147 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

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.

You're right, it is a film that probably shouldn't have made its way into production just simply based on its concept of remaking one of the all time great horror films (as remakes are most often nowhere near as good as the original nor do they offer anything new to the material). But, as Hollywood is firmly in remake mode, I think that this one looks like it will be leaps and bounds better than the countless other remakes that are out there. I think that it could be much worse than it is at the moment. It could be in the same style as the remake of Psycho, which as an "exact" duplicate of the original. IMO, it's great that Rob Zombie is bringing something new to the franchise, and if it turns out great, then it could bring a breath of fresh air to a franchise that has been in need of one. If it turns out bad, the very worst outcome would be that people would rediscover the original to see where things went wrong with the remake and to compare the two.

[Harmsway]

But, as Hollywood is firmly in remake mode, I think that this one looks like it will be leaps and bounds better than the countless other remakes that are out there.

I don't agree. I thought the trailer looked very lackluster. Not much to distinguish it from the trailers for remakes of films like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and the trailers for that remake were much more stylish and interesting than what Zombie served up.

I think that it could be much worse than it is at the moment.

I suppose so, but is that a reason to look forward to this film, or just to not mind it too much? I don't mind it too much, but I'm more arguing for the former. I just don't see any reason to look forward to Zombie's HALLOWEEN.

[stamper]

If Michael is now a girl, as the trailer seems to imply, that's a great reboot idea. Or just no one noticed ?

[Harmsway]

If Michael is now a girl, as the trailer seems to imply, that's a great reboot idea. Or just no one noticed ?

Where does the trailer imply he's a girl? (And no, he's not one.)

[tdalton]

I think that it could be much worse than it is at the moment.

I suppose so, but is that a reason to look forward to this film, or just to not mind it too much? I don't mind it too much, but I'm more arguing for the former. I just don't see any reason to look forward to Zombie's HALLOWEEN.

There's not much that I can really say other than the trailer has honestly made me want to see the movie more than simply hearing the concept of somebody remaking the original film. I think that there's plenty to look forward to in this one, especially Malcolm McDowell playing the role of Dr. Loomis, and I think that there will ultimately be enough differences between this film and the original to make it more worthwhile than the remake of TCM or the other horror films that have been remade in recent years.

[stamper]

Yep sorry, coming in watching the trailer, all I saw was a girl with blond hair, and Michael (not his face) also sporting blond hairs, so I thought someone had the brilliant idea of switching the gender. Now, that would have been one hell of a remake !

[Loomis]

Looks like Malcolm McDowell has done a Daniel Craig and signed for three films:

http://www.comingsoo...ws.php?id=20332

McDowell Signed for Three Halloween Movies
Source: Rotten Tomatoes May 11, 2007

While talking about playing Linderman in NBC's "Heroes," Malcolm McDowell also briefly discussed taking over the role of Dr. Loomis in the new Halloween, directed by Rob Zombie.

"I've signed for three," said McDowell, "How about that? They obviously think it's going to be a big hit."

McDowell has never seen any of the "Halloween" movies, and Zombie told him not to. "It's a new look, it's a reinvention of it and he is completely different, my Loomis, I presume. So I guess there will be some people that will be sort of disappointed if they think I'm just going to copy [Donald Pleasence] because I'm not."

Halloween hits theaters on August 31.

[Scottlee]

Great news they're doing three! I probably won't watch the Season of the Witch remake though, just the first two

[Loomis]

The poster is upon us.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32931

Good grief. It's like the Sergeant Pepper cover meeting an Iron Maiden sleeve. And that has to be the laziest, lamest tagline ever. "EVIL HAS A DESTINY". Wow. Has it really? This is going to be, like, one deep film.

Okay, I never expected Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN to be anything truly amazing, but I'm beginning to think Harmsway's right on this one after all.

[Harmsway]

The poster is upon us.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32931

I'm speechless. I don't know that they could have come up with a worse poster.

Okay, I never expected Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN to be anything truly amazing, but I'm beginning to think Harmsway's right on this one after all.

