Saw this at the weekend, and was absolutely blown away. It's not perfect by any means- the pacing is all over the shop, it's two disparate movies tacked together, one about the young Michael and his problems, the other a semi-remake of Carpenter's original, and at no time does it allow you to feel the build up to Halloween night, as the original does. In fact, this could easily take place at any time of the year, Halloween is so inconsequential to the plot.
But.
My Christ, it's good. There is a genuine sense of dread throughout the first half, deepened by the backstory that Zombie has created for Michael. All so much more convincing than what we'd had before. Michael as "nice kid who went bad for no reason whatsoever" is a fine idea- it's got that Unknowable Evil vibe that sets up all that Celtic mythology nonsense from the sequels- but, psychologically, it's pish. He may as well have been bitten by a vampire, it's that far removed from reality. Zombie's Halloween benefits greatly by grounding Michael in truth from the off. There's no bullshit here, Zombie never tries to mythologise Michael- he's not unstoppable, the iconography of Halloween is missing, even the titles play, not over a looming slow zoom into a flaming pumpkin, but over a seriously disturbed kid running along a school corridor. This is the original, remade for grown-ups.
Perhaps the most pertinent bit comes when he, eventually, murders his sister. I won't spoil it, but if that isn't an almost-flawless representation of parental nightmare, post Slasher Movies, I don't know what is. Look at what he's wearing and think of the tabloid headlines.
When the remake bit gets underway, the movie goes a bit awry. Laurie Strode is good, but never really holds up to Jamie Lee. However, the presence and determination of Michael is far in excess of anything seen in the franchise since part one. The murders are shot, edited and scored in such a deeply shocking way that I think most other films will be borrowing heavily from this from now on. In fact, the sound design alone is enough to guarantee this a place in history. It's absolutely fantastic, and the little changes made to the cues from Carpenter's original score will delight fans and scare the piss out of everyone else.
In short, this is easily the best horror film of the year so far. All the bits that concerned me beforehand- a recast Loomis, a lunky gert hippy as Michael, the massive shift in tone from the first film- in retrospect are the shot in the arm it needed. If this spawns a whole new run of sequels that get shit+
tier and shittier as they go along, well then fine. Like the original series, we'll always have this utterly maginificent opener.
Steev
Sounds interesting - I must admit I was sceptical as the origianl is a drop dead classic.
As it happens,the original never scared me.Really.I had already seen an American Werewolf...which scared the bejesis out of me.
For years I didn't rate Halloween at all,then an eventual rewatch revealed the genius.Good to hear the remake is worth it.
M.
The Jury's still out on Rob Zombie as a director. I really enjoyed The Devil's Rejects-though it did make me want to go home and rub my self with wire wool, such was it's corrupting influence.
Still be interesting to see what he does with the source material.
Wasn't keen on the idea of remaking it but I've enjoyed Rob Zombie's stuff so far immensely, think he's a far better director and writer than he's given credit for, and his obvious love of the original gave me hope he would do a good job. Will most certainly be seeing this asap!
Well I've hated Zombies other films so was dreading this as I've always loved the original.
I'll give it a go though.
Just to let you know, I loved Zombie's previous films- so if you hate Halloween, chalk it up to a different aesthetic!
Steev
"This is the original, remade for grown-ups."
Or, to put it another way, yet another case of turd polishing.
Sorry, but Rob Zombie is a hack, pure and simple. The original Halloween works precisely because the protagonist was so unreal, that he seemed to exude some sort of discorporeal presence - but only when we couldn't see his face, mind (when the audience can, he is arguably robbed of the powerful anonimity of his 'boogeyman' persona). Trying to doll the story up in some sort of psychological McGuffin in order to make it more 'real' is both pointless and slightly offensive, since in the real world, abused children do not don masks and become superscary badass homicidal psychos. The real chain of abuse and abuser is more complicated, and not really to be debated within the limited confines of a 109 minute explitation film.
The point of the original was, much like Hitchcock's Psycho, an example of a director having fun playing with cinematic technique and the audiences reactions. The whole point of Halloween is not Michael's murders (all bloodless in the original, note), but the stalking of his victims, and the slow-burn buildup of the sense that the characters are inescapably trapped within the killer's web. Ultimately, the film is an editor's wet dream.
To be fair, the new film is no worse than any of the utterly appalling sequels (save for the entirely unconnected Halloween III: Season of the Witch), but then I really can't see how it could honestly be worse than those towering symbols of cinematic shite.
3 more days to Halloween,
Halloween,
Halloween,
3 more days to Halloween,
Sil-ver Shamrock!
:-D
My parents let me watch the original Halloween when I was about five and it absolutely terrified me. I remember putting on the nonchallant brave act during the first two thirds of the film and then running out of the room screaming and crying when the dude flies out of the cupboard. I still get butterflies when I hear the music even now.
