “different,” the guy can’t stop talking about things he’s going to “correct;” in what was essentially a melodramatic film. Social Commentary? Kiss my dick.

Comment by Chris^4 — September 2, 2007 @ 2:12 pm

**In disbelief***

Well, publishing bullcrap like this, you are either looking for attention or you just haven’t a clue about movies,  - probably both.

The movie was a STINKING TURD FEST.

Man, oh, man, of all the reviewers out there on the web, throw a stone and you’ll hit one, you are the s-u-c-k-i-e-s-t one to come down the pike in a long time.

“Feel sorry for Zombie”. NO WAY. ROTFL, the man had 20 million bucks and all he came up with was this crap! What a total f*ck up he is, shame on him for bastardizing a brand name for a quick buck.

Comment by Peter — September 2, 2007 @ 3:00 pm

This movie was horrible.  Most of the theater was laughing because it was sooo lame!  When it was over I personally heard more that a few people say: “That was really loud” or “Now I have a headache”.

This guy must not have watched the same movie as everyone else did!

Comment by stallion321 from athens — September 2, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

What a bunch of whinny little terds. I was more than pleased with RZ’s take on my favorite slasher film of ALL TIME! The more I read these bitter reviews of a descent review the more I realize how bitchen this movie was. It will clear 25 mil before weekends out minimum. Bravo RZom…Bravo.

And to all that complained about the waste of time and money…go see Transformers or Rush Hour 3 again. That sounds like it would be more your speed.

I work in Hollywood and I’ll be damned if I am not chomping at the bit to work with this guy.

Comment by Jeff from So Cal — September 2, 2007 @ 5:48 pm

The new Halloween remake was the film equivalent of a complete rectal exam… and YOU my friend should be ASHAMED of yourself.

Comment by Amy from Maryland — September 2, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

I am convinced that anyone with anything bad to say about this 90 minutes of fun and screams doesn’t comprehend what this guy does when he makes a movie.  And so be it. More for the few of us that do. Except the fact that it made twice the budget in 3 days. Suckers!!!!!!

Comment by John from Cincinatti — September 2, 2007 @ 6:46 pm

I hope that everybody who has jumped on this reviewer have seen the film.  I love the original Halloween, and also thought H20 was a brilliantly entertaining entry in the series.  Apart from that, the sequels were all substandard to particularly poor.  But I will still see the new entry when it hits Britian with an open mind, and try and remove the original from my mind, seeing as it is playing as a different take on the story and not a lame shot-for-shot remake.

Comment by Billy from Glasgow — September 3, 2007 @ 5:53 am

Movie o.k.! Acting sub-par. Story line could of been better but you have to look at this film as Zombies own vision with partial ideas and not compare this with the original(which is by far the best suspence thriller of its kind) The movie lacked from being scary and suspenceful, instead using more blood and gore, infact it wasn’t as bad as some proclaim. I would have made the ending shorter and more suspenceful(the pool scene) Loomis walking away with Laurie, as Laurie is looking at Lommis asking him if that was the boogyman, him replying, then sending her off with sherrif Brackett. Loomis then walks back to the pool and the body is gone, he then grinds his teeth has a look of fear, then comes the Halloween score heavy breathing from Myers, showing all the
houses one clip at a time. The end. Take the movie for what it was Zombies own vision love it or hate

Comment by michael Arangio from Boston,MA — September 3, 2007 @ 7:27 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

Can’t wait to see it - Just can’t - Thnx guys and gals 4 making my job so easy - u know what? I hv seen all the Halloween movies excepting the Carpenter classic and I think my words are gonna be the most un-abashed ones after the viewing.

Comment by Abhishek Dasgupta from Kolkata — September 3, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

Thanks for not being afraid to stand up and write a truely great review of a brilliant remake, despite what some of the mainstream critics are saying.

I’m right by you, this movie was superb, and I refuse to syncronise my opinions with that of other critics.

