Post by cubbies04 on Sept 8, 2007 15:10:52 GMT -5
Overall Grade: C-
I was wary about yet another remake of a classic 70's horror film, especially after getting burned by the disastrous remake of Black Christmas a year ago (which is one of the worst movies I've ever rented and a total insult to the 70s classic). However, I decided to give the new Halloween a chance because Rob Zombie does have some talent and is very enthusiastic toward the genre, plus a friend of mine wanted to see it as well.
In the end, however, I was dissapointed. It was ok, but is clearly not in the league of John Carpenter's classic.
Positives: Not many. I give them kudos for at least trying to add originality to a story that should be familar to all horror fans, with clearly the most original aspect being long backstory given to Micheal Myers (briefly addressed in the unforgettable opening 10 minutes of the original; given a full 45 minutes here). Indeed, for me, the scariest part of the new movie is the attack of young Micheal on his older sister. However, the new backstory is part of the problem as well, which I'll adress later. The other main positive: as a fan of cult films, it was fun for me to see B-movie regulars such a Richard Lynch, Sid Haig, Mickey Dolenz, Leslie Easterbrook, Danny Trejo and Danielle Harris (the little girl star of the not bad Halloween 4, arguably the best of the sequels of the original) in small roles.
Negatives: Ok, where to begin. I'll start with the main one: in my opinion, it's just simply not as scary and just not in the same league as Carpenter's masterpiece. Five main reasons why I feel this way: 1) the main character in the original was not Micheal, but Laurie Strode. Jamie Lee Curtis made her into a heroine to care about, which made the last few minutes all the more frightening; the new Laurie Strode (Scout-Taylor Compton) isn't seen until halfway through the movie. The actress does the best she can, but she's clearly a supporting character and does not make you care about her the way Jamie Lee did. 2) I'm a fan of Malcom McDowall, but for me, Dr. Sam Loomis is and always will be Donald Pleasance. It seemed to me that McDowall seemed almost unsure how to play the character: Is he guilt ridden and really wants to help Micheal or does he see that Micheal has to die? For Pleasance, there was no "flip-flop:" as another reviewer pointed out, Pleasance saw Loomis as an avenging angel on a mission to rid the world of the Evil that is Micheal Myers. (I am thankful that in the new version, McDowall did not try to recite Pleasance's classic line about "the Devil's eyes," delivered perfectly by Pleasence in the original. It would have been awkward.) 3) Again, the backstory in Micheal is the most original aspect of the new movie, but I think it has a damaging effect: it makes Micheal too human. In the original, we don't really know who Micheal is, why he is doing what he does, which is precicely what makes him so frightening. In the first film, he really is the Boogeyman; in the new one, he's just a psycho (another mistake in the new one: the sidestory used in the new one that Laurie is Micheal's baby sister was never mentioned in the original, but was created for Halloween II). 4) Zombie upped the gore in this one, which didn't surprise me. However, I was a bit more put off by the cruelty. At least four times, the new film shows a wounded victim trying crawl away, begging for their lives, as Micheal moves in for the kill. Scenes such as these can work in the right horror film, but they usually leave me feeling dirty and they just don't fit Halloween (Carpenter's is more an exercise in terror than gore; a brilliant mix of unease and "boo!" scares). 5) Most damaging for me: the ending in the original was perfect; eerie, unforgettable and one of the best movie endings ever IMHO. The ending to Zombie's film is a mess. I actually turned to the person I saw it with and asked what just happened. Zombie ending kept with much of the film: a somewhat half-assed homage to scenes from the original mixed with new material that often didn't make sense. In the end, it just didn't gel.
Would I see it again? Probably not. If you've read all this, you can probably tell I'm a total geek for the original Halloween. Zombie's film is actually not as bad as I've described it, but again, it's just simply not in the same league as Carpenter's. I'd watch
I was wary about yet another remake of a classic 70's horror film, especially after getting burned by the disastrous remake of Black Christmas a year ago (which is one of the worst movies I've ever rented and a total insult to the 70s classic). However, I decided to give the new Halloween a chance because Rob Zombie does have some talent and is very enthusiastic toward the genre, plus a friend of mine wanted to see it as well.
In the end, however, I was dissapointed. It was ok, but is clearly not in the league of John Carpenter's classic.
Positives: Not many. I give them kudos for at least trying to add originality to a story that should be familar to all horror fans, with clearly the most original aspect being long backstory given to Micheal Myers (briefly addressed in the unforgettable opening 10 minutes of the original; given a full 45 minutes here). Indeed, for me, the scariest part of the new movie is the attack of young Micheal on his older sister. However, the new backstory is part of the problem as well, which I'll adress later. The other main positive: as a fan of cult films, it was fun for me to see B-movie regulars such a Richard Lynch, Sid Haig, Mickey Dolenz, Leslie Easterbrook, Danny Trejo and Danielle Harris (the little girl star of the not bad Halloween 4, arguably the best of the sequels of the original) in small roles.
Negatives: Ok, where to begin. I'll start with the main one: in my opinion, it's just simply not as scary and just not in the same league as Carpenter's masterpiece. Five main reasons why I feel this way: 1) the main character in the original was not Micheal, but Laurie Strode. Jamie Lee Curtis made her into a heroine to care about, which made the last few minutes all the more frightening; the new Laurie Strode (Scout-Taylor Compton) isn't seen until halfway through the movie. The actress does the best she can, but she's clearly a supporting character and does not make you care about her the way Jamie Lee did. 2) I'm a fan of Malcom McDowall, but for me, Dr. Sam Loomis is and always will be Donald Pleasance. It seemed to me that McDowall seemed almost unsure how to play the character: Is he guilt ridden and really wants to help Micheal or does he see that Micheal has to die? For Pleasance, there was no "flip-flop:" as another reviewer pointed out, Pleasance saw Loomis as an avenging angel on a mission to rid the world of the Evil that is Micheal Myers. (I am thankful that in the new version, McDowall did not try to recite Pleasance's classic line about "the Devil's eyes," delivered perfectly by Pleasence in the original. It would have been awkward.) 3) Again, the backstory in Micheal is the most original aspect of the new movie, but I think it has a damaging effect: it makes Micheal too human. In the original, we don't really know who Micheal is, why he is doing what he does, which is precicely what makes him so frightening. In the first film, he really is the Boogeyman; in the new one, he's just a psycho (another mistake in the new one: the sidestory used in the new one that Laurie is Micheal's baby sister was never mentioned in the original, but was created for Halloween II). 4) Zombie upped the gore in this one, which didn't surprise me. However, I was a bit more put off by the cruelty. At least four times, the new film shows a wounded victim trying crawl away, begging for their lives, as Micheal moves in for the kill. Scenes such as these can work in the right horror film, but they usually leave me feeling dirty and they just don't fit Halloween (Carpenter's is more an exercise in terror than gore; a brilliant mix of unease and "boo!" scares). 5) Most damaging for me: the ending in the original was perfect; eerie, unforgettable and one of the best movie endings ever IMHO. The ending to Zombie's film is a mess. I actually turned to the person I saw it with and asked what just happened. Zombie ending kept with much of the film: a somewhat half-assed homage to scenes from the original mixed with new material that often didn't make sense. In the end, it just didn't gel.
Would I see it again? Probably not. If you've read all this, you can probably tell I'm a total geek for the original Halloween. Zombie's film is actually not as bad as I've described it, but again, it's just simply not in the same league as Carpenter's. I'd watch