147 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

Sounds like it may be a worthwhile film after all. I was going to see it before reading this review anyway, but I'm a bit more confident that it won't be awful now that there's a fairly positive review of the film out.

[Harmsway]

Another AICN review:

I attended a test screening of Rob Zombie's "Halloween" remake in New York, and thought I would through in my two cents.

I'll be straight with you up front because I honestly loathe the idea of just remaking every major horror movie that may be special to any viewer without any style or class.

I did, however, feel that the Halloween franchise was in major need or a relaunch or reboot of some type, though I am utterly depressed that the original continuity ended on "Resurrection," with Laurie dying and Michael getting kung-fued. I get furious just thinking about the best horror franchise of all time being reduced to that. I think I'll just pretend "H20," utterly flawed as it is, was the last movie, and tell myself that "Resurrection" never existed.

As I stated, "Halloween" is my favorite horror franchise of all time. It hits you emotionally like no other because it has stronger heroines and a better concept than "Friday" or "Nightmare." It doesn't have to be about blood like the others, it can be about shadows and suspense and the nature of true evil at its best. The concept is so simple and beautiful...

And now it's been remade. I purposely avoided any spoilers or trivia on the movie in order to go into it fresh.

The good news is that it doesn't completely suck. The bad news is that it isn't really good either.

As the movie commenced, it appeared my worst fears were confirmed as Zombie begins to delve into the background of Michael Myers, going into detail about how he became what he eventually becomes. Uh, the allure of the character is that we know nothing about his background save that he killed his sister that fateful night for no apparent reason because his soul is black as pitch! We don't need to know that he takes pictures of animals he killed, or that his sister is the only thing he really cares about in the world.

We just need to know that he is evil. And will never stop.

I understand what Zombie was going for with the flashbacks, I really do. Adding something to the mythology to just not make the movie another pointless remake is a really good way to reboot the franchise, but this is the wrong way to approach it. Zombie does it with style, does nothing to make fanboys scream in revolt, and yet it it utterly unnecessary and makes the subsequent two thirds of the movie lose a great deal of tension because Michael is not a monster. He's a man. And a callback to these earlier sequences at the finale of the film ruins much of the tension that was built at the climax.

It's also rather disconcerting because Zombie spends so much time with Michael and so little with Laurie. Before the horrors of Halloween night descend on the film. The writing and characterization do nothing to separate any of the teens from all those other token dead teenagers in slasher films, which is a darn shame.

However, thankfully, the movie is amazingly-well cast, and they go above and beyond where the script falls short. McDowell utterly becomes Loomis for the audience, and by the end I had accepted him and didn't even think of Pleasance in the role. But honestly, I think we all knew that was going to be the case, didn't we? But I was shocked (SHOCKED!) at how well Scout Taylor-Compton slid into Jamie Lee Curtis' shoes, and how much charisma she has, and how effortlessly she carries the latter half of the movie. I shouldn't have cared about her, Zombie didn't give me a real reason to, but because of Taylor-Compton I did.

Let's talk about the good first, shall we? Though there isn't a great deal of suspense untilt he final meeting of Laurie and Michael because we know inherently, because we have seen all the movies before and all their imitators, when to expect the scares and when to get the popcorn, Zombie does a phenomenal job of building atmosphere and a sense of location and mood to any given scene. The final showdown between Laurie and Michael is phenomenally done, pitch perfectly choreographed and the tension exploded in the audience, myself included. My slid to the edge of my seat and my fingernails began to put indentations in my palm. Zombie got it right. The first time Michael puts on his mask also sent shivers up my spine...however, looking back at this moment now along with other smaller moments I liked, I have to wonder...

...did I shiver and scream because Zombie did a good job creating his own version of Halloween, or because I just love the franchise so much? Having seen all the movies numerous times, perhaps I'm not the right person to be evaluating it, because I'm too close to the material? Maybe. Probably not though.

Remember how I said Zombie did an excellent job with the suspense in the final faceoff? Well, that suspense is nowhere to be found in earlier suspense scenes and killings. And when Zombie kills off certain characters, his style of direction changes from atmosphere building to what I can only describe as him with a handheld camcorder trying to pee with one hand and shoot the scene with the other. Hold the damn camera steady, man!

