147 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I somehow doubt that this is going to be anywhere near as good as Carpenter's original, but it hardly looks any worse than any of the sequels to date, and looks much better than most of them. (Compared to the wretched HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION, Zombie's effort will seem like Carpenter's original.)

Nice to hear that iconic theme music in this teaser, and Malcolm McDowell is a brilliant choice for Loomis. Great genre/geek movie supporting cast, too.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32205

[Safari Suit]

Looks pretty decent. I didn't like any of the last three films, so I suppose if this turns out to be a stinker it doesn't matter. I wasn't really "for" this remake, but it's been a while since we've had a decent slasher.

I hope this doesn't turn out like the Texas Chainsaw remake though. I really hated that.

[Loomis]

Even though I'm a huge fan of Carpenter's original (who enjoys most of the sequels in a "guilty pleasure" kind of way) and consider it an unsurpassable masterpiece, I don't understand why this trailer is getting such a mauling on AICN.

The Talkbackers are acting like the HALLOWEEN "property" has never been exploited before. Have they forgotten how bad most of the sequels are? How Carpenter himself was involved in a sequel that wasn't fit to polish the boots of the first one (HALLOWEEN II), as well as a further sequel so moneygrubbing that it simply used the HALLOWEEN brand name when it appeared that there was no further mileage in Michael (HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH)?

Why all the hate for Rob Zombie? Do the AICN fanboys seriously believe that he's a lesser director than, say, Rick Rosenthal, who committed II and RESURRECTION? First they complain that Zombie's effort appears to be a shot-for-shot remake (although it obviously isn't one), and then they gripe that the mask doesn't match the original! They moan about changes to "the mythology" while seemingly overlooking the astonishingly weird backstory for Myers that comes out of nowhere in THE CURSE OF MICHAEL MYERS (a terrible film, but one that's actually quite enjoyable in spite of - or perhaps because of - its flaws), as well as the glaring continuity flubs and contradictions in "the canon" to date (e.g. Michael loses his eyes in one film but somehow manages to get them back for another sequel).

I mean, considering all the ludicrous tricks that have been pulled and all the bottom-of-the-barrel fare that's been inflicted on audiences for nearly three decades in the cause of milking more dollars out of the HALLOWEEN franchise (I gather that there was once a serious plan for a Myers adventure in space, an idea later taken up by the filmmakers behind Jason Voorhees), for fanboys to turn on Zombie as though he's somehow sullying something pure is laughable. Granted, many of them are outraged by the idea of directly "messing with a classic" by remaking the original, but then the recent ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 was a surprisingly decent piece of work, and, besides, Bond fans can enjoy both THUNDERBALL and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (or at least this one can).

I predict Zombie's will be easily the second or (depending on whether it surpasses HALLOWEEN H20) third best of the HALLOWEEN flicks.

[Harmsway]

The Talkbackers are acting like the HALLOWEEN "property" has never been exploited before. Have they forgotten how bad most of the sequels are?

I think they (fairly) want the franchise left alone. That's my wish for it at this point.

[Santa]

I love horror films, love to be scared by them even though I know it's rubbish, love to turn the lights off and watch all alone to make it worse, but somehow the original Halloweens never really clicked for me. For that reason I think I'll enjoy this one more as it won't suffer from comparisons. Looks right up my street, can't wait (particularly as my house is remote and, being in a natural park, surrounded by strange animal noises), it'll be great on DVD as I'll be able to scare myself to death.

[Number 6]

Really not impressed. The original was fine on its own. Can't this generation of horror "filmakers" come up with something that we haven't seen before? A new boogeyman to whet our appetites? Ugh.


Rehash this, rehash that...next someone will get the bright idea to ressurect Jason...probably in drag next go round doing his handiwork with butterknives.

[Safari Suit]

...a further sequel so moneygrubbing that it simply used the HALLOWEEN brand name when it appeared that there was no further mileage in Michael (HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH)?

That's actually my favourite of the sequels. Yeah, I know that means I'm not allowed to have opinions anymore.