Comment by DistantJ from England — September 4, 2007 @ 5:04 am

Andy T-

You are obviously someone who has no clue as to what it was about the original Michael Myers that made him so frightful:

“Who was Micheals mother? answered.”
And irrelevent to him
“Who was his sister? answered.”
Again irrelevent

“What drove him to murder? answered.”

Actually this was answered in the first two Halloweens.  He was driven to murder because he was pure evil. Absolute evil with no cause, care or reason.  Later versions bring up the “Curse of Thorn” and relate back to his original imprisonment in the insane asylum (if you remember in the original Halloween Loomis asks the head of the asylum how Michael learned to drive, later you find out the head of the asylum taught him and helped him escape), you may or may not accept that reason, I personally don’t.  But regardless the “pure evil” aspect is also the reason him and Loomis have the relationship he does.  Loomis, being a shrink, can’t understand how a human being can just have a desire to kill with no regard, and with no reason or cause.

“Why did he kill his sister? answered.”

Again answered in the original, because he could.  He didn’t need a reason, he just had an innate desire to kill.

“Where did he get that mask? answered.”

Again answered in the original.

“Why does he wear a mask? answered.”

Kind of answered in the original, but was actually largly unimportant.

The whole reason the original worked so well and this one fails so badly is because Michael Myers came from a loving family, in quiet suburbia, and had zero reason to “snap”, he just did.  It’s one thing if the abused kid down the street turns out to be a seriel killer, and no one is really shocked by it.  It’s another when it’s the honor roll student next door who has a loving family and is popular in school that does it.

Essentially the new Halloween is just a standard slasher flick with little difference from any other slasher flick.  Treading the same old tired ground, with the only difference being how the killer dresses.  There is nothing different from Michael Myers to Henry Lee Lucas to Jeffery Dahmer really, and there are already plenty of movies about them.

Comment by Jdunn — September 4, 2007 @ 9:57 am

The review was completely and totally paid for by Zombie and Dimension Films. Damn Bill, leave a link for the studio exec who pays for reviews. I need to get me some of that.

I can totally understand Zombie wanting to make the film original. I have no problem there. It was his execution that totally ruined it. I mean, come on, how do you take Michael Meyers and turn him into stereotypical white trash. That was mistake number one.

Mistake number two, you turn Laurie Strode into Michael’s Jerry Springer wannabe cast member sister. That totally lost it for me. The real Halloween had Laurie as a noble heroine. Zombie totally destroys that because girls like her don’t exist in his universe.

Finally you ramp up a poorly written movie and lace it with F-bombs and crappy acting. I was hoping that McDowell was going to be the saving grace, but no Zombie destroyed Dr. Loomis as well. McDowell flat out said that he was not going to channel Pleasance’s role.

So now do you understand why this movie sucks? Do you understand why we know you were paid off? You don’t give a shit about the original film, you’re just hoping to curry favor to get some invites. This movie demarks the division of what Hollywood was and it has become. Pretty freaking sad.

Zombie had a chance to bring Halloween to a younger generation. Instead he made a totally different movie. He “borrowed” ideas from the original, got Carpenter to OK it (Carpenter doesn’t care anymore. He saw the franchise go into the toilet long ago.) Zombie slaps a Shatner mask onto a white trash Michael and peddles this garbage to kids who don’t know any better.

Comment by Justy Hakubi from In the land of sanity — September 4, 2007 @ 10:46 am

I want to apologize for not getting an abortion when Andy was just a clump of cells.  That I raised a son so stupid that he could actually like this film is a stain of my family’s reputation that will linger for generations to come.

Even his poor mongoloid brother thought this film was as bad as Andy’s score in his 8th grade math final. 

We thought Andy hit rock bottom when he got fired from his garbage man job for taking trash out of the truck and putting it into people cans.  But he surprised us by this new low.

Andy - there was a clothes hanger with your name on it all those years ago - if I only wouldve done the right thing…..