And there are certain things I can't go into without ruining major plot developments in the film, but there is a certain plot development that involves the rape of a character that should have never gotten out of Zombie's mind and onto the script page. It infuriated me. It was cheap and done for no other reason than to disgust. And it needs to be removed immediately.

The cut I saw was rough, with the old score instead of the new. The good news is that at least half of the film's major problems can be fixed in editing.

The first thing Zombie should do is begin snipping the character of Michael way down, and adding scenes with Laurie. Michael is supposed to be a presence more than a character. A shape. The shape. Suspense and tension is created by how characters we care about, like Laurie, react to that presence instead of just showing us why they should be reacting.

Is "Halloween" a good movie? It can be. But right now, it's a fair movie that doesn't deserve to be as good as it is.

You can call me...
B-Tizzle

Kind of echoes the other review. It's an okay flick, but it ain't great.

[tdalton]

One good thing that can definitely be taken from these reviews is that Rob Zombie did a great job with the casting for this film. I had no worries about Malcolm McDowell in the Loomis role, but both reviewers seemed impressed with Scout Taylor-Compton filling in Jamie Lee Curtis' shoes in this one, which was one of the causes for concern for me about this film.

[Harmsway]

One good thing that can definitely be taken from these reviews is that Rob Zombie did a great job with the casting for this film.

Yeah. That'll help the movie a good deal.

It's also interesting to know that both reviewers dislike the rape scene (which sounds pretty off to me, too).

[Harmsway]

More mildly positive AICN reviews:

Hello

I got a chance to see that New York screening of Halloween and I wanted to send in my thoughts.

Overall I thought it was very good, but It could be better. I didn't mind the focus on Michael, but I did feel they spent a little bit too much time on that. I think they should have spent a little more time on the classic part of the story with Laurie, the girls and that stuff. Scout Taylor-Compton does a really good job as do Danielle Harris and the other girl and I think something can be said about the classic slasher style of the teen girls in peril.

The acting was above average to great in this movie and Rob Zombie did do a really good job with the scares and overall style of the movie. The part with a topless Danielle Harris getting chased and brutalized by Michael is actually really scary and much more effective then you would think. It comes off much more intense and scary then it sounds. It's not just a naked girl to have a naked girl. It really has a dramatic point, and a effective result. Not so much for a out of place rape scene earlier in the picture. It doesn't match the tone at all. The violence is severe, and there are many kills. The whole movie is pretty in your face. Nowhere near as subtle as the original.

Anyway, I really liked the film, but I'm not sure it can be compared to the original. It's a good movie, in fact it is one of the better horror films Ive seen in awhile, and its much better than the last 4 or 5 sequels thats for sure. But the original is a classic.

sincerely,
Roycewriter

Just wanted to send in my test screening review. Never sent in a review before, but I was at the NY screening with my girlfriend and I'm a huge horror fan and I just had to write.

Just call me "Barry's Fat"

I decided to wait to review Halloween to see what other people wrote. I like how people want to hate it, and try to nitpick..but can't help but like it in spite of them going in wanting to dislike it. Why do I like that? Well, because this movie is just that good. Seriously people. It's just THAT good.

Now before people start yelling PLANT and calling me a non-fan and all other such bull$@t, I do have to say this. Is it the original Halloween? NO, it isn't. Is it better? Well, that is opinion. What is it? It's Rob Zombie's Halloween.. it is not John Carpenter's Halloween. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

I'm decidedly mixed on the Halloween series and Rob Zombie. I hated House of 1000K... well hate is strong. But I just didn't like it. But I LOVE Devil's Rejects.

As for Halloween lets go down the list:

Halloween: Great
Halloween 2: Good
Halloween 3: Huh?
Halloween 4: Fair, almost good.
Halloween 5: Crap
Halloween 6: Total crap.
Halloween H20: Fair, borderline crap.
Halloween R: Crap

Here is where I'm gonna get attacked... but I feel the comparison is valid. For fan screaming 'no remakes', your hero, John Carpenter himself was at the helm of a remake called "The Thing". His remake is classic in his own right. After making a hit with Halloween and a few other films, John decided to remake a film he loved growing up. After Rob Zombie made two films, he was asked to remake one of his favorite films, Halloween, and after a lot of soul searching he did. And like John, I think Rob has hit a home run. Is it the original film.. NO. because Rob is filmmaker with his own vision, like John was.