We'll see. If the quality of the film is directly proportional to the quality of that poster, well, HALLOWEEN is going to be worse than I imagined it would be.

[tdalton]

The poster is upon us.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32931

I'm speechless. I don't know that they could have come up with a worse poster.

Okay, I never expected Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN to be anything truly amazing, but I'm beginning to think Harmsway's right on this one after all.

We'll see. If the quality of the film is directly proportional to the quality of that poster, well, HALLOWEEN is going to be worse than I imagined it would be.

I definitely agree that this is a very, very bad poster. But, I don't think that it will be a direct reflection of the quality of the film. I found the second poster for Casino Royale to be one of the worst posters that the Bond franchise has ever produced, yet the film is definitely in the upper echelon of the franchise (even though it has its share of flaws), and there are many films with poor posters, so I'm not ready to give up on the film yet. Even after this awful poster, it's still one of the very few movies that I have any interest in seeing this year.

[Harmsway]

Even after this awful poster, it's still one of the very few movies that I have any interest in seeing this year.

I think there have been a few great movies already, and some coming down the pipeline. Already this year, there was PAN'S LABYRINTH, a near-perfect piece of film, HOT FUZZ, one of the best comedies of all time. And there are a few more cool ones coming up: THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, AMERICAN GANGSTER (Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington... and a phenomenal trailer was recently released), and SWEENEY TODD.

Compared to those high quality and likely-to-be high quality films, HALLOWEEN seems like meager pickings indeed. It seems 99.9% likely that it will have a so-so script, will feature a number of so-so performances, and buckets of gore and sadism to make up for the lack of genuine horror. I can understand seeing it (heck, I sit through sequels I shouldn't all the time... SPIDER-MAN 3 and AT WORLD'S END, most recently), but at best, it's going to be another HANNIBAL RISING.

[tdalton]

Even after this awful poster, it's still one of the very few movies that I have any interest in seeing this year.

I think there have been a few great movies already, and some coming down the pipeline. Already this year, there was PAN'S LABYRINTH, a near-perfect piece of film, HOT FUZZ, one of the best comedies of all time. And there are a few more cool ones coming up: THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, AMERICAN GANGSTER (Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington... and a phenomenal trailer was recently released), and SWEENEY TODD.

Compared to those high quality and likely-to-be high quality films, HALLOWEEN seems like meager pickings indeed. It seems 99.9% likely that it will have a so-so script, will feature a number of so-so performances, and buckets of gore and sadism to make up for the lack of genuine horror. I can understand seeing it (heck, I sit through sequels I shouldn't all the time... SPIDER-MAN 3 and AT WORLD'S END, most recently), but at best, it's going to be another HANNIBAL RISING.

I think that Halloween is going to be one of the better, if not the best, of the remakes that have been released in the past few years. Granted, this new poster isn't anything to inspire any kind of confidence in that, but whatever they do with this film (and the supposed 2 sequels), it's bound to be better than anything that they were planning on doing in terms of continuing the original franchise (I believe that there was a Michael Myers vs. Pinhead idea going around for a while, so this has to at least be better than that). As far as this film being another Hannibal Rising, I just don't see how that's possible, at least for me, because Hannibal Rising is, bar-none, the worst film I've ever seen. I know others disagree, but this is the first film that I've ever bought that I've considered actually either putting it away somewhere where it wouldn't be on display with the rest of my film collection or just selling or giving away to someone else who wants to see it. It's that bad.

I have said that Halloween is one of the few films that I'm looking forward to this year because, honestly, there has been virtually nothing that has really made me want to end my boycott of going to the theater, other than possibly Mr. Brooks. Other than that, Halloween does seem fairly interesting, although I'm certainly not expecting anything that's going to be redefining for the horror genre or anything that could be considered groundbreaking or classic. It'll probably end up being a rental or purchase when it's released on home video, but I'm still eager to watch it, even if only to see whether or not its been in anyway faithful to the original.

[Harmsway]

I think that Halloween is going to be one of the better, if not the best, of the remakes that have been released in the past few years.

