Halloween (2007)

[ZapRowsdower]

Halloween (2007)
Tyler Mane, Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif
Based on the 1978 Screenplay by John Carpenter and Debra Hill
Written and Directed by Rob Zombie

I had been anticipating this reimagining of John Carpenter's iconic slasher film for quite some time. I have seen Rob Zombie's potential as a filmmaker grow from "none" to "tremendous" between two films. I am aware (as I am sure everyone else is), Rob Zombie is a musician above all else. He's been flirting with film since 2003, but above being a filmmaker, he's a musician.

What Rob Zombie knows about movies is what he's seen in other movies, and he's been honing his skills based on that. And he's getting better every time he tries. What he still hasn't done in any of his films (including this one) was clearly establish a protagonist. I did appreciate the whole good guy-bad guy switcheroo he pulled in the Devil's Rejects, but he hasn't set up a single character for us to look at and say, "this movie is about him/her". Of course, being that it's in the Halloween series, we all know who the antagonist is. No, not those stupid mask-producing robots, but Michael Myers. However, because of the little background check Zombie decided to do on Myers, I was beginning to wonder whether or not HE was the protagonist of this film. This is my biggest complaint of the film - it just wasn't clear. For sake of argument (and because she is the character who undergoes the most change/because the same character was the protagonist in the original), I'm just gonna say it's Laurie Strode. But it should have been made more clear.

Where does the film get it right? Well, Rob Zombie is getting much better at building tension. The camera work in this film was fantastic. Great low angle and canted shots placed strategically within the film make certain scenes more horrific, and play up the intimidating nature of Michael Myers. The atmosphere always remained dark, sinister... even expressionistic at times. You never lose sight of what you're watching, and the sense of dread never lets up. This is the shit that the Halloween series was all about.

So how do the new actors fare against the old ones? Well, obviously, this teenage princess was no match for the scream queen. However, they both played Laurie Strode a different way. Scout Taylor-Compton played a more realistic 17-year-old girl (by today's standards), whereas Jamie Lee Curtis played a very strong, confident and independent 17-year-old girl. Don't know how common this was in 1978, but that's the character Curtis played. That also made it much easier to identify a protagonist. Scout Taylor-Compton was like some of the girls I knew in high school... naive, playful, less independent, and vulnerable. Malcolm McDowell made Dr. Loomis his own character by NOT copying Donald Pleasance. I actually enjoyed the new cast, because they didn't attempt to copy the previous cast. Gus van Sant, take note. Daeg Faerch, the kid who played a 10-year-old Myers... my God, what unspeakable evil that kid can portray. Keep an eye out for him.

The storytelling is dark, horrific and demented. In other words, in the style of Rob Zombie. He manages to juggle the feel of the series and his own style perfectly, so that you walk out feeling like you just watched both. You'll all be glad to know that the unsettling tunes that always accompanied the Halloween series (the main theme, the chase theme, and "Mr. Sandman") are once again used in this film.

Obviously, the original is better. Rob Zombie simply added a backstory, which was pretty good but overall did not improve upon the source material. I also preferred the 1978 cast over this one, mainly because they made much more memorable characters. The lack of clarity in respect to who the protagonist is also somewhat hurts the remake, because that's... like... screenwriting 101. Character is everything, Mr. Zombie. He's headed in the right direction as a filmmaker, but he still hasn't reached his true potential.

Oh, and one more thing... NO Busta Rhymes kung fu fighting was used in the making of this production. Thank you, Dimension.

8/10 - For effective tension-building that made the film that much more terrifying, and essentially, for making it his own film.

[slayrrr666]

Really good here, but would've preferred more on the movie itself and less on comparing it to the original or Zombie's previous movies. What does this bring to the table on it's own merits? You start something, especially when mentioning the atmosphere and dread created, but then you go into what it's like between the two films. Almost like you really reviewing the two films at the same time.

