Film & TV Rob Zombie's Halloween

#1
so i eventually got around to seeing this film and i have 3 words for it: piece of crap. now i am a fan of the original Halloween so i was naturally very skeptical about the idea of a remake or a "re-imagining" as he calls it. but when i heard Rob Zombie would be writing and directing, i thought, well this won't be your average remake. good or bad, at least it will be interesting. House Of 1000 Corpses was a mess, it was all over the place, but The Devil's Rejects was surprisingly enjoyable, so i expected something at least better than these endless sequels. well it's interesting all right, interesting to see just how bad it could be. there are no words to explain how stupid this movie is. Rob claimed he wanted to make a slasher film that was different, but he used all the same cliched elements from all the same cliched movies to make a bad, cliched remake that some of the worst Halloween sequels were better than.

i'm just curious, did anyone like this movie?
 

DarkPhantom13

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#2
This has already been discussed when the workprint first leaked. Personally i thought the released version was a piece of shit. The workprint version that leaked i thought was actually pretty good. And now i see that the "Unrated" version of the dvd implemented some scenes from the workprint (like the rape scene and so on). Which version did u watch? I would suggest watching the Workprint version, maybe you might enjoy the movie more. For some time now i've been thinking of mixing all 3 versions of the film and making my own director's cut but i just haven't got around to it.
 
#3
i saw the director's cut. but it doesn't matter which version i saw because the beginning was the same, and about 2 minutes into the film i said "this is crap." i only finished watching it to see if it could redeem itself, which it didn't, and if it could get much worse than it already was, and it did, boy did it ever.

first off, the dialogue was terrible. seriously, why does Zombie always have to create these redneck slimeball type characters in every one of his movies? it worked in Corpses and in Rejects, but it absolutely does not work here. and i'm supposed to believe that because his step-dad was an asshole and he got picked on by a bully at school, that is what turned him into a homicidal maniac? please.

the idea to humanize him, while not exactly original in this day and age of films, was at least interesting. that was, until he had Michael getting stabbed in the neck and shot 3 times in the back with a .357 magnum, and keeps coming. is he human or inhuman? where exactly are you trying to go here Rob, do you even know?

and don't even get me started on the rape scene. that was the stupidest, lamest part of the whole movie. it didn't make sense whatsoever and was just thrown in there because for some reason Rob has to have a rape scene in all of his movies. i think he has a rape fetish or something.

there is no suspense or buildup whatsoever to any of the kills, something the original was great at. none of the characters were likeable at all, i wanted Michael to kill them all quickly, even Laurie, so the movie would be over sooner. there is not one redeemable character in the film that i cared about, and the only character they tried to make you feel for was the killer. now that's bad writing. the acting was terrible. i can go on and on and on about other things in this movie that i hated, but i would be here all night. i only wish that they had gone with the unrated version's ending, cuz then there definitely would not be a sequel. god forbid they ever let Rob Zombie anywhere near this franchise again.

edit: of course i want to state that this is just my opinion of the movie. if you liked it, i think you have a questionable taste in movies, but once again, that's just my opinion, so no flaming please lol.
 
#5
well said.. the new one did suck compare to the original and i dont see how many ppl loved it
well compared to the original it's complete garbage. but even viewed as a standalone film, it's still terrible, even by horror movie standards. but then most slasher flicks are garbage compared to the OG Halloween, the film that all these slasher movies have been trying to copy from since 1978, and very few have succeeded in doing what John Carpenter did. he was able to build suspense and tension, and didn't have to have buckets of blood to scare the shit out of you. the subtlety of it isn't as appreciated by the new generation, who were raised on Freddy and Jason gorefests, and all they want is blood and guts. they want random faceless victims being slaughtered for no good reason, and character development be damned. i feel that's who this film was made for, kids who have zero attention span and have to be spoonfed everything instead of leaving some things to the imagination, and that does a HUGE disservice to the true Halloween fans, people who know a good horror film when they see one.
 
#6
I agree 100% with everything Devious said. It's a TERRIBLE movie.

I mean Jesus, I saw it coming, I watched Rob Zombie's first two films. The guy is incapable of good dialogue and timing.

I honsestly believe he ruined Michael Myers by humanizing him, ruined him more than the last couple of sequels did.
 
#8
the workprint version is available in stores??
no, but it is still available online at some places. although from what i heard, besides the ending and a few minor scenes taken out or added in, it's pretty much the same as the director's cut.

the one thing that really blows my mind about this is that, out of all the slasher movies of the last 20-25 years that are practically begging to be remade, they choose the one that is universally praised as the best in the genre to remake. Halloween absolutely did not need a remake, and it certainly did not need to be remade with all the cliches that spawned from the Halloween copycats. it's like the ultimate terrible irony. Halloween was butchered by its own offspring. the one good thing about this pile of crap they call a movie is that it makes me appreciate the original even more.
 