[Loomis]

The Talkbackers are acting like the HALLOWEEN "property" has never been exploited before. Have they forgotten how bad most of the sequels are?

I think they (fairly) want the franchise left alone. That's my wish for it at this point.

But I get the feeling that many of them don't necessarily want the franchise to be left alone, but would take a dreadful "straight sequel" to RESURRECTION over a reasonably okay or even a very good remake of HALLOWEEN, purely out of misguided fanboy loyalty to the hallowed "original series". They remind me of Bond fans who'd have preferred BOND 21 to be DIE ANOTHER DAY 2, even if it resulted in a vastly inferior film to CASINO ROYALE, since going down that route would at least not have messed up their precious continuity and timeline (which was, as with the HALLOWEEN saga, already messed up).

[Andrew]

I think the big problem is that most fans have read the script (not me personally) and have found it to be awful and completely out of the realm of Michael Myers.

I think most fans are disappointed that they pretty much took the pure-evil aspect out of the character and made him an "I'm so misunderstood!", run of the mill serial killer (abusive father, desire to kill small animals included!) that looks like he's been bodybuilding at Smith's Grove. Of course, this is all based on second hand information since I haven't found the script.

If I remember correctly, most fans were happy when they heard Zombie was directing and quickly turned against him when the script leaked.

[Harmsway]

But I get the feeling that many of them don't necessarily want the franchise to be left alone, but would take a dreadful "straight sequel" to RESURRECTION over a reasonably okay or even a very good remake of HALLOWEEN, purely out of misguided fanboy loyalty to the hallowed "original series".

I don't think that's the case, but that's just my experience talking. Personally, I don't think either a sequel or a remake is a good idea. Michael Myers should be left well enough alone.

[tdalton]

I thought that it looked as though it could be a pretty good remake of the original film. I'll be interested to see a more extensive trailer to get a better idea of what the film will ultimately be, but from this teaser, it looks as though it has potential. Also, the casting of Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis is a very inspired casting decision.

[Harmsway]

I thought that it looked as though it could be a pretty good remake of the original film.

The script review might change your mind about that. Sounds like it's HALLOWEEN in name, theme song, and mask only.

Also, the casting of Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis is a very inspired casting decision.

Granted.

[tdalton]

I thought that it looked as though it could be a pretty good remake of the original film.

The script review might change your mind about that. Sounds like it's HALLOWEEN in name, theme song, and mask only.

Either way, it still looks as though it may be a good film in its own rite. If it's a good remake of the original, then that's fine with me. If not, then I can't really say that I would be up in arms over it either (as I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of the series save for the first one). If it ends up being in name and mask only, then it may be the refreshing that the series needs after some truly awful sequels. After all, how long can they really keep going with the same setup anyway? Maybe this could end up being somewhat of a stylistic reboot in the way that CR was for the Bond franchise.

[Harmsway]

Either way, it still looks as though it may be a good film in its own rite.

Maybe. I thought the teaser trailer looked rather... well, mediocre. Nothing especially creepy about it, nothing especially interesting about it.

If it ends up being in name and mask only, then it may be the refreshing that the series needs after some truly awful sequels.

I'd argue the route this film ends up taking isn't the right one, though. It could take a good one, but making Michael Myers just another "monster produced by poor upbringing and society's hate" (and not even, IMO, doing it in a good fashion) loses just what made the original character so creepy.

After all, how long can they really keep going with the same setup anyway? Maybe this could end up being somewhat of a stylistic reboot in the way that CR was for the Bond franchise.

Again, read the script review - you might not end up so positive in your attitudes.

[tdalton]

[deleted]

[Loomis]

Maybe. I thought the teaser trailer looked rather... well, mediocre. Nothing especially creepy about it, nothing especially interesting about it.

Well, you're absolutely right. There's no evidence that Zombie's HALLOWEEN will be any kind of amazing film. But do you really think it looks any worse than any of the other sequels?

Still, I'm aware that you're not defending those sequels. You write: "I don't think either a sequel or a remake is a good idea. Michael Myers should be left well enough alone."