I can watch any film now but I haven't dared to watch Halloween. I might watch the remake but only if the music is different!
"Sorry, but Rob Zombie is a hack, pure and simple."
You cannot be allowed to get away with that! I want, no demand, a written dissertation on Hack Theory, with several pages of backup references that explicitely concentrate upon Mr. R. Zombie and his body of work.
"Trying to doll the story up in some sort of psychological McGuffin in order to make it more 'real' is both pointless and slightly offensive, since in the real world, abused children do not don masks and become superscary badass homicidal psychos. The real chain of abuse and abuser is more complicated, and not really to be debated within the limited confines of a 109 minute explitation film."
I find that last sentence pointless and slightly offensive! Why should it not be addressed in a movie? Why is Halloween, original or remake, less able to address such a topic than any other kind of movie? Hmph! You have little respect for the genre, it seems. As for the glibness, or not, of Zombie's version- well, read my original post. Carpenter's film deliberately stayed away from any reasonable explanation of Michael's challenging behaviour- and even went to some lengths to mythologise him. Zombie takes a different approach. It's neither pointless, offensive or a McGuffin- it's the heart of the movie- which is why he spends so long on it.
And no, abused kids don't usually become Michael Myers (has there EVER been a masked serial killer of the Michael/ Jason ilk? I don't think so). But "the shape" is a metaphor anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Remember when I said Zombie's Halloween felt like two disparate movies- that's what I meant. Zombie fails to bring the two parts together- psychological drama/ stalker horror- but then, could anyone? And it's a very, very close call. It really is THAT good.
"To be fair, the new film is no worse than any of the utterly appalling sequels (save for the entirely unconnected Halloween III: Season of the Witch), but then I really can't see how it could honestly be worse than those towering symbols of cinematic shite."
I saw Halloween for the first time back in '84, at the age of 14. I've seen it countless times since and it sits upon my special John Carpenter shelf at home- in multiple versions- along with every other film Carp has made. I'm a Carpenter obsessive and will defend each and every film the man has ever made, and that includes 'Ghosts of Mars'. But even *I* am reading your response like the desperate protestations of someone terrified at the temerity of someone daring to remake an acknowledged classic. Calm down. Zombie's no Carpenter yet, but he's getting there. The new movie is interesting, fiendishly clever and astonishingly well put together. If you honestly cannot see the difference in intent and execution between it and, say, Halloween 5, or god-forbid, 6, then I strongly suggest you stop watching films altogether!
Steev
It sounds fucking awful. I wouldn't touch it with a very long stick.
Maybe Eli Roth should remake Citizen Kane.
I won't be bothering with this.
It's funny, I've seen all of the rubbish sequels* and don't really mind them, but a remake appalls me. I didn't bother watching the last King Kong either, I just couldn't face it.
I'm no anti-Zombie reactionary, it's just a pointless exercise.
* I love Halloween 3.
"I'm a Carpenter obsessive and will defend each and every film the man has ever made, and that includes 'Ghosts of Mars'."
And you said *I* have no respect for the genre...
:-P
"Zombie fails to bring the two parts together- psychological drama/ stalker horror- but then, could anyone?"
Micheal Powell's Peeping Tom? Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (or indeed Richard Franklin's 'actually-better-than-you-remember' Psycho II)?
Review of "House of 1000 Corpses":
"it feels like a pod movie - a perfect imitation of an existing being but without a heart or a mind of its own"
Review of "The Devil's Rejects"
"uncomfortably the work of someone who thinks mass murder is cool and has no feeling for regular humans"
---
I'm finding it difficult to give Mr. Zombie any credence. At all.
"Richard Franklin's 'actually-better-than-you-remember' Psycho II)?"
Actually, I remember Psycho II as being very good indeed!
Steev
Just saw this today and really enjoyed it, not as good as the original but a far better remake than anyone would have expected probably. Not perfect by a long shot, was a bit too relentless towards the end, felt like you were constantly being bombarded, the result of which being that the effect was somewhat diminished.
As for Zombie being a hack, not really sure what that means but he's obviously got some technical smarts as so far his movies have been visually impressive if nothing else. Sure he may not have the deftness of touch required to debate the "abused/abuser cycle" as it was called earlier, but then he doesn't ever try to. All we see is that his household situation is pretty shitty but that's never at any point blamed for his murderous behaviour. Loomis even says as much, that outer influences were just that extra push over the edge for whatever was happening inside the kid's mind. So really Zombie's explanation isn't any different to Carpenter's, the guy's just plain evil. I also don't think that seeing his face as a child robs the mask of anything. For myself the original wasn't scary because you'd never seen the killer's face to start with, it was scary because you weren't able to see it during those stalk and slash moments. It's the sight of Myers as an expressionless emotion-vacuum that scares me, but I guess a great horror movie's strengths is that it works on different levels for different people. For myself the sense of terror was present and correct.