I'm not going to do a blow by blow of the story, I don't want to ruin the film for anyone. Plus everyone else already did anyway.

Everyone knows by now that the film focuses on Michael more than the town or the female trio of the original. That is a welcome change. To me it makes no sense to copy the first one directly. John Carpenter didn't do it with "The Thing" did he?

With this one major change he was able to create one of my favorite things about this new movie. The Michael/Dr. Loomis relationship. It's very different from the one in the original film. Loomis from the old film saw Michael as pure evil. Loomis in this film does too, but at the same time there is a weird friendship, a bond... maybe even a fatherly love. Dr. Loomis truly cares about Michael in this film, and in adding this Rob does what he does with all the characters, he creates emotion and deeper characters. Rob's Michael isn't a faceless killer, he becomes a faceless killer... but Dr. Loomis can see deeper. It's touching in a strange way. One of the reasons this works is because of the performance of Malcolm McDowell as Loomis. He just brings the character to life. Is he Donald Pleasence? Not at all... because he doesn't try to be. Why would he? Donald is a icon of the series, and he can't be touched. Rob knows this, we all know this. Leave that comparison at the door.

The cast is incredible. Scout-Taylor Compton slides into the role of Laurie Strode with ease. She is still a good girl like Jamie Lee, but it is 2007 and she has a more modern realistic flair. She isn't a buttoned up prude. She is alive, spunky and very realistic. Her character just pops of the screen with energy. Danielle Harris is equally good, creating a very modern and realistic Annie. She isn't little Jamie from 4 and 5 thats for sure. I could go down the list... the whole cast just pops of the screen. It was great watching them. I'll say this for Rob Zombie, he must be an actors director, because these characters are so real and alive, which is surprising because the movie moves along with such purpose and energy we hardly slow down enough to get to know them.... yet they still shine. It was great to see Dee Wallace Stone too... she still has it. She is THE movie mom. I can't belive I'm talking about actors and performance in a horror review, but it's simply a strong point of the film and one of the major reasons it works.

Don't worry though, it isn't all character study, the movie is violent as hell. It's intense and strong, it is fast and furious, and it doesn't let up. In this lies my only complaint. Its TOO fast. Doing Michael's back story, plus the plot of the original does make for a lot of story telling. Maybe it's a studio mandate to make horror films 90min, but this film is so rich and so interesting in could be almost 2 hours and still shine. I'd like to spend more time with these people, because unlike most horror films, they are interesting people. The speed also does tend to cut down on the slow burn suspense. While the film can be scary in that nail-bitting furious way, the slow build up of the original film is not here, and that may upset some.

I hope they have a longer cut on DVD.

In closing I just have to say bravo. This is one of the best horror films I have seen in a long time and its not even done yet. (I'm a big old school 70s/80s fan.. this new SAW stuff just doesn't cut it for me.) I do think it needs to take time to breath, but on the whole it delivers and it can stand proud, side by side with the original. It's not better, its not worse, but I hope like the remake of "The Thing" it will be a classic in it's own right. It deserves it. A dead franchise is reborn.

"Barry's Fat"

[Loomis]

Awesome news: Rob Zombie is doing a HALLOWEEN sequel! That's what I'm talking about! Oh yeah baby! YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WOOOOWOOOOWOOOO!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39465

[tdalton]

Awesome news: Rob Zombie is doing a HALLOWEEN sequel! That's what I'm talking about! Oh yeah baby! YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! WOOOOWOOOOWOOOO!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39465

This is interesting. I seem to remember hearing Zombie say time and time again that he would not be returning for the sequel. Glad to see he's on board, though. It'll definitely be interesting to see what kind of film H2 will be (hopefully it'll be an original story rather than one that uses elements of Halloween 2).

[tdalton]

Interesting casting news for Rob Zombie's Halloween sequel. Rob Zombie has revealed that Margot Kidder has been cast in the film.

Amityville Vet Enters Zombie's H2

Also in the article is the news that Zombie has changed the title to H2: The Devil Walks Among Us.

[00Twelve]

Meh. I'm not any kind of fan of the remake. It just missed the point. Michael killed more people as a child in Zombie's version than in Carpenter's whole film. How am I supposed to care about gore-bait characters like that?

