Friends! Don't bother seeing Halloween : The Remake - read on...

[PJoseph]

You know, I was so angry about this movie that the first thing I posted was so egregious and reactionary, I decided to remove it. I suppose it was a little bit of self censoring, but I felt it was needed.

That said, this film is a waste of time. It's not a horror movie. It's not scary. Most importantly, it isn't any fun to watch.

pJ

[bassman]

So are you saying that you did, or didn't like it?:rockbrow:

[PJoseph]

Not only did I NOT like it, I HATED it.

pJ

[axlish]

Out of curiousity, did you like The Devil's Rejects?

[PJoseph]

I loved Devil's Rejects.

pJ

[Cody]

I loved that movies too, Minion liked this movie he gave it a 6/10 what would you rate it?

[PJoseph]

Devil's Rejects was well done. I don't have a rating system, but I would recommend the film.

Halloween The Remake was total garbage and anyone working on this film, including the craft service people, should be ashamed that they were involved somehow.

pJ

[bassman]

I don't mean to cause any trouble but in your own mind, did you give this negative "review" because of your love of the original?

Just asking if you viewed it as it's own piece rather than a remake of a classic film.

[slickwilly13]

I have been hearing bad things as well. I am thinking about checking it out. But I'm catching Super Bad blowed first.

[bassman]

I have been hearing bad things as well. I am thinking about checking it out. But I'm catching Super Bad blowed first.

Are you saying that "Superbad" sucked? I've heard nothing but good things....

[MissJacksonCA]

I watched it again tonite this time the whole film and yeah... I agree PJ waste of time not scary and ultimately boring... the script sucked too

[PJoseph]

Bassman,

You cause no trouble my friend!

I go into everything with an open mind. Look, the reality for me is that in the position I'm at in my career, I get in a lot of rooms regarding comedy remakes, so I understand the business end of remakes - they own the material and it has a built in fanbase. I'm not IN LOVE with remakes, but it is a big trend. That said, I can separate the original from the remake. With that in mind, I went into this film with as much of a love for Rob Zombie as I could - and honestly after Comicon, I was pretty worried.

But the film was just poor. It wasn't scary and it wasn't fun, it just was stupid, loud, full of cheap directing and editing tricks, horrible story...regardless of its remake status, it was just a bad movie.

Rob Zombie should make a movie he loves. When he was at Comicon, it was clear his passion for this movie was merely enough to get it in the can.

And at the screening, NO ONE responded to the film. No one laughed, interated with the film, screamed - in fact no one applauded at the end. Most people just walked and thought, "what's next?"

pJ

[slickwilly13]

Are you saying that "Superbad" sucked? I've heard nothing but good things....

You misunderstood. It was slang for something else.

[MinionZombie]

Although Rob Zombie has also had his mind on his animated film he's the writer/producer of, which he had to put on a shelf after a while working on Halloween 2007 because his attention was divided, so he'll pick up the animated film again soon to finish off.

I'll be interested to see it again, in it's full and finished form and see what I think then, but aye I'd still give it at least a 6.5/10 personally. It flat out isn't the original film, and that's a good thing...and it can't really be compared to Yawn04, because that piece of sh*t had literally nothing to do with the original & best beyond name-rape and a mall setting. Whereas Halloween 2007 takes the living room of the original film and re-arranges all the furniture while adding some new ornaments...if that metaphor makes any sense.

[Danny]

im still reserveing judgement for myself and ignoring most reviews but hey it could be worse, i ehard a rumour a few years back tim burton was gonna remake it, could you imagine? :hurl:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Pj:

I agree with you 100%. I thought the work print was awful, it is f u c k i n g academy worthy next to the theatrical print. My god that was horrible.

[MinionZombie]

What are the differences (spoiler free) between the work print and the theatrical print?

[DjfunkmasterG]

can't do it spoiler free MZ... just trust me the work print is aces next to the theatrical cut. The theatrical cut is as bad if not worse than House of the Dead.

[MissJacksonCA]

thats saying something dj... house of the dead is one of my greatest all time hated movies

[Minerva_Zombi]

Ok, I just watched it and to compare it to House Of The Dead is just down right rediculous. Here's what I thought :

(P.S. - I love the original, but I went into this with a free and open mind)

The first half of the film was great. A 9 out of 10. The acting was good, the overall tone was good. I felt emotions for the characters. Most aspects of it were superb.