Why? There's no reason to believe that (and even if it is true, it's faint praise). The only thing this film has going for it is Malcolm McDowell. What else is there to be excited about?

Granted, this new poster isn't anything to inspire any kind of confidence in that, but whatever they do with this film (and the supposed 2 sequels), it's bound to be better than anything that they were planning on doing in terms of continuing the original franchise (I believe that there was a Michael Myers vs. Pinhead idea going around for a while, so this has to at least be better than that).

Perhaps, though I'm not quite sure that it really will be better (this is Rob Zombie, after all...). Honestly, given what I have to expect, I'm expecting a mess of a screenplay, an overabundance of sadistic, distasteful violence with a lack of artistry, and perhaps a good performance from McDowell. There's nothing to indicate anything better.

And even if it is better than all that, it doesn't make it good by default. Why be excited for that when you can be excited for films that actually hold genuine promise?

As far as this film being another Hannibal Rising, I just don't see how that's possible, at least for me, because Hannibal Rising is, bar-none, the worst film I've ever seen.

I don't even understand how that's possible. It's by no means that good, but it's by no means that bad, either, if only by nature of its production values (and it does have a lovely score, lovely cinematography, and a great period-piece feel).

I have said that Halloween is one of the few films that I'm looking forward to this year because, honestly, there has been virtually nothing that has really made me want to end my boycott of going to the theater, other than possibly Mr. Brooks.

Stay away from MR. BROOKS. At all costs.

And anyway, no love for AMERICAN GANGSTER? Or PAN'S LABYRINTH? What do you look for in a film? Me, it boils down to two things: entertainment or artistry. If a film seems to provide either, I'll show up. And I don't think it's that hard to find either, so I end up seeing a lot of movies throughout the year.

[tdalton]

I think that Halloween is going to be one of the better, if not the best, of the remakes that have been released in the past few years.

Why? There's no reason to believe that (and even if it is true, it's faint praise). The only thing this film has going for it is Malcolm McDowell. What else is there to be excited about the film?

Granted, this new poster isn't anything to inspire any kind of confidence in that, but whatever they do with this film (and the supposed 2 sequels), it's bound to be better than anything that they were planning on doing in terms of continuing the original franchise (I believe that there was a Michael Myers vs. Pinhead idea going around for a while, so this has to at least be better than that).

Sure, but that doesn't make it good. Why be excited for that when you can be excited for films that actually hold genuine promise?

As far as this film being another Hannibal Rising, I just don't see how that's possible, at least for me, because Hannibal Rising is, bar-none, the worst film I've ever seen.

I don't even understand how that's possible. It's by no means that good, but it's by no means that bad, either, if only by nature of its production values (and it does have a lovely score, lovely cinematography, and a great period-piece feel).

I know others disagree, but this is the first film that I've ever bought that I've considered actually either putting it away somewhere where it wouldn't be on display with the rest of my film collection or just selling or giving away to someone else who wants to see it. It's that bad.

That's happened to me plenty of times. The most recent one was with RIPLEY'S GAME, which makes HANNIBAL RISING look like CITIZEN KANE.

I have said that Halloween is one of the few films that I'm looking forward to this year because, honestly, there has been virtually nothing that has really made me want to end my boycott of going to the theater, other than possibly Mr. Brooks.

Stay away from MR. BROOKS. At all costs.

And anyway, no love for AMERICAN GANGSTER? Or PAN'S LABYRINTH? What do you look for in a film?

You're right, saying that Halloween is going to be one of the better horror remakes is faint praise. I don't think that it's going to be in anyway groundbreaking, and it probably won't be a good film either, but I'm interested to see it. I want to see the film because I think that there is going to be something new brought to the table, and that whatever Rob Zombie brings to it is going to be far superior to anything that we've seen in a Halloween since the second film. And Malcolm McDowell does have a large part to do with that as well, because I think that is he perfectly cast as Dr. Loomis in this one, and I can't imagine that a quality actor such as McDowell would sign onto a horror remake without there being some, even if only faint, possibility that there is something new to offer with this one.