HALLOWEEN had a one of a kind charm that couldn't be duplicated, just pushed further with more gore and T&A. The first film is a stronger and smarter movie because these elements aren't played up. Another of its strengths, IMO, is that it was not yet established that Laurie was Mikey's sister. I like that it wasn't a canonized relationship yet. It made Michael all the more scary to me.

Obviously, I'm not a slasher fan other than seventies films like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and HALLOWEEN that were scary because of the suspense and not the grisly payoff. I don't know what Zombie has in store for the sequel, but I can't find a reason to get excited about it.

Oh, I can say that Malcolm McDowell's a very good actor in pretty much everything he touches. There, something positive.

[tdalton]

Meh. I'm not any kind of fan of the remake. It just missed the point. Michael killed more people as a child in Zombie's version than in Carpenter's whole film. How am I supposed to care about gore-bait characters like that?

HALLOWEEN had a one of a kind charm that couldn't be duplicated, just pushed further with more gore and T&A. The first film is a stronger and smarter movie because these elements aren't played up. Another of its strengths, IMO, is that it was not yet established that Laurie was Mikey's sister. I like that it wasn't a canonized relationship yet. It made Michael all the more scary to me.

Obviously, I'm not a slasher fan other than seventies films like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and HALLOWEEN that were scary because of the suspense and not the grisly payoff. I don't know what Zombie has in store for the sequel, but I can't find a reason to get excited about it.

Oh, I can say that Malcolm McDowell's a very good actor in pretty much everything he touches. There, something positive.

I do agree that, strictly as a remake of Carpenter's film, Rob Zombie's Halloween doesn't necessarily succeed. But, I look at the film as being more about the Michael Myers character rather than being a straight-up remake of Carpenter's film. It's more of a character study (I use that term somewhat loosely) about Myers that just happens to include a rather unfaithful adaptation of Carpenter's film in the second half of the film. Where this film works, though, is in Tyler Mane's portrayal of Michael Myers. While Myers isn't the boogeyman that he was in Carpenter's, I think that Mane did a great job of portraying a more "human" (once again, I use that term loosely) Michael Myers, all without ever saying a word on screen.

As for H2: The Devil Walks Among Us, I think that Zombie has a chance to tell a very interesting story if he avoids just having Michael Myers stalk Lorie Strode yet again. I think that if Zombie played around with the idea of having the main characters of the film not know if Myers is alive or not, or if he focused more on Laurie Strode in the sequel, then there's a chance for a really interesting story to be told.

[00Twelve]

Meh. I'm not any kind of fan of the remake. It just missed the point. Michael killed more people as a child in Zombie's version than in Carpenter's whole film. How am I supposed to care about gore-bait characters like that?

HALLOWEEN had a one of a kind charm that couldn't be duplicated, just pushed further with more gore and T&A. The first film is a stronger and smarter movie because these elements aren't played up. Another of its strengths, IMO, is that it was not yet established that Laurie was Mikey's sister. I like that it wasn't a canonized relationship yet. It made Michael all the more scary to me.

Obviously, I'm not a slasher fan other than seventies films like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and HALLOWEEN that were scary because of the suspense and not the grisly payoff. I don't know what Zombie has in store for the sequel, but I can't find a reason to get excited about it.

Oh, I can say that Malcolm McDowell's a very good actor in pretty much everything he touches. There, something positive.

I do agree that, strictly as a remake of Carpenter's film, Rob Zombie's Halloween doesn't necessarily succeed. But, I look at the film as being more about the Michael Myers character rather than being a straight-up remake of Carpenter's film. It's more of a character study (I use that term somewhat loosely) about Myers that just happens to include a rather unfaithful adaptation of Carpenter's film in the second half of the film. Where this film works, though, is in Tyler Mane's portrayal of Michael Myers. While Myers isn't the boogeyman that he was in Carpenter's, I think that Mane did a great job of portraying a more "human" (once again, I use that term loosely) Michael Myers, all without ever saying a word on screen.

As for H2: The Devil Walks Among Us, I think that Zombie has a chance to tell a very interesting story if he avoids just having Michael Myers stalk Lorie Strode yet again. I think that if Zombie played around with the idea of having the main characters of the film not know if Myers is alive or not, or if he focused more on Laurie Strode in the sequel, then there's a chance for a really interesting story to be told.

