LOL no he plays a sculptor working on a cursed statue. U see some really great acting from him in this one, he acts with a subtlety you don’t normally see in his westerns.
[url]http://img97.imageshack.us/i/imagescazfivo6.jpg/[/url] HALLOWEEN (Rob Zombie)
![http://img97.imageshack.us/i/imagescazfivo6.jpg/[/url]](http://img97.imageshack.us/i/imagescazfivo6.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
According to the director not a remake but a re-imagination
Whatever. The first part of the movie tries to flesh out the character of the masked killer, giving him a background story, the second part is some kind of update of the Carpenter movie, adding a dose of contemporary gore and nudity to the material.
I had some expectations of this re-imagination because of Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects, which was not devoid of imagination. This re-imagination isn’t bad either, there are some intriguing ideas, but somehow it doesn’t really click. The first half is the best, with a good performance of the kid as the young Michael. I had the feeling it would’ve worked better had it been the first half of an independent movie, one with no relation to Michael Myers. The second part is a letdown, but it’s not easy to say why.
Myers wasn’t given a mask without reason: the character is a ‘blank’ we have to fill in with our own fears. I remember seeing the original in ’78 with a girlfriend who felt really terrorized by the movie. Afterwards she kept telling how gruesome and frightening it all had been: after a while I realized she was telling things that weren’t really in the movie, things about demons or ghosts hiding under her bed or in the dark corners of her bedroom when she was small. She had projected her own deepest fears on the Michael Myers character, filled the ‘blank’ behind the mask with her own personal monster. By giving Myers a background, a psyche, he becomes a person, a monstrous person, but still a person. The blank behind the mask is no longer a blank. Zombie (what’s in a name) tries to humanize him further in a confrontation with a little sister, but it all feels forced, untrue. There’s also some hinting at the myth of the mad doctor creating a monster, making Myers a kind of monster of Frankenstein, but this effort doesn’t pay off either.
But it still makes you wonder where Zombie will go with the character in the sequel. Maybe he can do a bit more with the adult Myers, by removing the mask, and confront us with the face.
nice review scherp, I agree about The Devil’s Rejects, which is the main reason I’d like to see these remakes. You make a very good point about what was so effective about Myers in the original… hit the nail on the head, I’d say
Is his actual name Rob Zombie?
nah… He may of had it legally changed, I’m not sure
But in case you didn’t know, he got his fame from being the frontman for the band White Zombie
Don’t know, if it isn’t, it’s not a good pseudo, if it is, it’ a wonderful coincidence
(Didn’t know that about the band)
Robert Bartleh Cummings
AND…he grew up 5 minutes away from where I live & grew up.
I did not enjoy his remake. This falls into the category of not needing to know everything. Sometimes the unknown & using your imagination works better than anything that is explained. I felt that watching what lil’ MM went through very depressing. I agree it would have worked better as an autonomous movies. It would have allowed him more freedom to make a better movie not having to be restricted to Carpenter’s classic. Might not have made as much money so…
I did not like DR that much & prefer to watch House Of 1000 Corpses, although it’s very campy & unrealistic, it’s more enjoyable.
That settles it: freaks capital of the world
(or at least Massachusets)
Although I didn’t fully enjoy this re-imagination, I like him as a film maker, his work shows that certain spark of class and imagination that I miss in the work of many others. Sometimes it’s hard to say why, you ‘sense’ that a director has talent, that there’s a great film in him.
Haven’t seen house, but soon I will
I agree about Zombie. His films, although I don’t find them to be amazing, have a certain something and I like them.
Its been a long while since I watched either Rejects or Corpses so I will have to revisit them. I remember liking Rejects better, as it seemed a step up from Cropses, but may change my mind after another viewing
[quote=“I…I…Idiot, post:188, topic:405”]AND…he grew up 5 minutes away from where I live & grew up.
I did not enjoy his remake.[/quote]
How could you say this!?! Arn’t you suppose to support your local community and slavishly praise anything that has a remot connection with the place?
ahahah… i get in trouble with folks for not doing this 
[quote=“I…I…Idiot, post:188, topic:405”]I did not like DR that much & prefer to watch House Of 1000 Corpses, although it’s very campy & unrealistic, it’s more enjoyable.[/quote] agreed i… i idiot in my opinon house of 1000 corpses is the better film, devil’s rejects is ok but not as good.
Nice review Scherp. I appreciate Zombie trying to bring something new to Halloween but in the end it just not half as good as the original. At the end of the day its just another inferior remake of a superior movie.
Yes I don’t understand the point in remaking a film. Especially one like Halloween… You could easily make a slasher inspired by Halloween and get away with not calling it Halloween… I mean, its a genre film, and a slasher at that… fans of these films easily forgive a rip off
And in this case it works against the film (or what it could have been)
But maybe he was pushed to make this ‘re-imagination’, the name ‘Halloween’ attracts a lot of attention. According to Wikipedia the film was very succesfull, and I don’t know this independent movie I was talking about would’ve engrossed as much money.
True, and that probably makes the most sense as an explanation. But still, I’m not sure how well the other Rob Zombie films did, but it seems like they were fairly successful.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was just one of his favorite films and he really wanted to make it his own somehow.
Its just a shame that horror films especially have gone the way of the remake. Thinking back over the last few years, it seems like there has been many, many horror remakes. I can only assume it is for the money, as you say. Ripping off other films is nothing new, but at least back when the films started out, they were ripping each other off while remaining seperate.
Thats true Auto. Although I can appreciate zombie for what he was at least trying to do (whether or not he actually succeeded). The best thing I can say about zombie’s remake is that it at least tried not to be a ripoff. It went a different root from the usual slashers but thats still not good enough for me.
After watching horror films for the last 20+ years here are some of my personal “rules of law” for horror films based on my observations:
- The “Monster” should never get too much screen time.
(example: Jaws works because you hardly ever get to see the shark.)
- The anticipation of death is scarier than the actual death itself.
(A reason why the original Halloween works and the rest of the slashers don’t)
-
Gore may be shocking, it may even be cool, but it’s usually not scary. Should be used sparingly.
-
What you don’t see is usually scarier than what you do see. Suggested scaryness is better.
(example: In Texas chainsaw massacre when the girl is hung on the meat hook you don’t actually see the hook penetrate the skin, its just the suggestion of it, the implied gore, not the gore itself that makes it effective)
- Low budget is usually good budget
(Not a universal law but for the most part, cheap horror movies are better than expensive horror movies)
- Contrary to popular belief, in horror films, PLOT DOES COUNT.
(A horror film is not effective when the audience spends too much time being confused by plotholes than being scared)
- A movie doesn’t necessarily need to be “SCARY” per se, but it should at least have a consistently creepy atmosphere and tension throughout.
(Example, Nosferatu the Vampyre, is not a scary film at all but makes good use of atmosphere)
- False scares are a sign of laziness on the director’s part.
(How many times do we have to see a girl scream at a mouse jumping out of a cupboard?)
- Body count does not have a positive relationship with scaryness.
All good points Col. and although some of my favorite films don’t necessarily follow those rules, I would still agree with them when it comes to effecting an actual scare from the viewer
I believe most of wat you say applies in a good way to Carpenter’s The Fog. A good film. Very atmospheric but a little anti climactic.
And yes, the suspense before death is always scarier. My favorite part of Gialli.
What you say about gore is also true. The main reason why Fulci’s horror (gorror) never works for me.