In terms of Hannibal Rising, I just couldn't find anything in that film to make me think that I've ever seen anything worse than it. Sure, there was some good cinematography in the film, but I didn't buy the film to look at pretty scenery, I bought it to see how Hannibal Lecter became the character that we've seen in the other films, and on that count, it fails in every way imaginable, and to me, spells the end of the respectability of the Hannibal Lecter series as well as the end of the franchise, period, because I see no way, other than the return of Anthony Hopkins, for this franchise to recover from Hannibal Rising.

I actually just watched the trailer for American Gangster, and I can't say that it was anything that I would have to rush out and see. When it gets to home video, maybe, since I'll watch anything with Denzel Washington in it at least once, but I'm not big fan of Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe, and the film didn't really look that good, and I'm usually a fan of those kind of films. Pan's Labyrinth is a film that doesn't interest me in the slightest. I've never been into the fantasy/sci-fi films (of course, there's a few here and there that I like, but not many), so I haven't really felt the need to see that one.

[Harmsway]

I want to see the film because I think that there is going to be something new brought to the table, and that whatever Rob Zombie brings to it is going to be far superior to anything that we've seen in a Halloween since the second film.

You must have more respect for Zombie as a filmmaker than I do. As far as I'm concerned, he's garbage. What he may bring to the table, new or not, might be every bit as bad - if not worse - than what has been served up over most of the series.

Honestly, with all my reservations about LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, I think that it ultimately holds more promise than anything this remake has served up.

And Malcolm McDowell does have a large part to do with that as well, because I think that is he perfectly cast as Dr. Loomis in this one, and I can't imagine that a quality actor such as McDowell would sign onto a horror remake without there being some, even if only faint, possibility that there is something new to offer with this one.

Eh, it's not like McDowell is Mr. A-List Hollywood, so I can very easily imagine him appearing in a crappy remake.

I'm not big fan of Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe

GASP! Not a fan of Scott or Crowe? Scott's my favorite director, and Crowe's one of my favorite actors working today (and on that note, MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD is one of the most underrated films to be released since 2000).

Pan's Labyrinth is a film that doesn't interest me in the slightest. I've never been into the fantasy/sci-fi films (of course, there's a few here and there that I like, but not many), so I haven't really felt the need to see that one.

PAN'S LABYRINTH is a "fantasy" movie for people who don't like fantasy films (honestly, it's not really a fantasy movie). I only went to see it because of the accolades it received from nearly every corner.

[Loomis]

Pan's Labyrinth is a film that doesn't interest me in the slightest. I've never been into the fantasy/sci-fi films (of course, there's a few here and there that I like, but not many), so I haven't really felt the need to see that one.

PAN'S LABYRINTH is a "fantasy" movie for people who don't like fantasy films (honestly, it's not really a fantasy movie). I only went to see it because of the accolades it received from nearly every corner.

I was never interested in PAN'S LABYRINTH, either, but I really think I'm going to have to see it from all the raves I've been reading. At the moment, I've got a bit of a backlog of films on DVD I've been meaning to catch up with, e.g. HOSTEL (which I think I may well hate, but just to finally see what all the fuss is about; at least there are commentaries by Tarantino and Harry Knowles, so if it's really awful it could still repay a couple viewings with my eyes closed), MARIE ANTOINETTE and NOTES ON A SCANDAL. But I'm almost ready to buy PAN'S LABYRINTH sight unseen what with all the great reviews. A veteran critic of my acquaintance who really knows and loves his film (all eras and genres) wrote something to the effect that PAN'S LABYRINTH was a truly great work and as soon as he'd seen it he had to catch the very next showing.

I'd agree that the past year has been a very rich one, and that there are some exciting films just around the corner. We seem to be living in a mini-golden age in which even a longstanding joke like ROCKY VI can turn out to be astonishingly good, so my hope for HALLOWEEN was that it would somehow be a product of its time and therefore - at the very least - watchable. But that poster most definitely doesn't bode well.