Fair enough. Me, I think this looks like a worthwhile rental, a flick that will doubtless be annoying at times but will nonetheless have its moments. And that's good enough for me. I'm not expecting the Myers franchise equivalent of CASINO ROYALE.

Similarly, The Cure haven't made any particularly good albums since the late 1980s, and their best work invariably comes from the early part of that decade, yet (perhaps just out of a misguided sense of fanboy loyalty, as with HALLOWEEN) I'm still interested in hearing any new stuff they bring out, albeit with lowered expectations. (Although, that said, I really don't see how this can fail to be a lot better than all the other HALLOWEEN followups, with the possible exception of H20.)

But I think we're coming at this from different angles: you strike me as a film buff who admires Carpenter's original but has little time for the followups, while I'm a film buff who admires Carpenter's original and is a (casual) fan of the series.

I'd argue the route this film ends up taking isn't the right one, though. It could take a good one, but making Michael Myers just another "monster produced by poor upbringing and society's hate" (and not even, IMO, doing it in a good fashion) loses just what made the original character so creepy.

Again, I think you're absolutely right. Then again, we already have Carpenter's take on the material. At least something new(ish) and potentially interesting is being attempted, as with a blond Bond who may be ex-SAS having his first mission in 2006 under the same M who was in the films from 1995 to 2002.

I guess I'm only defending Zombie's HALLOWEEN because some fans seem to me to be annoyingly, well, fanboyish about it, rather like certain Bond fans were when the 007 series was rebooted.

As for the script review, I admit that I haven't been following this saga particularly closely, but I was under the impression that certain reported details turned out to be incorrect.

[Harmsway]

But I think we're coming at this from different angles: you strike me as a film buff who admires Carpenter's original but has little time for the followups, while I'm a film buff who admires Carpenter's original and is a (casual) fan of the series.

I'm actually the latter. I've seen every HALLOWEEN film in existence. Love the franchise, stupid and silly and awful as it is. Though the first film is really the only worthwhile one, and this whole HALLOWEEN: REDUX angle doesn't appeal to me.

Again, I think you're absolutely right. Then again, we already have Carpenter's take on the material. At least something new(ish) and potentially interesting is being attempted, as with a blond Bond who may be ex-SAS having his first mission in 2006 under the same M who was in the films from 1995 to 2002.

I see what you're trying to say... at least this isn't HALLOWEEN 9: THE SAME THING AGAIN. But I fear that baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater - CASINO ROYALE maintained its James Bond-ness through and through. Will HALLOWEEN maintain its Michael Myers-ness?

As for the script review, I admit that I haven't been following this saga particularly closely, but I was under the impression that certain reported details turned out to be incorrect.

Only because Zombie did another rewrite after that draft, but the trailer itself seems to confirm a lot of the script review.

[tdalton]

I think that we'll get a better idea of what the film is going to really be like once the final trailer is released. Right now, I've got to say that everything from the point that the Halloween theme kicks in during the trailer, all of that appears to be very good to me. It looks like it has a great energy about it, and I can imagine some of those scenes having a great sense of suspense and terror to them. As for the idea of a background for Myers, it's not too much of an issue for me as I am not really a huge fan of the franchise, although I've seen most of them. I just can't imagine that anything that Rob Zombie does with this film can turn out anywhere near as bad as the majority of the sequels (and especially the last one).

[Scottlee]

I'm looking forward to this one. I've always enjoyed the Halloween movies. They're very hit and miss though...

Halloween - The ultimate classic. Not much doubt about this one

Halloween 2 - Reasonably good. Would be interesting to see this spliced together with the first one to make one long film. The hospital setting is creepy, and I like how it's all set on the same night as the first film.

Halloween 4 : The Return of Michael Myers - Surprisingly good sequal. I like this one. There's a great twist at the end.

Halloween 5 : The Revenge of Michael Myers - Run of the mill fare, but there are one or two nice twists, such as Rachel being killed off early, and the mysterious prison break at the end. One of the weaker ones overall, mind. It was certainly the worst sequal to date. I tend to do a fair bit of yawning when watching this one.