So yeah, not a fantastic classic movie but a very very good one from a director who I reckon knows what he's doing and shows great dedication to the cause of entertainment by having wife in her undies in almost everything he does. He's okay in my book.
If anyone has hangups about seeing remakes on pricipal, just do what I do, look at it as a new film with no ties with the original.
When the Italian job remake came out I though 'oh god no', but when I actually saw it I thought it was a bloody good film.
Also the planet of the apes remake was closer to the book (in concept) than the original was(but still a long way off) I bloody well enjoyed that one as well.
And no I am not a Mark Wahlberg fan.
V
"Also the planet of the apes remake was closer to the book (in concept) than the original was(but still a long way off) I bloody well enjoyed that one as well. "
You are a narrow minded simpleton who lives under a rock. ;-D
Not really but I HATE that remake.
I'm not against remakes on principal, but I am against remakes on both personal experience and clear evidence.
The Italian Job remake: lots of money thrown at the screen and a ton of liquid smug poured over every scene. See also: Oceans 11 remake, Oceans 12, The Fast and the Furious. Smug + Money = vacuous cinematic experience.
Planet of the Apes remake: it's like the original, except it's sexy! Yeah! Let's make it sexy - less about the how, and more about the young, virile actor and the new monsters. Sexy, sexy, sexy - FLOP! It was shit. You're alone.
Psycho remake. I'll go fucking psycho in a minute - what a fucking travesty. I ask you, what is the point of making something that is mostly the same as, and yet worse than, the original. That's right - there's no fucking point at all. (Well, no artistic point - it's just to do with making a quick buck out of people's curiosity.)
Having said that, there are some good remakes out there. I can't remember any examples, off hand. Erm...Evil Dead II. There.
They're remaking Death Race 2000, which in principal is a great idea, but in practice will probably not be!
Anybody else get the Mills/O'Neill Death Race comics - did they ever 'finish' or did it get cancelled?
The Dawn of the Dead remake is good- better than it has any right to be.
The Thing is the perfect example of a remake that's as good as, if not better, than the original.
The Michael Mann version of Last of the Mohicans is splendid too.
Hmm - didn't know any more than they were remaking Death Race.... wish I hadn't looked!
Link: AieeEEEEE!!!
The Thing is a great example, on of my favourite movies and I always forget it was a remake. And although I prefer Infernal Affairs, The Departed is still a cracking movie in it's own right.
I totally agree The Thing remake is a masterpiece ahead of its time.
I wonder how The Day The Earth Stood Still would pan out in a remake.
Or Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers, Oh they did again and again and agai...............
I'll teach you to keep you're yap shut.
Link: Careful what you wish for...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........
I went to see the Halloween remake today. Not bad, if unecessary. I didn't see Michael Myers as an abused child particularly - more a neglected and bullied child, but a weird kid nonetheless. His background didn't explain his murderous behaviour, although his treatment of his pets did bring to mind the details of at least one real-life serial killer's formative years.
The portrayal of the child Michael Myers in the original helped build the sense of menace sinply because it didn't explain anything. We didn't know what prompted Michael to kill his sister; it was a motiveless crime, and there is no clue in the original that Michael had any personality whatsoever before the first killing. The remake makes him seem much more like a normal mouthy, sulky kid, apart from the mask-wearing and cruelty to animals.
Some of the dialogue retained from the original doesn't fit right in the remake as a consequence of the background invented for Michael before his escape. Dr Loomis talks about Michael as having been an emotionless monster since the day he arrived in his care, but this is quite at odds with what the cinema audience has seen of the interaction between the two - which we didn't see in the original!
There are numerous plot holes, but there's no point worrying about them. There seems to be far less effort devoted to building tension in the remake than in the original, which is a pity, but then what's the point when you know what's going to happen anyway?
The Thing is the perfect example of a remake that's as good as, if not better, than the original.
Isn't The Thing a slightly more faithful adaptation of Who Goes There rather than a remake of Howard Hawks' 'Plantenstein', though?
The Carpenter movie is definately pretty close to the story, but I have to admit to not having seen the original. Am I right in thinking it ditches the whole alien disguising itself as human aspect? And with that in mind is Carpenter's film really a remake or just an adaptation from the same story?
I won DEVILS REJECTS in a 2000AD competition.
Watched it and realised I was a winner and a loser at the same time.
Couldn't give it away quick enough.
I think I'd rather be subjected to the kind of sick torture that Rob Zombie puts in his films than actually watch one again.
Or go see that Catherine Zeta Jones in a romantic comedy - can't quite figure out which is worse.
The Michael Mann version of Last of the Mohicans is splendid too.
What's interesting about that superb and endlessly rewatchable film is that it is indeed (allegedly) a remake of the Randolph Scott 1930's version rather than a "new" adaptation of the (excellent but very different) book.
