Halloween (2007)

I respect Rob Zombie for approaching this Halloween remake with a more divergent and comprehensive design instead of using means of replication (for at least the first hour of this retelling). However, these new explorations pan out as eminently unnecessary and rather cataclysmic to the story of Michael Myers. Humanzing the character of Michael felt off-brand and almost betraying of the monstrous character that made him so devastatingly horrifying. It's strange though, because even though I didn't favor the changes Zombie was making to the story, I certainly wished he would continue to present more inventive themes that hadn't yet been explored in the Halloween lore as the film went along. It's unfortunate that the second half of the movie becomes a near copy of the original Halloween. If there's one fact for certain, it's that if you're going to remake a film, don't try to mimic it. Make it something different and fresh that could possibly further improve the lore. For the most part, I didn't enjoy any of the new portrayals of past characters (with the exception of Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis) which is mainly because of the script that the actors/actresses were given. Conversations between many of the characters seemed vastly exaggerated and quixotic creating a sense of unbelievability that was quite bothersome. I didn't favor any of Zombie's directing techniques; nothing surely could compare to Carpenter's directorial style. As I was basking in the movie I just kept asking myself, "Why did this need to be made?" Well, the answer is simple: "It didn't." (Verdict: C-)

Here's the thing: I've been watching all of the Halloween movies back to back and I've enjoyed each one for different reasons, but the one that kind of pulled me off of the kick was this movie, the 2007 make of Halloween. I'm the kind of person that feels if there is going to be a sequel to any movie, you need to continue the story with the same actors and the same type of storyline. This version kind of diminished my excitement for several reasons. 1: I've ignored the fact that in every movie, there's a slight sex scene which is tacky for every kind of movie, especially for horror/ thriller movies because the eyes should be on the killer hunting down the victims, not woman's boobs and a man's butt. It's just very trashy. 2: I understand that Rob Zombie wanted to tell his version of Halloween because it's a refreshing and different look at the infamous story of Michael Myers, but I felt the movie to be too raunchy with not just the boobs and butt, but also that grotesque sex scene in Michael's cell. It was absolutely stomach wrenching and was definitely throwing me off from watching the movie. 3: The actor who played Michael Myers looked to be 35 and Laurie to be like 15, when in reality, it should've been different because in the original movie, Laurie was born 2 years after Michael was admitted to the hospital, making them 8 or so years apart, so they got it a little different. 4: One thing I can give to Rob is that he gave the audience a good idea of how Michael could've turned evil because he had a horrible home life, which can turn anyone into a psycho, but even giving us that idea was a little too risque and flamboyant.5: I'll also give him points that Rob tried to stay pretty much true to the original with the fact that, like the original, Michael escaped after years of therapy, goes back to his old house, and starts planning on how to start making his killings, even having the original music when Michael was around was a great idea. 6: I understand that even with a continuation of a saga like this that you don't have to go exactly to the word with the original story, but it would definitely help because when you have different actors, it doesn't feel like the same story, and should be considered to be called something else. 7: The fact that Laurie was so wimpy when Scout portrayed her, she was a brave woman taking on Michael; it's just sad. The reason I gave this movie a 4 is becasue:Pros: Stayed pretty true to the original story with the characters and the location.Gave the audience an interesting look on how Michael turned evilGave the audience a look into how Michael spent some of his time in the hospital.Gave the audience an interesting idea on why Michael liked masks and seeing his cell covered with masks of different colors.The way the movie ended was similar to the first movie in the sense that Michael was shot at the end of the first movie, and he was shot in this version.Cons: Different actorsBad actor portrayal of Michael looking 35 and Laurie looking 15.Didn't make sense on how Michael found the iconic mask in the floorboards of his family home when there was no mention of that mask in the beginning of the movie.Scout's portrayal of Laurie was too wimpy.Too much nudity to even fathom watching this movie again!Too much dirty cussing to make someone never wanna watch this movie again!

The reason why I made this account because I want to review the director's cut of both of the Rob Zombie films. I gave the theatrical cut a 5/10 and I got the unrated director's cut of the movie on Christmas. I gave this movie a 7.5/10 because of better story telling, and the script flows well. I still hate the white trash theme of the movie. Yeah I know their is one scene that's uncountable but I ignore that scene. Is it worth buying? It depends if you hate or love the theatrical cut of Halloween (2007). A better version of the film.