Comment by Andy T's mother — September 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am

Thanks for the review. I’m not quite willing to go as far as you are in praise of the movie (it had a few pacing problems, Rob has a little trouble landing a consistent tone, and I’d have recast a couple of actors), but I think your review “gets” what Zombie tried to do better than any I’ve read. The new “Halloween” is really a nasty peice of work, and it’s a much better movie than almost anybody is giving it credit for being. It’s the kind of grueling film that asks us to really look at sadism, to really look at it and identify with it and recognize it as a part of ourselves. The fact that we’re asked to see so much of the movie from Micheal Myers’ perspective really makes this one different from the standard slasher movie. Sure we’ve all seen the P.O.V. staking shot or the peeping tom shot, but how often have we seen a budding monster suffering at the hands of everyone around him?  How often have we been asked to think about what he might be feeling. This movie is not a joke. This is not a fun movie. It’s a sad, disturbing, unpleasant ride, and God bless Rob Zombie for making it that way. This is a movie for the hardcore horror fan. It’s not popcorn entertainment.

Having said all that, I think that this is the kind of movie that most people (and certainly not most film critics) will never really “get.” That’s because this is a punk movie. Not in the sense of it being independent or underground, but in the sense of it embracing an aesthetic of crudeness. The aggressive stylishness (Rob gets more and more in control of his camera every film, but he still is a bit too in love with style for its own sake to get respect), the relentless violence, the unrealistic plot, the over the top acting (which is actually quite good, but it’s not naturalistic), and the overall nihilistic tone of the film mark this as a “lowbrow” film. This isn’t good taste. This is appropriate for a movie that is a personal, dark take on adeolescence. Many won’t get it. Some will get, but will dismiss it as morbid and juvinille. Fine. This isn’t for everyone. But for those of us who get it, Rob’s Halloween is really special.

(That’s not to say it’s perfect. I think the last fight goes on for too long and that a couple of important characters are a bit underdeveloped. And I’ll repeat teh complaint that the screaming and hitting gets kind of exhausting and irritating rather than scary before the film ends. But maybe it’s better this way. I’m not sure that a more polished film would have the same crude energy that this one has.)

Comment by jamie — September 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm

I enjoyed Zombie’s re-whatever you wanna call it of Halloween.. now anyone who hates Zombie and is a film school snob will completely discredit me because I enjoyed something the majority of critics are bashing.  I’ve been reading many reviews of this film, many bad, and the majority always tend to compare it to the original and always say that it has flaws, yet never expand upon what they deem as the flaws.

Many reviewers claim that for the most part Michael kills at random.. which some could say he does for some, but surely not all.. a good number of people have attacked him first.  The other thing that I find interesting about the majority of the reviewers claim that Zombie relishes the death sequences and that is is all about gore and they compare it to Hostel and the other Torture movies.  I find this point in their reviews alarming because I found the death scenes in the movie almost as disturbing as the death scenes in Zodiac simply because Zombie doesnt have Michael really torturing the victims.  It shows he enjoys the sense of power that comes with the kill, but he doesn’t have some fetish for gore as these reviewers lead you to believe. Zombie doesn’t glorify these scenes like many slasher films, they just simply exist.  Its almost funny to read these reviews about how they think Zombie is a sick individual who is simply enjoying the violence and gore. Yet these reviewers brandish their words as a kitchen knife and seem as they take more fulfillment and joy out of continuously stabbing and slashing Zombie and his film than Michael does from any of his victims.

I thought it was a nice cross section of serial killers and how influencial children are.  Is it stereo typical that an abused child turns out to have psychologial issues? yes. Is it true? yes. I dont wish to ruin anything for anyone who hasn’t seen the film, but the majority of actual characters that “get the knife” have done something to Michael first. The practice of wanting once face covered to hide ugliness is also a trait that has been exhibited by serial killers that have existed in this world.

Comment by Nick — September 4, 2007 @ 4:03 pm

Just saw this film - not bad but not great.  Its biggest failure is its Halloween and it simply doesn’t, or can’t, live up to the original (or II and IV for that matter).  No Donald Pleasance.  No Jamie Lee Curtis.  Leaves us with just a decent horror flick.

