Halloween - 2007

[BJBAmerica]

Made the rare trip out of the house to see the Rob Zombie version of the John Carpenter horror classic, Halloween. While not a bad film, it's not a patch on the sleeve of the original 1978 version.

The 2007/Zombie version focuses much more on the childhood years of Michael Myers, and he is shown in a much different light than he was in the Carpenter original.....In the original, it appeared as if the Michael Myers character was from a seemingly normal, middle class family, and for reasons unknown, killed his older sister on Halloween night, 1963. In the Zombie version, Michael comes from a highly disfunctional family, about as far from middle class as you can get. His mother is a dancer in a strip club, his older sister is a bit of a "floozie" and he has a step father that is a verbally abusive dead beat. The better part of the movie focuses on the disfunction in the Myers home and Michael's childhood killings, which are more than just his older sister.

While not a bad film, it just doesn't measure up to the original on any level. They did manage to use many of the music cues Carpenter created for his original. If you watch the original, there is not nearly the amout of graphic violence that you see in this re-make. Carpenter's take was much more frightening, and remains so to this day, IMO, and he didn't have to resort to the same level of "blood and guts" on screen that Zombie has to create a real Chiller.

Being a fan of the original, I was up to seeing Zombie's twist, but, to be honest, you won't miss much if you wait for it to come out on DVD, or better yet, just pop in the original, which can't be beat, IMO.

Just makes you wonder, did this classic really need to be re-made? Where are all the new/fresh ideas these days? Seems like everything has a sequal or 4 and the same movies, classics and otherwise, just keep being re-made over and over again.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

The original aside, how was the movie by itself? I hear and read all too often remakes and sequels critiqued by comparing to it's predecessor, rather than on it's own two feet.

Also, the main reason that sequels and remakes are done is that they are familiar. They already have an audience, whereas a new and fresh idea film must build an audience. It's more than a good story, it's getting a good audience.

 

[BJBAmerica]

The original aside, how was the movie by itself? I hear and read all too often remakes and sequels critiqued by comparing to it's predecessor, rather than on it's own two feet.

Also, the main reason that sequels and remakes are done is that they are familiar. They already have an audience, whereas a new and fresh idea film must build an audience. It's more than a good story, it's getting a good audience.

The new version was fine, but with this movie, it's almost an impossibility not to compare it to the Carpenter original.

Not bad, but any fan of the original will be left making the obvious comparisions and, I suspect, will come away with the same feelings I had, not bad, but nothing compared to the original.

 

[happyfilmluvguy]

Was the suspense suspensful? Did it keep your attention? How was the acting? How about the direction? The music?

 

[RBH]

I went to see this today. I have to say I thought Zombie did a great job.
Of course you cant really match up to Carpenter, but the new film was enough the same and enough different to hold my attention.
I have also seen all of the other Halloween films. Were they as good as the first or the 2nd for that matter. NO WAY!
But I loved the character of Loomis and loved to see what he would do next.
And I can truly say I would not mind seeing McDowell back for another trip as Sam Loomis.
I think you could tell that Zombie himself had a love for the original and I believe he did himself pretty good on this one.

 

[Doh!]

Old fogie time...

I saw the original in theaters when it was first released, and have loved it ever since. I think the new one stinks on quite a few levels. The gore was over the top (although not quite in the "gorenography" category) and there was zero tension in this "horror" movie. Myers just shows up, kills for no apparent reason, and moves on to the next house (I'm unsure why some of the characters were even slaughtered -- or why Zombie found it necessary to drag out their deaths for such a long time).

I did like hearing the music from the orginal, but it was just slathered on top of many scenes without much thought. And Laurie was a pretty weak character this time around. Jamie Lee Curtis can rest easy; the new performance is not going to wipe out the memory of hers by any means.

I've never seen any of Zombie's other movies so maybe it's his "signature," but was it really necessary to linger on the naked, multiple-stabbed body of a girl -- and keep coming back to the sight of her moaning in pain? I'm no prude when it comes to nudity, but this just came across as distasteful.

Anyway, in order to cleanse my palette, I watched the original again tonight. Much better.

 

[Edward]

Also, the main reason that sequels and remakes are done is that they are familiar. They already have an audience, whereas a new and fresh idea film must build an audience. It's more than a good story, it's getting a good audience.

Quite. It's very easy to blame the movie makers, but also the mass audiences have to bear a large part of the blame too, as they display over and over that what they want is rarely innovation and originality, but simply more of the same. It's similar to why so many musicians performing original content find it very hard to make a living, while covers acts can do extremely well - a very high proportion of folks simply want what they're comnfortable with, not anything new.

Also, Hollywood product is just like any other consumer product - it's all about the power of the brand. For as long as the brand keeps making money, it will keep being exploited - it's only a small minority of artists and fans who really seem to care about avoiding jumping the shark.