[Scottlee]

Add me to the list of people who sing the praises of Pan's Labyrinth. It won't be to everybody's tastes, but it can't be argued that it isn't a remarkable piece of cinema. Hostel is also a very good film, although I do worry about the forthcoming sequal. As good as Hostel is, it seems a very stand-alone film to me. I struggled the day after watching it to imagine a plot for a sequal which would add anything new to the concept. Anyway, the first one is good (if a little gory, and I mean on the scale of Hannibal. Be warned).

I'm not looking forward to the new Halloween this year as much as I am such films as John Rambo, Saw 4, and Grindhouse, but I will go and see it out of curiosity. If a potential trilogy is being considered they must think they have something of worth up their sleeves. I can't speculate too much because I haven't seen anything Rob Zombie has ever done. I just hope the emphasis is more on re-visiting Carpenter's unique atmosphere of the first two films rather than attempting to further glorify the Myers legacy with brutal killings and improbable new character traits.

[dinovelvet]

I'm not big fan of Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe

GASP! Not a fan of Scott or Crowe? Scott's my favorite director, and Crowe's one of my favorite actors working today (and on that note, MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD is one of the most underrated films to be released since 2000).

I'm not a fan of Scott (barring Matchstick Men, which everyone else seems not to like!) or Crowe, but American Gangster is probably the movie I'm most interested in seeing this year.
I'll also see Die Hard probably, Bond and Felix in The Visiting, probably not The Golden Compass though, it really doesn't look like my cup of tea. I do want to check out the Hitman videogame movie, and the Marky Mark/Joaquin Phoenix drama "We own the night". The Tom Cruise comeback drama Lions for lambs might be good, and "No Country for old men" sounds interesting. That's it for me in 07.
So, right, Halloween, ehh can't say I'm all that interested, and not sure why the poster is really a big deal. Any particular reason why this movie is opening on August 31, and not, you know...Halloween?

[tdalton]

I'm not big fan of Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe

GASP! Not a fan of Scott or Crowe? Scott's my favorite director, and Crowe's one of my favorite actors working today (and on that note, MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD is one of the most underrated films to be released since 2000).

I'm not a fan of Scott (barring Matchstick Men, which everyone else seems not to like!) or Crowe, but American Gangster is probably the movie I'm most interested in seeing this year.
I'll also see Die Hard probably, Bond and Felix in The Visiting, probably not The Golden Compass though, it really doesn't look like my cup of tea. I do want to check out the Hitman videogame movie, and the Marky Mark/Joaquin Phoenix drama "We own the night". The Tom Cruise comeback drama Lions for lambs might be good, and "No Country for old men" sounds interesting. That's it for me in 07.
So, right, Halloween, ehh can't say I'm all that interested, and not sure why the poster is really a big deal. Any particular reason why this movie is opening on August 31, and not, you know...Halloween?

I was wondering why the August release for Halloween as well, and I guess the only real answer that can be given for that is that they might try to rush it out on DVD sometime around the end of October to coincide with Halloween. Of course, that's just speculation, but that's all that I can really think of. Either that, or they don't want to compete with Saw IV.

I can't really say that I'm all that interested in American Gangster, either. I love Denzel Washington's work, but there's only been one film by Ridley Scott that I've really enjoyed in any way (Hannibal, but I attribute that more to a strong script by David Mamet and Stephen Zaillain than anything else), and the trailer didn't really sell me making this a "must see" film for me, which was the same case for The Visiting as well. I was looking forward to that one, but now it's not something that looks all that appealing to me, although I'm sure that I'll see it at some point, if for nothing else than because Daniel Craig is in it.

[Harmsway]

I love Denzel Washington's work, but there's only been one film by Ridley Scott that I've really enjoyed in any way (Hannibal, but I attribute that more to a strong script by David Mamet and Stephen Zaillain than anything else), and the trailer didn't really sell me making this a "must see" film for me, which was the same case for The Visiting as well.

Really? I think Scott's got one solid film after another on his resume... ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, HANNIBAL, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT (until you've seen the director's cut, you're really unable to judge Scott's vision for the film... I love the director's cut, but hate the theatrical release).

And personally, I think HANNIBAL succeeds mostly because of Scott... the script is capable, but it's got a lot of flaws that Scott manages to gloss over with some great direction.