[LivingDeadGirl]

Went to see this one last night and really, REALLY liked it. I figured, or hoped, that it would be good, but really didn't expect it to be as good as it was. I really liked how it portrayed Michael's background and homelife and Zombie's version or depiction of the events that happened that weren't shown on-screen in the original. Also Dr. Loomis' interaction with the young Michael and young Michael's pure evilness. The kid that played him actually gave me the chills a couple of times. As Zap said, the storytelling was good, the gore was good, lots of blood. There was a scene or two that actually disturbed me, one in particular, and there were actually a few scenes that got some good scares & jumps from the audience (including me) that is almost unheard of in "horror" movies these days. The only thing that bothered me was the shaky camera during some of the action sequences, which was on the verge of giving me a headache. But other than that I thought it was outstanding!
Enjoyed seeing most of the Zombie regulars in roles or cameos also.
Of course, not as good as the original, but Rob actually pulled it off with a great, enjoyable movie. I think he's getting the hang of this film-making thing! ;D

[Heineken Skywalker]

Sorry to be the voice of dissent, but I think you guys are giving it way too much credit.
I enjoyed the first half somewhat, the prequel part, if you will, more than the remake half.
I agree that Daeg Faerch as the 10 year old Myers, is really good. With little dialogue, he convincingly portrayed an introverted, lonely kid, with a real dark side. I also like that his penchant for wearing masks and killing, albeit just animals at first, is there from the get-go of the movie.
What I was not crazy about was the over the top personalities and dialogue around Myers, specifically, his stepdad and the school bully. William Forsythe as the stepdad, is a constantly shouting, beer drinking, foul-mouthed, bullying, asshole who's ready to add stepdaughter molestation to his impressive resume. He's way too cartoony for a film that's supposedly trying to treat this material seriously and he's clearly wearing a "Hello, I'm a victim" nametag on his shirt.
The bully is also cartoony and over the top. But imo, school bullies in movies almost always seem over the top to me. He too is clearly wearing his "Hello, I'm a victim" nametag. It's only a matter of time before Michael snaps and dispatches these two idiots.
Sherry Moon plays Michael's stripper mom. I hear she got the part by sleeping with the director, but she's actually pretty good.

After Michael's childhood killing spree, he is locked up in a mental institute and put under the care of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell). While on paper, it sounds cool that we're going to get to see some of those missing years that were glossed over in the original, that stuff turns out to be not all that interesting. See Dr. Loomis interview Michael over and over again. Yawn. No wonder John Carpenter skipped it in the original and got right to adult Michael Myers after the initial killings. Also, Michael is always wearing a different homemade mask while locked up, and his cell walls are covered with his handi-work, which means he spends a lot of time doing arts & crafts. Myers is like the Martha Stewart of homicidal maniacs.

15 years later, adult Michael is played by former wrestler and former Sabertooth in the first X-MEN movie, Tyler Mane. This guy's freakishly huge which makes him more imposing than previous Michael Myers. But you know, playing Myers doesn't take a whole lot of acting ability. Do you look good in mechanic's coveralls and a mask? Can you walk slowly and wield a knife? You're hired!
Adult Michael goes on another killing spree while escaping the hospital and it's done pretty well.
Zombie definitely goes more graphic in this version unlike Carpenter's original which was fairly bloodless for a slasher flick.

Also enter Scout Taylor-Compton as virginal goody-two shoes babysitter Laurie Strode and honestly, I thought she was the weak link in the main cast. Unlike Jamie Lee in the original, who went on to a fine career, I found Compton to be bland and fairly forgettable. She really made no impression on me.
Anyway, except for one or two twists, the rest of the film is pretty much a remake of the original. Michael stalks and kills Laurie's friends before turning his full attention to her. It's not really Zombie's fault that the rest of the flick is pretty much by-the-numbers. How many ways can you have Michael stalk and kill and make it seem fresh?
I think I enjoyed this more last night after first watching it, but after giving it a little more thought, I'm not as impressed. It's not horrible and it's not a trainwreck. But like most remakes it's just not very neccesary either. Especially if you're going to tackle remaking a bonafide cult classic. Carpenter's film has some really big shoes to fill and Zombie's killer is wearing mud-caked hospital flip-flops for part of the movie. There's one of the problems right there.
Good soundtrack though. KISS' "God of Thunder", Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" and Alice Cooper's "Only Women Bleed" all make appearances. And like Zap mentioned, having Carpenter's original music on the soundtrack was a wise decision.
That music and that mask are "HALLOWEEN".