By the way, I really want to read SpookytheCat's defense of Ghosts of Mars!
If you really want depressing, click the below link to see what upcoming remake will be starring blokey from 300.
[Sob!]
I've seen that film over 200 times as I used to watch it every day when I came home from school, until my mum finally got sick of it and taped over it.
The only good thing I can say about a remake is its gotta be better than the LA one.
I've seen that film over 200 times as I used to watch it every day when I came home from school, until my mum finally got sick of it and taped over it.
The only good thing I can say about a remake is its gotta be better than the LA one.
"The only good thing I can say about a remake is its gotta be better than the LA one."
Don't tempt fate, it'll only kick you in the balls when you're not looking...and just imagine how bad The Thing remake is going to be...
"Having said that, there are some good remakes out there. I can't remember any examples, off hand."
The Maltese Falcon, Per un Pugno di Dollari, Heat, The Killers, One Million Years B.C., Twelve Monkeys, The Thin Red Line, and so on...but of course these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
What is it with Carpenter remakes lately anyway, everything he's done seems to have been remade recently or a remake's in the pipeline. I understand he'll be making quite a bit of money from the whole thing but surely that's outweighed by the fact that the younger generation will now wrongly think The Fog was that shit movie with her off of Lost.
When they remade the Fog I thought maybe they were going to do it book style instead of American off shore ghost pirates.
I mean a Porton down expeiment which warps the brain and having half of london wiped out in a gi-normous explosion.
When they say loosely based on the book by James Herbert they really mean it. Fucking Yanks, No Offence.
AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH. I,m off to cool down again
Dumbest remake in my opinion has to be The Shining, where Stephen King apparently commissioned the tv movie thing because he doesn't like the Kubrick one. Guess which was better?
The Shining remake was directed by Mick Garris, the man behind the Masters of Horror TV series.
I avoided the 'new' Shining like some sort of wacky plague, as it promised to remain ruthlessly faithful to the source material, and if I've learned one thing, it's that with Stephen King, it pays more to mess about with the story (The Shawshank Redemption, Misery) than it does to be ultra-faithful (Thinner, The Stand).
"When they remade the Fog I thought maybe they were going to do it book style instead of American off shore ghost pirates.
I mean a Porton down expeiment which warps the brain and having half of london wiped out in a gi-normous explosion.
When they say loosely based on the book by James Herbert they really mean it. Fucking Yanks, No Offence."
Er... you do know that Carpenter's The Fog is NO RELATION WHATSOEVER to James Herbert's The Fog, don't you? It's not meant to be an adaptation. The two things- book and movie- just happened to be made during a five year period. Herbert's The Fog came out in 75, Carpenter's in 80. One is not in any way related to the other, and was never supposed to be.
I think this confusion came about (and you're not the first to think this) because there is also a Dennis Etchinson-penned novelisation of the film, which was in the shops at a time when James Herbert was at his most popular.
But no, no link whatsoever.
Steev
Thats OK then, all this time i've been stewing, Still thought the film was shit though.
How very dare you, sir! (madam?) You are talking about one of my top three films of all time. That, Am.We.London and The Wicker Man.
Steev
Its not sir, I work for a living. Sorry army flashbacks.
Perhaps my judgement was clouded or influenced by the fact that I had just read the book and deliberatly went and watched the film. I am talking 20 years ago though. Still probably wont change my opinion though.
V
Perhaps when all these hollywood studios doing remakes of previous films run out of films to remake they could go back to the beginning again and remake all the remakes all over again instead of coming up with an original idea.
A remake of The Shining is just a little bit pointless.I havent seen the remake and i dont want to either.
As for Escape From New York i never liked that film much in the first place.I remember seeing that film at the cinema with my dad and was very disappointed in it.I also didnt like escape from LA either.
I did once see a very interesting docu on the making of The Wicker Man.It was all about the filming of it and how they had to do a lot of improvisation to create the settings etc.It was just unbelievable how they managed to pull that one off and create a film that is actually convincing and disturbing.Just about everything a major hollywood film studio failed to replicate in its remake of.
The only remake that i will say is any good and actually added something to the original was the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.It managed to be quite convincing as was the original.The idea of adding the archive footage to the beginning and end of the film was quite clever.
Watching the remake of the Wicker Man killed off any curiosity i had about remakes.
I have never seen any of the Halloween films nor Friday the 13th either.
It would be more interesting to remake the remakes rather than remake the source material. It would be a sort of Chinese Whispers deal where, after four or five generations, you sit down to watch the original and the latest version and Rosebud turns out to be a Trojan asteroid or something.
The Texas Chainsaw remake didn't work as a horror movie for me because Jessica Bhiel looked too damn good. Fear factor was completely diminished by horn factor.