Despite all the criticisms that have been hurled at him over the course of his filmmaking career, Rob Zombie never fails to present an entirely unique vision with a definitive style, even when remaking one of the most beloved horror classics of the modern era. Remaking such a revered film is always going to be a risky task, and Zombie's retelling of John Carpenter's original has been polarizing to say the least. It has been decried by fans for failing to live up to the original's spirit, and of demystifying one of cinema's most iconic boogeymen, Michael Myers. It's obscene and violent, whereas the original is restrained and understated, and explicitly deals with Myers' psychology, which the original decidedly kept vague, save for the occasional "pure evil" speech by Donald Pleasance. Indeed, this remake differs so heavily from the original that it becomes something entirely different, which some will use as a criticism, but I can't help but commend. In an age of cynical cash-grabs, the Halloween sequels being perfect examples, this re-imagining opts to use the Halloween mythos as the means to tell an entirely different story, and to convey an entirely different experience. As a "Halloween" film, it can be seen as a disappointment, but if viewed on its own terms, it's a deeply unsettling and emotionally provocative tale of a twisted family reunion.The most substantial criticism of the film is that, by exploring Michael Myers' psychology and by humanizing him, it removes what made him so effectively scary in the first place, as the audience now has the opportunity to gain a sense of familiarity with him. However, that's presuming the intent of the John Carpenter's original onto this film, which set out to accomplish something entirely different. Rob Zombie has no interest in keeping Michael Myers in the background, but instead, makes him the central focus in order to trace his psychological evolution from demented child to enraged psychopath. This Myers isn't so much a personification of evil as he is a manifestation of rage whose humanity is stripped away over the course of the film. The original reinterpreted the boogeyman in a suburban setting, but this re-imagining takes you into the boogeyman's world, and forces the audience to experience his life through his eyes. Perhaps not the most effective slasher fodder, but personally, I found Michael's continual descent into madness to be disturbing, provocative, and even, perhaps, a little sad. Taken on its own terms, the film is a chilling portrait of a deranged mind, and the impact he has on those around him. Despite accusations to the contrary, the film deals with the theme of violence more than it exploits it, and the explicit gore is used to convey the uncompromising brutality of the carnage which Michael leaves in his wake. The foul language and vile characters desensitize the audience just as it does Myers, and while I could admittedly have done without the white-trash element, it feels more like a component to the story than a simple cliché.This is all, of course, without mentioning of the technical aspects of the film, which I find superb across the board. Say what you will about Rob Zombie's ear for dialogue, but visually, this film boasts a haunting atmosphere, and proves that Rob Zombie has speaks the language of cinema fluently. The performances are all convincing and engaging, especially from Taylor-Compton and McDowell. Taylor-Compton's Laurie has been criticized as being a stark deviation from Jamie Lee Curtis' portrayal, but her performance, save for an admittedly terrible introduction, is appropriate for Zombie's vision. Her bubbly charm and happy-go-lucky attitude both serve to make her an endearing character, especially in her babysitting scenes, and to also provide to juxtapose her with the brooding and enraged Michael Myers, played to perfection by Tyler Mane.McDowell has likewise been criticized for not living up to Donald Pleasance's intensity, despite the fact that this, again, is an entirely different take on the character. McDowell plays a more conflicted version of the character, who regards Michael as a danger to society, but also as something of a kindred spirit, even something as a friend, which is as perverse as it is fascinating. McDowell instills the role with sincerity and compassion, and creates a sympathetic character out of the good doctor, especially in the asylum scenes where he desperately tries and fails to help his troubled patient regain his humanity.Of course, fans of the original will take issues with the liberties Zombie took with the material no matter what, which is perfectly within their rights. Film is a subjective experience, and your perspective on a film will depend, in large part, on personal taste and preference. That said, if one is to judge this film, they should do so on its own terms, as they should with any film, because one is to do so here, they could find the merit of the film that I found. Some fans might even be enraged at the very thought of these films, and couldn't believe that someone could enjoy it. They might look at this film and ask, "was that the boogeyman?" In fact, I do believe it was.