6/10

[frankenjohn]

I say if you want to see a good horror film in a year with a lot of duds, this one's it. But it's certainly no substitution for the original.

[Heineken Skywalker]

I thought 1408 was a better horor movie, except for that weak ending.

[Quorthon]

I avoided the re-Halloween as part of my continuing personal boycott of remakes. I'll watch it when it hits DVD.

Year of duds, frankenjohn? What about 28 Weeks Later, Bug, and Hostel 2? You didn't like any of them? Granted, Bug was a horror-thriller of sorts adn Hostel 2 danced on that fine line that between horror and exploitation cinema, but still!

[frankenjohn]

Saw 28 Days Later and liked it, want to see Bug, but I think Hostel 2, Hills Have Eyes 2, all those crap remakes/PG-13 are so bad.

[Pulpmariachi]

Careful what you say becuase "1408" was really good. And what...oh that's right, it's rated PG-13.

[frankenjohn]

Ok I'm stereotyping there. You got me.

But I didn't like "1408."

[ZapRowsdower]

quorthon said:

I avoided the re-Halloween as part of my continuing personal boycott of remakes. I'll watch it when it hits DVD.

Year of duds, frankenjohn? What about 28 Weeks Later, Bug, and Hostel 2? You didn't like any of them? Granted, Bug was a horror-thriller of sorts adn Hostel 2 danced on that fine line that between horror and exploitation cinema, but still!

28 Weeks Later was good (but not as good as Days),

Bug - haven't seen the whole thing, but from what I saw, it's not a Horror film as much as it is a psychological thriller... And it's certainly not for everyone.

And I despised Hostel 2. What a worthless rehash of a movie that wasn't really that great to begin with.

[Quorthon]

iamthesmitty said:

And I despised Hostel 2. What a worthless rehash of a movie that wasn't really that great to begin with.

I didn't see Hostel 2 as a rehash at all. It focused on the opposite side of things for the story and characters. Last time we just got to know the victims (like most horror films), but with Hostel 2, we got to know some of the victimizers.

Hostel 2 also managed to show us things in Hollywood release that are normally relegated to independant or underground cinema. I'm not just talking about the ending, but also the part with the naked chick essentially bathing in blood.

It's more original than most of the other crap Hollywood thinks is horror.

[Quorthon]

Alrighty then, I saw this last night. One of our Christmas aquisitions.


The original is a better horror film. There, I said it. Because it's true.


First off, Rob Zombie still has some growing to do when it comes to scriptwriting, dialog, and "everyday real life" acting. His rampant overuse of swear words and nasty dialog eventually detracts from the film and story. I kept thinking, damn, that's a lot of fucking swearing. It had the effect of coming off as funny because it was ridiculously over-the-top. There was a lot of stilted and just bland dialog throughout the film, some of the lines even delivered by Malcolm McDowell, who is an actor I've always enjoyed seeing. It's like Zombie spent a solid week preparing for the writing by watching the original Halloween interspersed with liberal watching and rewatching of Star Wars Episodes I - III.


The story changes were alright because they added well to the movie, and overall the horror atmosphere was excellent. I'm glad Zombie kept the original John Carpenter-written Halloween theme, and it was even used well. Tyler Mane, hell, I thought he was great as Sabretooth in the X-Men, but he flat-out ruled the rold of Michael Myers. Hard to imagine that someone could fill a faceless, zero-dialog role so well.

Brad Dourif as a good guy? Ha ha ha! But he's just so much cooler when he's evil as he is in the Child's Play, Lord of the Rings, or Exorcist III films. Hell, he was even evil on Star Trek: Voyager. One of the few highlights of that bland series.

As far as horror remakes go, it was probably one of the better ones. Easily up there with Dawn of the Dead, but like Dawn, it's inferior to the original film.

Some just annoying acting littered throughout, mostly by the teenage girls--especially when they're all together. Yeah, I get it, teenage girls are slutty, thanks for the gratuitous update, there Robbie. I felt that the actress playing Lori Stroud was not as good as Jamie Lee Curtis.

I'm torn on the backstory of Michael Myers as a kid. In one sense, I liked it, but in another sense, I felt that it was rather cliche (loser kid with crappy home life goes berserk) and that perhaps the series was better when we didn't know all that much about Michael Myers.