Comment by Marc from Ohio — September 5, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Wow, these blogs are quite amusing. Please, let me clear the air. The last time I checked, a review was just an individual’s opinion on what could (or could not) be a great movie. All of the losers that take pride on bashing someone for having an opinion should hop on the next flight to Korea. I’m no professional critic, but I know an amazing movie when I see it. In an age of shitty, half-ass attempts to get an audience to walk away from a horror film truly shocked and awed, Zombie proved that horror and shock value are still alive.

While the movie may be a bit over-gruesome, the story, and motive for that matter, are “a stroke of slice and dice genius”. Zombie redifined Halloween, and did an amazing job at it. I’ve always been truly terrified by Michael Myers (circa 1978), and will always be a die-hard fan to the original.

With that being said, I entered the movie with an open mind, expecting a cliched, over used, under appreciated, basically dull view on Myers. But as the movie progressed, I realized that Zombie knew what to change, and what to keep the keep, playing to the sympathy of the audience.

Zombie focuses on the fact the Michael was a purely evil person, the essence of the “boogyman”, which was a major part of the movie’s genius. Not only did he have an extremely shitty life, but you find out that he’s completely void of emotion from the beginning (answering many questions that arose while watching the 1978 version).

The movie only continues to answer questions, while leaving a brutal trail of emotionless slaughter, and at the climax, presents Michael as a living, bleeding, human. To me, this made the movie for me. Now I’ve read a lot of reviews on the movie, and have seen that Zombie has signed a two movie deal, but after seeing the final scene of the movie, It’s pretty clear that Michael wont (don’t hold me to this) return for a sequel. Zombie has said since revealing that he would be “re-imagining” the movie that he believes the legacy of Myers has been driven into the dirt with horrible sequels, most of which end in much finality, but somehow resurrect Myers once again.

If Zombie decided to go on with the second film, I will be much more skeptical. I believe that the end should truly be the end, and leave the rest to the imagination of the audience.

To all of you who have nothing better to do than bash a great movie, and the people that share a common opinion, please take a moment to remember such sequels as Halloween III, and resurrection. Carpenter’s version is, and always will be, the first, and the most ground-breaking, but Zombie definitely should be associated with this franchise, for this movie was truly great.

Comment by Kaleb from In your basement — September 6, 2007 @ 9:16 am

Zombie spouted over and over again that this was a PREQUEL not a REMAKE…

And yet there I sit in the theatre watching the scene that PJ Soles made so famous where she tells her boyfriend (who’s wearing the most horrible 70’s glasses ever!) to go get her a beer… the guy in the new “Halloween” is wearing the same glasses! They don’t even make those glasses anymore!!! JESUS.

All this movie is, is an excuse for Rob Zombie to add gore and more nudity to this amazing classic… and he misses the point about what made the original so well done… that it lacked blood and gore… it was simple and frightening.

Rob Zombie should stop MAKING movies and stick to watching them.

Comment by Amy from Maryland — September 6, 2007 @ 10:04 am

I saw this movie now five times, and thought it was great!! As you have heard already being a critic entitles you to your own opinion my husband and I are big slasher film critics and looking forward to this movie and finally seeing it was awesome yeah you are true in saying it is not as the first but why call it a remake then if it is going to be the same. Rob used a great character in the halloween when he chose Taylor Mane he played this giant bulky killer with no remorse and that brought this film life, yeah the beginning is a little slow and a bit drawn out but it helped you to create and know a little about what made him so demented, I liked it a whole lot and hope there is a second. Bash on me and others that feel the same if it makes you feel better about yourself but it is what it is and we have our opinion and you have yours.