Halloween : The Curse of Michael Myers - A very underrated entry. This one has a lot of credible scares. I don't care too much for the 'symbol' sub-plot, but the film from start to finish has probably the biggest creepiness factor since the original.

Halloween : H20 - Diabolical. Easily the worst of the whole lot. Very few deaths or scares, and the campus setting doesn't do a lot for me. A complete waste of Jamie Lee's return.

Halloween Resurrection - An improvement over H20, but clearly made in a rush. Not the worst sequal, but far from the best.

------------------------

Loomis - In which one did Myers lose his eyes? I can't place it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I somehow doubt that this is going to be anywhere near as good as Carpenter's original, but it hardly looks any worse than any of the sequels to date, and looks much better than most of them. (Compared to the wretched HALLOWEEN: RESURRECTION, Zombie's effort will seem like Carpenter's original.)

Nice to hear that iconic theme music in this teaser, and Malcolm McDowell is a brilliant choice for Loomis. Great genre/geek movie supporting cast, too.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32205

I didn't get hot and bothered over it because we've seen Halloween mined to death already. One thing I read on AICN was a script review which describes RZ's version portraying MM as a conventional seriel killer with a tragic childhood.ie taking the mythology away from Myers-he's no longer the Boogie Man but rather a poor kid who grew up in terrible circumstances who was forged into who he is by seeing his whore mom get slapped around..etc. Kinda takes the *fun* out of the slasher genre if the killer is just a sick bastard "ripped from the headlines" donit?

for the record, I think H2 is vastly underrated. I love that it takes place on the same night...Laura's ordeal is far from over...

[bond 16.05.72]

It now seems re-boot is the new Hollywood concept, don't so remakes or sequels do re-boots.

Both Batman & Bond were received with rapturous applause, financially & critically.

As Loomis said it's a bit rich to complain about Zombie's take on the franchise considering the constant milking of the series with poor sequels which have very little to do with the original.

I will be curious to see what Zombie does with it, lets face it DAD was a step too far so the makers went back to the beginning and started again the same can be said for the Batman series, although Bond & BM never went down the straight to video market.

With all the countless trashy sequels out there whats the harm in giving it a re- start.

Yes it could be said it's best left alone but Hollywood seems so creatively lacking that re-hashing things is the only alternative.

CR has shown Hollywood that series can be re-booted, although where does it all end and whats next.

John McNaughton (Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer) has been linked with a Nightmare on Elmstreet prequel.

[Royal Dalton]

Loomis - In which one did Myers lose his eyes? I can't place it.

It was at the end of Halloween II. Loomis blinded him by shooting him in the eyes.

Even though it's totally unnecessary, I don't really see this remake as that much of a problem.

It's a really bad idea of Zombie's to keep showing Michael Myers' eyes like that, though. Rick Rosenthal did the same thing in his films. It takes away a lot of the character's mystique.

[Andrew]

I will admit this: I'm excited to see Malcolm McDowell's Loomis.

It is quite unfortunate though that they decided to cast the cliche outcast-looking kid for the role of young Michael though but I suppose that just fits in with the cliche background they gave him in the film.

[Loomis]

Halloween 2 - Reasonably good. Would be interesting to see this spliced together with the first one to make one long film.

Maybe. Especially if they used the "television version" of HALLOWEEN, which features additional footage filmed during the making of HALLOWEEN II. I've always found it ironic that II is often slammed (with quite a bit of justification) for being a (moronic) bloodbath while the first film managed to be suspenseful and scary without resorting to very much claret, yet the person who apparently pushed for more gore in II and reshot parts of the film to cram it in was none other than Carpenter (who co-wrote this sequel, but did not direct it, or at least he didn't direct much of it), the very guy praised for the "restrained" original. It appears that this was a commercial decision influenced by the success of the graphic FRIDAY THE 13TH, itself a HALLOWEEN cash-in (making the Voorhees series, at the time, the Bourne to HALLOWEEN's Bond, if you will).

[Loomis]

I've seen every HALLOWEEN film in existence. Love the franchise, stupid and silly and awful as it is. ... Will HALLOWEEN maintain its Michael Myers-ness?