The second half wasn't so great. The pacing was bad, it felt rushed, it just didn't work for me at all. Some of it was okay. I liked the scene between laurie and michael in the basement. i liked the acting, but the overall pacing felt rushed. i think rob had a really good idea on what he was going for but im willing to bet that it was due to lack of time and money. i think rob would have directed a superb prequel and i think thats more of where his heart was. overall i'll give it a 6. above average and definatly not terrible enough to be on House Of The Dead's level.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Did we watch the same movie because the Halloween I watched in theaters down right sucked, I mean it was really really terrible. Even LouCipherr a member here who is a huge Halloween and Rob Zombie fan hated it, and Lou doesn't hate horror movies very easily.

[MinionZombie]

It's all about opinions though isn't it. Horses for courses, each to their own, etc etc.

I still say a 6.5/10. First half was great, second half was iffy.

[Danny]

^ sounds pretty much like the same vbe as house fo a 1000 to me.

[Minerva_Zombi]

just watch the first half again. the little things that rob does are whats most impressive. when loomis first interviews michael and he has him test his mic. he says "hello, this is michael myers" brilliant. cuz as soon as he says that, you remember who this person is. In every other movie, hes a supernatural freak. In this, you're reminded that at one time he was just a kid. it explains alot too where carpenter's was just pretty random. like why he wears the mask. he thinks hes ugly. and the scene where michael's mom kills herself was powerful to me. i felt her pain.

i truely believe that rob wanted to do a prequel. if it would have been a prequel, rob would have delivered a chilling and interesting take on why myers turned out the way he is. i don't think rob really has a knack for "stupid scary". thats why the second half didn't work. i think if they wanted a real good remake, they needed to get a director who could really deliver what the original is famous for. i think danny boyle would have been a good choice. 28 days later used the same kind of quiet scare like the original had.

But i think all in all, rob just ran out of time and money and really didn't get HIS vision on the screen. Hes still one of the best horror directors in the world.

[MinionZombie]

Well, his vision is there in the first half, but the problem with it not being a prequel or a film entirely focussed on "pre return-to-Haddonfield Michael" means that the original movie is all squeezed into the second half, which just doesn't work.

Also, personally, I think the girls cast to play the, well, girls...just weren't right. I especially thought the girl playing Laurie Strode was miscast, or perhaps just mis-written and mis-directed, she didn't feel consistent enough, she just didn't feel right in the role at all to me, the trio of girls did just kinda rub me the wrong way, they didn't feel right for the parts, especially the way their parts were written too.

It's kinda like two movies squeezed into one movie, which is a shame, cos the first half is brilliant, it oozes the charm and creative editing of The Devil's Rejects (e.g. when the theme kicks in, or the "love hurts" sequence)...I guess this must be what it feels like for Neil and his trouble with 28 Days Later, which he found to be very split down the middle...hmmm...interesting...tasting the other side of the pie now, eh...

[Minerva_Zombi]

it would have worked if the film was 2 andf a half hours long. that would have been enough time to develop the characters and really pace the whole thing right.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It's all about opinions though isn't it. Horses for courses, each to their own, etc etc.

I still say a 6.5/10. First half was great, second half was iffy.

Work Print 5 out of 10
Theatrer Cut 3 out of 10

[PJoseph]

"But i think all in all, rob just ran out of time and money and really didn't get HIS vision on the screen. Hes still one of the best horror directors in the world."

He actually got MORE money than any of his other films (20 million to make this film, 20 MILLION? - the first Halloween cost $300,000) and did TWO sets of reshoots.



pJ

[Minerva_Zombi]

John Carpenter had 300,000 dollars, final cut, and full creative control. We all know that when you have more money to work with, you have more limitations and really much less to work with. Because, after a certain point it's no longer the directors film. It's the studio's film. And reshoots most of the time come from the executive offices. Its usually the studio's who impose reshoots.

Remember this is the Weinsteins we're talking about here. Rmember, they wanted Kevin Smith to go back on Clerks 2 and shoot a scene with The Pussy Troll. lol