Comment by HALLOWEEN FAN from CO — September 7, 2007 @ 12:42 pm

The new Halloween was terrible.  This remake attempted to give a realistic reason for why Michael became a monster, but it failed.  Apparently if you are bullied at school and your mother allows a ridiculous charicature of an abusive “boyfriend” (I prefer to think of him as a hobo or transient) to inexplicably live in your home despite there being no affection between him and your mother whatsoever, you will go nuts and kill people.  Throw him in an asylum for more then a decade so he can turn into a man mountain who knows exactly who his now teenage little sister is despite not seeing her since she was a baby and he’ll be able to shrug off bullet wounds as well.  I just can’t buy what Zombie is trying to sell.  Do yourself a favor a stick with the original, it didn’t delve into Michael’s background and was much better for it.

Comment by Colin from Minnesota — September 7, 2007 @ 4:11 pm

Ha Ha - OK my previous comments were a joke just to rile people up. 

That movie SUCKED!!!

Comment by Kaleb from In your basement — September 10, 2007 @ 9:46 am

Ha Ha you’re fuckin cool. Must take a genius to post a comment under my name…damn. If you thought the movie sucked, then good for you, but it was a GREAT film. whatever, keep layin it on people for having an opinion, thats ok, says alot about your character…

Comment by Kaleb from The boogeyman's house — September 11, 2007 @ 10:38 am

Zombie made a mess of a film. He spends the first half of the film humanising and explaining (in the most banal and insipidly stupid way…seriously, Love Hurts is playing as Ms Meyers strips, while Mikey flicks candy corn?)why Zombie believes Meyers turned out like he did. Then Zombie gives us the cliff notes version of the first film (without it’s best elements)with some of the most repulsive and poorly written protagonists in recent film history. But..that’s not all…then Michael gets the knife shoved into his neck (to the hilt), get’s shot with a modern police automatic in the chest, then is shot four times by Loomis in the back..and still gets up. So all the effort (as pathetic as it was) that Zombie spent humanising Meyers, gets flushed down the toilet when Zombies gives us the “shoot him he keeps getting up” Meyers in the second half of the his two films in one disaster. MAKE UP YOUR MIND ROB!!!

Comment by Darkknight from Los Angeles. — September 12, 2007 @ 5:12 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

It needs improvement like start over.this movie sucked.The original is still number one

Comment by Steven Schacht from Phoenix AZ — September 13, 2007 @ 12:03 am

Thank you for writing such a well written and accurate review. I also enjoyed Marc’s insightful comments (August 31) regarding this film’s connection with the real world and the realistic way Michael Myers’ backstory is presented.  Many other people get all fired up about Rob Zombie merely cashing in, when in fact he is doing so much more.  Believe me, I entered the theater with a jaded, cynical eye, expecting to be disappointed.  I was wrong.  Zombie respects the original Halloween every step of the way here, yet he has his own approach, and it works.  Part of the genius of the original was that it was not very gory, it focused more on suspense, and Michael Myers was mysterious and unknowable.  Okay, I get that.  I respect that, and so does Rob Zombie.  He’s not just throwing a movie together and modernizing it to make money, like that soulless, artless, utterly pointless Chainsaw remake.  Rob Zombie clearly expresses his respect, admiration and love for John Carpenter’s original film in his reimagining of it.  The fact that he chooses to be more brutal, more graphic, more sexual, is just part of his vision as a director.  You cannot tell me that, when watching the original, you weren’t wishing that PJ Soles would show just a little more tit.  Come on!  Of course you wanted more tit.  So did I, and so did everybody else!  Zombie gives it to us.  In the original, we get just a flash of Judith Myers’ tits, and they look great, but it’s not enough.  Zombie appreciates this, and in his Halloween, Judith Myers is fucking hotter than hell and she shows us those awesome titties.  Yeah!  What is wrong with that?  It’s a horror movie about teenagers.  What do you expect?  Sex and violence.  The murder scenes are so stark, so brutal, so horrifyingly real.  It’s a horror movie.  It’s escapist cinema.  Deal with it.  When young Michael gets that asshole bully alone in the woods, he’s bashing the life out of all those smarmy, too-cool postmodern slasher film victims whom we all want to see killed.  The bully, though, has no sarcastic in-joke one-liners for the audience.  He whimpers, cries, apologizes, and begs for his life in the face of a danger that is cold and real.  What a great scene.  Michael Myers was once a person with feelings, but now he’s a savage killing machine.  Awesome!  That’s what we’re here for, kids.  Zombie also captures the feel of the ‘70s era through staging and perfect use of musical elements.  Carpenter’s chilling theme and Blue Oyster Cult’s “Don’t Fear The Reaper” are employed, as in the original, to wondrous effect.  Tracks added by Zombie, including Kiss’s “God Of Thunder,” work well also, though I agree that Nazareth’s “Love Hurts” is pushing it.  Thanks again for the review.  I get it, you get it.  Rob Zombie certainly gets it.  It’s too bad that so many of the horror genre neophytes who snivel on sites like this simply do not get it.  This film kicks ass.