[tdalton]

I love Denzel Washington's work, but there's only been one film by Ridley Scott that I've really enjoyed in any way (Hannibal, but I attribute that more to a strong script by David Mamet and Stephen Zaillain than anything else), and the trailer didn't really sell me making this a "must see" film for me, which was the same case for The Visiting as well.

Really? I think Scott's got one solid film after another on his resume... ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THELMA & LOUISE, GLADIATOR, HANNIBAL, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN: DIRECTOR'S CUT (until you've seen the director's cut, you're really unable to judge Scott's vision for the film... I love the director's cut, but hate the theatrical release).

And personally, I think HANNIBAL succeeds mostly because of Scott... the script is capable, but it's got a lot of flaws that Scott manages to gloss over with some great direction.

I thought that Gladiator was one of the most overrated films of all time. It's not horrible, but it is, IMO, the most undeserving Best Picture winner in a long time, much more so than some of the other films that have somehow won over the supposed "sure things". That year, IMO, Traffic was the deserving film, as I found that movie to be a great film, close to being a masterpiece. Kingdom of Heaven was so-so, but it's nothing that I'd ever want to watch again.

The script for Hannibal was the highlight of the film for me because of the fact that Zaillian and Mamet did a good job of eliminating the parts of the novel that were, quite simply, awful and in need of revision and/or removal from the script. The direction of the film is good in spots, but some parts of the film do feel quite dull, especially when Anthony Hopkins is not on screen.

I still think that, despite the great quality of the special effects employed at the end of the film, that the scene at the end of the film was completely unnecessary, and should have been one of the things that did not make the final script. From the beginning up to that point, it's very good, but I think that the scene with Ray Liotta at the end of the film is something that belongs in a Saw film rather than something as "classy" as the Hannibal Lecter franchise, which, for the most part, has succeeded on being creepy by just alluding to Hannibal's "diet" rather than explicitly and graphically showing him in the act. Both the writing and the direction in this scene leave a lot to be desired.

[Harmsway]

But I'm almost ready to buy PAN'S LABYRINTH sight unseen what with all the great reviews. A veteran critic of my acquaintance who really knows and loves his film (all eras and genres) wrote something to the effect that PAN'S LABYRINTH was a truly great work and as soon as he'd seen it he had to catch the very next showing.

I really loved it. I can't think of a better film I've seen in quite some time. And the fantasy elements are probably only about 25% of the film or so.

On that note, I recently saw THE FOUNTAIN. It's an interesting film, sometimes a bit on the silly side, but it's a visual feast. I'm surprised it didn't get more recognition for its phenomenal visual sense. And Hugh Jackman's pretty good in it, to boot.

I'd agree that the past year has been a very rich one, and that there are some exciting films just around the corner.

I agree. I've heard a lot of people comment on 2006 being a rather poor film year, but I thought the exact opposite. Lots of goodies. And while this year doesn't seem to be up to that, 2008 seems like the year for movies.

[Harmsway]

I thought that Gladiator was one of the most overrated films of all time.

I agree that it's remarkably overrated, but it's still pretty good. It holds up as one of the better films to be produced in its genre.

Kingdom of Heaven was so-so, but it's nothing that I'd ever want to watch again.

Did you see the director's cut? Otherwise there's no point in judging it. Scott was forced by the studio to remove roughly 45 minutes of footage from his film, forcing the loss of character development, the removal of crucial plot points (and some of the best stuff in the film), and the jumbling of a plot that made it seem like a hollow mess (and it was - I hated the theatrical cut).

The director's cut is really quite superb (and superior to GLADIATOR by a solid margin).

The script for Hannibal was the highlight of the film for me because of the fact that Zaillian and Mamet did a good job of eliminating the parts of the novel that were, quite simply, awful and in need of revision and/or removal from the script.

To be fair, Mamet really didn't have anything to do with the film as it exists. If you want to read his draft (which is jaw-droppingly awful), it's online, and it has nothing in common with the finished film or Harris' novel. Mamet only received a credit because of contractual reasons.