So you tolerated the Thorn Cult idea (which contradicts a different supernatural cult backstory in the HALLOWEEN novelization, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the films) and that equally strange and unexplained business with the man in black, which came out of absolutely nowhere and was subsequently dropped for H20, as well as the utterly incomprehensible ending of CURSE, and the way the beginning of RESURRECTION makes a mockery of the finale of H20, and the way RESURRECTION treats Laurie Strode with about as much disrespect and offhandedness as any franchise has ever treated one of its main characters, and the way the Myers house in 5 looks as similar to the house in the original as the White House looks to Tony Soprano's home.... but all of a sudden a filmmaker explores Michael's childhood and possibly suggests that there were influences on him other than Pure Evil™, and you draw the line? Do you see what I'm trying to say? The HALLOWEEN series has always been all over the place. Even less meaningful continuity than in the Bond franchise, if that's possible. Heck, Zombie's film is almost guaranteed to be the closest of all the followups to Carpenter's original.

John McNaughton (Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer) has been linked with a Nightmare on Elmstreet prequel.

That, my friends, is the scariest and most brilliantly-made mass murderer film I know of. I refer to HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER, not A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (never liked the Freddy flicks).

[Scottlee]

A couple of things though. Firstly, a film can still be suspenseful even it's a bloodbath (See Hostel, for example). Secondly, I don't recall there being all that many deaths in Halloween 2. It's been about four years since I saw the film, but at the time I seem to remember that hospital being rather sparse of potential victims for Myers. Not only that but the original Halloween had more than its fair share of graphic violence. Think of Judith's naked death from multiple stab wounds, or the way that bunny girl gurgles uncomfortably in mid-strangle for what seems like an eternity. The deaths in Halloween 2 might be more inventive, but they're hardly more violent, at least not in any hugely noticable way.

I like Halloween 2 but it could have done with a twist such as having Jamie Lee killed off halfway through, or something else just to give it that extra "umph". There's nothing wrong with the setting. A near-empty hospital is the perfectly place for at least one Myers sequal. The film does have its strong points.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Loomis' post='724196' date='8 April 2007 - 17:26']So you tolerated the Thorn Cult idea (which contradicts a different supernatural cult backstory in the HALLOWEEN novelization, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the films) and that equally strange and unexplained business with the man in black, which came out of absolutely nowhere and was subsequently dropped for H20, as well as the utterly incomprehensible ending of CURSE, and the way the beginning of RESURRECTION makes a mockery of the finale of H20, and the way RESURRECTION treats Laurie Strode with about as much disrespect and offhandedness as any franchise has ever treated one of its main characters, and the way the Myers house in 5 looks as similar to the house in the original as the White House looks to Tony Soprano's home.... but all of a sudden a filmmaker explores Michael's childhood and possibly suggests that there were influences on him other than Pure Evil

[stamper]

Is Michael now a girl in the remake ?

[Loomis]

I like the original film because it was good, I like the sequels because they're fun. Zombie's film looks like it'll be neither.

Fun? Maybe, maybe not - depends on your idea of fun, I guess. I don't recall any of the HALLOWEEN sequels being out-and-out laugh riots, exactly, so I cannot agree that Zombie's version promises less "cornball material" or "fun" than any of the others, really.

As for "good", c'mon - after that wretched Michael Myers meets the internet nonsense that was RESURRECTION, there's absolutely nowhere for this franchise to go but up; and, story-wise, there was absolutely nowhere for it to go other than down the reboot/remake route. Not that that makes Zombie's film "necessary", of course, but barring something like Michael in space I don't think they could have extended the "original" series in any new or even vaguely interesting way.

[Harmsway]

Not that that makes Zombie's film "necessary", of course, but barring something like Michael in space I don't think they could have extended the "original" series in any new or even vaguely interesting way.

Which brings me back to point A - this film shouldn't happen. The concept was stagnant, and we didn't need a remake to spawn some more crappy films. HALLOWEEN: REDUX shouldn't exist, and I find it even more insulting than the lackluster sequels because it's a remake of the only truly decent film in the series.