Comment by Sid Vithmad from Boston, MA — September 13, 2007 @ 6:36 am

Defending Zombie’s disaster of a film by saying that’s it’s critics here are “genre neophytes sniveling” is laughable. I’m a VERY long time horror fan and I’m sure a good number of others here are also. I take a horror film on its merits. Zombie’s Halloween has paltry few, it’s a poorly written and constructed mess with zero character development and a cardboard cut-out Meyers and as much film time he can give his wife. Perhaps Zombie wanted to give us his “white trash trilogy” by giving us the first half of this two movies stapled together mess?  Justifying it’s value by praising the virtues of the amount of “tit” time is what’s sniveling and neophyte actually (and laughable, hey..bet you can’t wait for the inevitable DVD “Unrated” rape scene that was cut from the theatrical version). In fact, the only scene that felt anywhere close like you were watching a “Halloween” film was the poorly written (and portrayed) Laurie character in the bathroom with the children hiding from Meyers while the police are outside. That was the only sequence (brief as it was) that Zombie fluked with something resembling suspense. I can name you parts of this abysmal film where Zombie filmed the victims dying in exactly the same manner. It was like watching the same sequence until you remind yourself it’s a different victim. Zombie couldn’t even get those to work. Like I said earlier, Zombie clumsily tries to humanise and demystify Meyers (Zombie’s big mistake as we learned from “TCM The Beginning”..another mess of a film.. and “Hannibal Rising”), to make him a “real” serial killer. Then shoots himself in the foot by giving us the abridged Halloween in the second half of the film with the “force of evil” Michael Meyers that won’t stay down when he’s shot. So in all your praise for this mess of a film, ask yourself..over the course of the evening, Meyers has had his knife shoved into his neck to the hilt, been shot in the chest with a police automatic, been shot FOUR TIMES with a .357 revolver, and is still able to kill others, dismantle a roof and get up and pull a screaming teenager out of a car in the course of that evening, but you still want to believe that Zombie has planted the film in his “oh so believable reality”? Give it a rest sport.

Comment by Darkknight — September 13, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

o.k ive been reading the comments here some really good some really bad and ive got to get my say in. first of all i really like the movie ive seen it twice now. i was very skeptical at first because of rob zombie first and then when i heard it was gonna be a remake.but as a fan of the series i had to see it. it was actually very good. the acting was good albeit a little trashyat first young micheal was very effective. it isnt a perfect film as i kind of had a problem with the changing of charecters fates and such but otherwise its definatly the best horror film ive see in awhile.i must address some of the complaints going on around here first its not a remake its definatly a reimagining. a remake would have bben the same and several scenes were changed like annie being attacked and then she didnt even die and she does in the orginal judiths boyfriend doesnt die in the orignal and neither does loomis and they do here the girls walking down the street and micheal driving by was changed the whole ending too etc. so its not a remake. then someone complained about the score being the same. damn that music is part of what makes this and the orignal great! i was expecting a straight scene for scene remake and it wasnt which kind of bothered me but its o.k too. both movies are great and should stand on their own. so thats what im feeling i hope i didnt make anyone mad but thats how i see things.

Comment by fernando g from kingman az — September 13, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

Halloween 2007 is poor film making. Period. Not genius, my friend.