Anyway, I love Harris' novel and think it's a masterpiece. One of the best novels since 2000, and one of the best horror novels ever written (a DRACULA for the computer and cell-phone age). I think the film missed a lot of the nuance and depth of Harris' novel.

From the beginning up to that point, it's very good, but I think that the scene with Ray Liotta at the end of the film is something that belongs in a Saw film rather than something as "classy" as the Hannibal Lecter franchise, which, for the most part, has succeeded on being creepy by just alluding to Hannibal's "diet" rather than explicitly and graphically showing him in the act.

I think it's wonderfully whimsical, poetic (he didn't use his brain so it's the thing to go) and darkly humorous. And it's certainly "classy" in the Lecter sense... beautiful dinnerware, fine attire, and a gourmet serving of human flesh. It's over-the-top, sure, but it's the least-bothersome moment of gore in the whole film for me.

And, furthermore, SILENCE wasn't a horror film, it was a crime thriller. HANNIBAL is a straight-up horror story with a strong dose of Grand Guignol, so it's an entirely different entity (and a more interesting one, if you ask me).

[tdalton]

The script for Hannibal was the highlight of the film for me because of the fact that Zaillian and Mamet did a good job of eliminating the parts of the novel that were, quite simply, awful and in need of revision and/or removal from the script.

To be fair, Mamet really didn't have anything to do with the film as it exists. If you want to read his draft (which is jaw-droppingly awful), it's online, and it has nothing in common with the finished film or Harris' novel. Mamet only received a credit because of contractual reasons.

Anyway, I love Harris' novel and think it's a masterpiece. One of the best novels since 2000. I think the film missed a lot of the nuance and depth of Harris' novel.

From the beginning up to that point, it's very good, but I think that the scene with Ray Liotta at the end of the film is something that belongs in a Saw film rather than something as "classy" as the Hannibal Lecter franchise, which, for the most part, has succeeded on being creepy by just alluding to Hannibal's "diet" rather than explicitly and graphically showing him in the act.

I think it's wonderfully whimsical, poetic (he didn't use his brain so it's the thing to go) and darkly humorous. And it's certainly "classy" in the Lecter sense... beautiful dinnerware, fine attire, and a gourmet serving of human flesh. It's over-the-top, sure, but it's the least-bothersome moment of gore in the whole film for me.

And, furthermore, SILENCE wasn't a horror film, it was a crime thriller. HANNIBAL is a straight-up horror story with a strong dose of Grand Guignol.

I liked Harris' novel as well, right up until its conclusion. The conclusion of the book was, IMO, truly inapprorpriate, and I couldn't see either character actually behaving in the way that they do. I really felt disappointed that I had read the novel all the way through to that point only to be very much let down by the ending.

Anyway, I think that it is overall a good film, but it could have been improved in spots, but at least it doesn't keep the ending of the book.

[Harmsway]

I liked Harris' novel as well, right up until its conclusion. The conclusion of the book was, IMO, truly inapprorpriate, and I couldn't see either character actually behaving in the way that they do.

I love the ending. It's the icing on the cake for me. A deliciously dark ending to a deliciously dark story. And personally, I thought each character behaved just fine. Lecter behaved the way Harris' Lecter would behave, IMO, and Clarice wasn't exactly herself (though there was a consistency between her there and the way she's portrayed with the rest of Harris' material - Foster's Clarice, after all, isn't exactly the one Harris wrote).

Anyway, I think that it is overall a good film, but it could have been improved in spots, but at least it doesn't keep the ending of the book.

I don't think the book's ending would have worked on film (it relies too much on getting inside the character's psyches to ever be successfully transferred to film), but I do think the film misses it somewhat. The film's ending is a nice alternate take, mind you, but I don't find it anywhere near as satisfying.

[Harmsway]

First review up on AICN:

Hello Harry,

This is the first time that I have ever written a review for your site. Hopefully your review of my review won't be harsh, but here it goes....

Last night, I had the pleasure of being invited to see one of the first screenings of Rob Zombie's 'Halloween' last night on 34th Street in NYC.