The horror atmosphere was good, and there were some decent scares, but occasionally, Rob Zombie's timing seems off. I think The Devil's Rejects was a better film just because it was all him and it was alright that he'd taken liberty with whatever he wanted. But here, he needed to be more careful than he was. It's a little tough to describe offhand. Also, reused lines from the original film like the "was that the boogeyman?" "I believe it was," stuff that seemed to fit the original came off as just cheesy here. There were times when the movie dragged, I thought.

Overall, I would give it about a 7/10. I could almost give it a 7.5, almost an 8. But not quite.

[slayrrr666]

Time for me to chime in, though I'll only add the pertinent areas:

The Good News: There wasn’t a lot to like here, but it did have some good parts. That the killer is effective and creepy is a plus, and the fact that there’s a big killer in a creepy mask works. The big action scene, his escape from the hospital and ensuing rampage of personnel, is extremely effective as the hulking monstrosity mowing down everyone looks good and the scene itself manages a bit of suspense amongst the whole act. The grimy look of it all and the kill methods aren’t bad either, and overall, this is a pretty good scene. The best, though, are the final chases through the house and the encounters within, which are just absolutely a blast. From the darkness used to portray the events to the completely unnerving design and layout of the surroundings and the fear of being caught, these are a lot of fun. That there’s several of them, each of which are filled with wanton destruction to the surroundings and result in harrier escapes each time, making them more fun and are a blast. Those are included with the different encounters each of the friends experience, as several of them are just plain creepy and suspenseful, which is a nice touch as well as the fact that many of them are call-backs to the original, and coupled with the fact that each of them feature a ton of nudity is a plus. Each of them look good, and mixed with the suspenseful encounters, it’s certainly good fun. The last plus here is the film’s extremely brutal and bloody kills, which is always nice. With graphic slit-throats, a series of brutal beat-downs, stabbings, a snapped neck and more, this one is filled with brutality, and it’s all effective. These here are the film’s pluses.



The Bad News: This one had a lot of big problems going for it. One of the biggest is that the film really plays way too much like the original, really destroying the potential impact this one could’ve had. Utilizing the exact same scenarios and scenes from the original into this one is a really lazy move, showing no real attempt to mix it up despite the overwhelming effort to do so earlier in the film. While the fact remains most of them were effective at what they did and managed to elicit some real suspense from them, in an attempt to make a whole new story, this one just ends up doing the same thing over again and it really makes a big difference to the film. The beginning tried something new, and it feels fresh, while the rest tends to just feel like a repeat of the same thing, which wouldn’t be bad if this hadn’t managed to copy scenes, camera angles and results wholesale, the point of this gripe. Another really big damaging factor in here is the fact that there’s just way too many times during the main action scenes it’s impossible to see what’s actually going on since the camera is shifting and swinging all over the place. These scenes have the feel of a music video and really feel disjointed and hard-to-follow since they’re nearly impossible to actually see clearly. From the chase through the house at the end and the battle in the basement to him stalking around town, the shaking camera during these big action moments are just irritating and not creative, and it’s such a disturbing habit that it really needs to stop soon. This is yet another example of a style not-that-good to begin with actively damaging a film because it renders its contents impossible to make out, which is the point, and instead just makes them aggravating. These, though, pale in comparison to the film’s single biggest flaw, the beginning of the film. While it is fresh and new, the fact that there’s just no end to the problems of these scenes is what makes these the biggest flaw in the film. The fact that this one just spends an eternity hammering home that one detail, minutes-upon-minutes-upon-minutes on-end does the film no favors, pointing out that which we already know because it’s been laid out for us already. Having to constantly be inundated with the idea that he went crazy and homicidal from abuse-at-home during his childhood doesn’t do any favors, as one it’s a lame idea that just feels like an after-thought to begin with, as the concept doesn’t imbue the character with fear at all, then the over-the-top manner in which it’s spelled out just grows old, and the scenes with the bullies or the hospital staff while catatonic just fall flat. The last part to them is that they just utterly destroy whatever mystique he had to begin with, as a homicidal maniac targeting a victim for no reason is a great concept, but now to simply throw all this into it just doesn’t work and the whole film never really recovers. These here are the film’s flaws.

And overall, 5/10.