Chronic

Well-Known Member
#10
I saw the workprint after DarkPhantom13 said it was the better version and I actually enjoyed it. I liked how the focus was on Michael (I never saw the original so I don't know how it differs) and that there weren't any real reasons why he became the way he did, he was just born a soulless child. The guy that played Michael was perfect, especially in the scene where he gets his 'suit'. I also liked how the movie was actually pretty realistic and had an actual storyline instead of just a bunch of kids running around having sex with the bad guy showing up every now and then to kill them.

I liked little details like when you saw Michael simply walking down the street and watching his baby sister.
 
#11
I saw the workprint after DarkPhantom13 said it was the better version and I actually enjoyed it. I liked how the focus was on Michael (I never saw the original so I don't know how it differs) and that there weren't any real reasons why he became the way he did, he was just born a soulless child. The guy that played Michael was perfect, especially in the scene where he gets his 'suit'. I also liked how the movie was actually pretty realistic and had an actual storyline instead of just a bunch of kids running around having sex with the bad guy showing up every now and then to kill them.

I liked little details like when you saw Michael simply walking down the street and watching his baby sister.
seroiusly, go and watch the original, and then compare. the remake missed out on so many elements of the original movie, like suspense for one. in the first film, the suspense leading up to the kills was a lot scarier than the kills themselves. it is not a gore film, there is actually very little gore in the movie.

but i feel one of the main elements of the original that Rob unsuccessfully tried to incorporate was the theme of the "boogeyman" throughout the film. and anyone who was ever a kid and was afraid of the boogeyman should know that the boogeyman is frightening because you don't know what it is, or what it wants, or why it's there, they only know that the boogeyman wants to get them. that's the main theme running through the original, and humanizing the character like Rob did makes the character much less scary in my book. think about it, what's more frightening to you: a killer who kills for a reason, or the unknown killer who has no apparent motive for killing? i choose the latter, which is why i did not like the idea of this film at all.
 

Chronic

Well-Known Member
#12
I actually prefered the humanized version because the other version has been done to death. But weren't Michael's motives very clear to begin with? He escapes on Halloween to kill his sister.
I'm not a fan of slasher/horror films to begin with though so maybe that's why.

If DP13 posts a link to the original I'll definitely watch it. You hear that DP? Don't make me post a picture to out-sombrero you.
 

Snowman

Well-Known Member
#13
Hey Devious did you noticed Rob's fuck up in the movie. the story is suppose to be in 1978.. so why does he have Dr Loomis using a cell phone.

the movie was okay. Zombie made Micheal more human than pure evil. as he was in the original. they didnt need to make a remake, they could have made a couple of more sequels, storylines to continue from part 6 and H2O.

hate to see whats in store for the fans when the Friday The 13th remake comes out. how bad they'll butcher that up.
 

DarkPhantom13

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#14
I actually prefered the humanized version because the other version has been done to death. But weren't Michael's motives very clear to begin with? He escapes on Halloween to kill his sister.
I'm not a fan of slasher/horror films to begin with though so maybe that's why.

If DP13 posts a link to the original I'll definitely watch it. You hear that DP? Don't make me post a picture to out-sombrero you.

EDIT THESE LINKS ARE FOR THE SPANISH VERSION
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550160/halloween_1978.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550255/halloween_1978.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550325/halloween_1978.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550418/halloween_1978.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550575/halloween_1978.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550638/halloween_1978.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550725/halloween_1978.part7.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/58550729/halloween_1978.part8.rar
 
#15
I actually prefered the humanized version because the other version has been done to death. But weren't Michael's motives very clear to begin with? He escapes on Halloween to kill his sister.
I'm not a fan of slasher/horror films to begin with though so maybe that's why.

If DP13 posts a link to the original I'll definitely watch it. You hear that DP? Don't make me post a picture to out-sombrero you.
actually the storyline of Laurie being Michael's sister was invented for the sequel. there was no mention that they were related at all in Halloween, just that this kid kills his family when he was 6, gets put in a sanitarium, and 15 years later he escapes and comes back to his hometown to continue his killing ways. they needed a reason as to why Michael continues to stalk Laurie in the sequel, so John Carpenter and Debra Hill came up with the whole idea of them being siblings.
 

Chronic

Well-Known Member
#16
DarkPhantom13 that shit's in Spanish! LMAO if it was intentional. Although it would hurt my feelings.

EDIT: Tried for a while to find the English audio but to no avail :(
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top