First, let me start off by saying that I LOVED John Carpenter's original 'Halloween'. The original is a classic and each following sequel had exponentially decreased in quality. But the character is a classic. Freddy is too humorous. Jason is a rip-off of Michael. Chucky is just ridiculous. Michael is the only horror villain whom, if I was in his line of sight, I would probably be paralyzed in terror.

Onto the movie. It was a rough cut. They said the sound and picture would be a bit off. The picture was great. They used John Carpenter's original score and Blue Oyster Cult's 'Don't Fear The Reaper'.

(Minor Spoilers Ahead)

The film opens with Michael as a young boy living with his family. He had already begun torturing and killing several pets. This doesn't jar his family. After the school's principal finds photo's of dead animals in Michael's desk, questions directed towards Michael's mother regarding this issue ensue. The solution of psychiatric help is brought up. Enter Dr. Loomis, brilliantly played by Malcolm McDowell.

Michael then begins to up his game and seek revenge out on a school boy, who had previously tormented the hell out of him. Michael then stays home on the night of Halloween and goes on a murderous rampage in his house. That's right, not just his sister Judith (played by the grown up 'Jenny' from Forrest Gump) meets her demise. The result is brutal.

Michael is then sent off to an asylum receiving several visits from the child psychiatrist, Dr. Loomis. Fifteen years later, Michael breaks out of the asylum and heads 100 miles toward Haddonfield to go on another killing rampage on Halloween again to find his younger sister, Laurie.

The actress who plays Laurie is pretty good (Jamie Lee Curtis is a tough act to follow), but not enough time is really spent with her character. I felt as though Rob Zombie wanted to cut to the chase and bring us Michael in top form on Halloween night. The fate of some characters are different. The scene at the very end of the teaser trailer IS in the movie, sans the girls top clothing. I won't give much more away.

The Pros:

- The beginning. The brutality of what young Michael unleashes is pretty damn brutally effective.

- Adult Michael KICKS . He beats the living out of people...literally. He's back and he's more brutal than before.

- When Michael finally confronts Laurie, it is INTENSE.

- Supporting characters: Malcolm McDowell is very good. He's humorous and just so damn real. Brad Dourif is great as Chief Brackett. Danny Trejo and his sideburns...has a nice cameo.

- The first introduction of the mask is really CREEPY.

The Cons:

- Lack of suspense. A huge element of what made the original 'Halloween' work was it's suspense. In the remake, Michael is on screen for a majority of the film. You know where he is in almost every scene and you can guess at what he is about to do. What else is he gonna do? Bake a cake?

- In some scenes when Michael is attacking a character, the camera shakes like hell. I felt like I was watching the Bourne Supremacy.

- The rape of a character. Enough said.

- The very ending. After the film was over, I wasn't terrified like the original. Brief flashbacks to when Michael and Laurie were kids contribute to that lack of terror.

As a huge fan of the original, I did enjoy the movie. It never dragged. It was shocking and there are many surprises. The dialog is just what you'd expect from a Rob Zombie film. This is Rob Zombie's 'Halloween'. He took away most of the suspense, but brought us more relentless action.

Bring us another one, Rob.

7 out of 10

Johnny Vendeta

Sounds like it's neither as bad as I anticipated, nor is it an inspired venture. Meh.

[Loomis]

Sounds like it's the best HALLOWEEN film since 1978, with the possible exception of H20. I'm in.

[Harmsway]

Sounds like it's the best HALLOWEEN film since 1978, with the possible exception of H20. I'm in.

According to this reviewer, at the least. I'll be waiting to see what more reviews have to say on the subject.

[Loomis]

There's something a bit off about this review, though. He writes: "It was shocking and there are many surprises." Yet elsewhere he goes on about: "Lack of suspense. A huge element of what made the original 'Halloween' work was it's suspense. In the remake, Michael is on screen for a majority of the film. You know where he is in almost every scene and you can guess at what he is about to do. What else is he gonna do? Bake a cake?"

So which is it? Shocking and full of surprises, or lacking in suspense? Oh, well, we'll find out soon enough.