Your review, ugh, there is nothing worse than a pretentious reviewer with an obnoxious opinion. 

That’s you, Bill.

Stop eating those burgers and fries, get away from your computer, get some exercise and find a job, preferably one not related to film comment of any kind.

Comment by Brandon Thorne from LA — September 14, 2007 @ 6:19 am

You guys are truly retarded… in RZ’s vision mike didn’t just snap from a bad childhood. he was still and insane psychopath that had a bit of reasoning at times even if he didn’t remember it. it could of been a better movie, most of you little fat kids are on here just to annoy people and get attention since you have no one in life to look to. i liked the movie a lot, of course it cant beat a classic… but it was a good input on the Halloween story of Micheal myers.

Comment by Halloween — September 15, 2007 @ 12:42 am

Kaleb,
come back & take your meds!!!!
You’re losing your grip on reality - why, I could committ you based on your review alone!

Comment by Kaleb's doctor from Crazy House — September 17, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

I’m still laughing at the scene where Meyers kills Loomis, the shot shows Loomis bleeding from the eyes…then when Meyers drags Loomis into the house…LOOK!!! No blood on the eyes.
What happened Rob? Again, this movie is a mess on all levels.

Comment by Darkknight from Los Angeles — September 17, 2007 @ 1:09 pm

Bill Gibron’s review of the Bush administration:

“The Iraq War has been the greatest example of military excellence & competence since the Revolutionary War.  They must be using psychics in the intelligence department given the lightning quick discovery of all those WMD’s.”

Comment by Nunya Bidness — September 20, 2007 @ 8:33 am

This movie was horrible.  It is not scary, just disgusting and disturbing.  The people who create these kinds of movies have deranged minds creating graphic, violent, bloody movies for anyone to see and to get ideas from… no wonder why our world is so screwed up today.

Comment by Mischa — October 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen, Rob Zombie should never be allowed near film again. This was a distasteful depiction of a classic. He should have just slapped a different name on it and changed the characters names so he wouldnt have tainted the original so badly. Meyers’s family consisted of the absolute worst acting, and I thought Meyers looked more like a wrestling star than a killer at points( the hospital with his masks…Kane anyone?). Everytime Zombie makes a movie it involves white trash and fucking hicks. Haddonfield is a family town, not a trailer park. Even the guards at the hospital were white trash rapists. what the fuck? I dont think Zombie ever understood what the original was about. He is fucking clown shoes.

Comment by Mitch Eaton from home — October 1, 2007 @ 11:17 pm

Who says I need medication to know a great film when I see it. Most of the people bashing this movie have nothing better to do than talk shit on someone else’s success. It’s Ok, I GARUNTEE, not 1one person here could SUCCESSFULLY remake ANY horror movie the way Zombie did this one, shit, even the EVIL DEAD would be too much. Make a smash hit horror remake, then come back in here and talk some shit…

Comment by Kaleb from Right behind you... — October 11, 2007 @ 9:49 pm

I used to be buried deep within Kaleb’s consciousness, but the utter absurdity of his movie reviewing abilities has forced me to seperate from him.  I know suspect HE’S actually the ‘evil twin’ and I’m the normal one.

After all, I know a steaming piece of doggy poo masquerading as a movie when I see one. 

I think Kaleb’s bedwetting problem (that still plagues him to this day) has warped his judgement.

PS. Someone PLEASE buy him a dictionary for Xmas!!!!!!

Comment by Kaleb's evil twin — November 26, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

THREE words:

What the fuck?

What fucking movie were you watching dude?

Comment by Jim from Adelaide. — April 6, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

Wow, look at all these angry goth fags in here trying to make fun of other people to make themselves feel better, I liked the movie. Keep your thoughts to yourselves and please… kill yourselves already and the cutting yourselves thing doesnt make anyone care about you. And it wasnt a remake by the way fucking retarded fat kids.

Comment by Ihategoths/emos — April 14, 2008 @ 8:49 am

— PopMatters sponsor —

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?