Eh. This is all very subjective, of course, but I'm not really interested in seeing the "why" for Michael Myers. I don't want him to be sympathetic. It's like Iago or Joker or Lecter (circa SILENCE OF THE LAMBS). He's a better villain because his motives aren't overt. There is no reason, there is only what's happening. We don't really know why Myers killed his older sister (we can deduce that she neglected him), he just snapped and stabbed her to death. That blank look on his unmasked child face was perfect. And so he was for the rest of his life. Perfectly creepy and I can't imagine how humanizing him could make him a better villain. All IMHO, but there it is.

[tdalton]

Meh. I'm not any kind of fan of the remake. It just missed the point. Michael killed more people as a child in Zombie's version than in Carpenter's whole film. How am I supposed to care about gore-bait characters like that?

HALLOWEEN had a one of a kind charm that couldn't be duplicated, just pushed further with more gore and T&A. The first film is a stronger and smarter movie because these elements aren't played up. Another of its strengths, IMO, is that it was not yet established that Laurie was Mikey's sister. I like that it wasn't a canonized relationship yet. It made Michael all the more scary to me.

Obviously, I'm not a slasher fan other than seventies films like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and HALLOWEEN that were scary because of the suspense and not the grisly payoff. I don't know what Zombie has in store for the sequel, but I can't find a reason to get excited about it.

Oh, I can say that Malcolm McDowell's a very good actor in pretty much everything he touches. There, something positive.

I do agree that, strictly as a remake of Carpenter's film, Rob Zombie's Halloween doesn't necessarily succeed. But, I look at the film as being more about the Michael Myers character rather than being a straight-up remake of Carpenter's film. It's more of a character study (I use that term somewhat loosely) about Myers that just happens to include a rather unfaithful adaptation of Carpenter's film in the second half of the film. Where this film works, though, is in Tyler Mane's portrayal of Michael Myers. While Myers isn't the boogeyman that he was in Carpenter's, I think that Mane did a great job of portraying a more "human" (once again, I use that term loosely) Michael Myers, all without ever saying a word on screen.

As for H2: The Devil Walks Among Us, I think that Zombie has a chance to tell a very interesting story if he avoids just having Michael Myers stalk Lorie Strode yet again. I think that if Zombie played around with the idea of having the main characters of the film not know if Myers is alive or not, or if he focused more on Laurie Strode in the sequel, then there's a chance for a really interesting story to be told.

Eh. This is all very subjective, of course, but I'm not really interested in seeing the "why" for Michael Myers. I don't want him to be sympathetic. It's like Iago in Othello (albeit on an infinitely more rudimentary scale). He's a better villain because his motives aren't the least bit overt. We don't really know why Myers killed his older sister (we can deduce that she neglected him), he just snapped and stabbed her to death. That blank look on his unmasked child face was perfect. And so he was for the rest of his life. Perfectly creepy and I can't imagine how humanizing him could make him a better villain. All IMHO, but there it is.

I don't think that it's necessarily about making Michael Myers a better villain, but rather just a different villain. The original Halloween is one of the greatest horror films of all-time, and to try to make a better version of that film wouldn't really work, because it would be a tall task for even the most gifted of filmmakers. There's also the fact that the Michael Myers storyline from Halloween through Halloween Resurrection had already been played out to the point of exhaustion, and there wasn't really much left there to tell, and the series was in desperate need of a reboot. By going back and rebooting the series, and placing everything into a more "realistic" context than just the plain boogeyman scenario that Carpenter had come up with, then it gives much more mileage and more interesting directions to take the storyline than just the same old story that has played out in every single Halloween film since the original.

I think what they accomplished in the remake is not necessarily to make a great remake of the original, but to set up some great potential plot devices for future installments. H2 has the chance to be the most original entry in the series, but whether or not they capitalize on that is another story altogether. But there is great potential present for this upcoming film that wouldn't be present if it were a sequel to the original.

[Safari Suit]

I agree that I didn't need any kind of back-story for Myers, be it thorn cults or a troubled childhood, but seeing as Zombie went in that direction I decided to take the remake for what it was and I enjoyed it. But the second half of the film seemed more or less totally redundant, and rather poorlt lit to boot. Still, I certainly think it's one of the better horror remakes to come down the pipe this decade. Wouldn't say I'm exactly looking forward to the sequel, but I'll give it a watch at some point. Kidder is an interesting choice.

[tdalton]

I agree that I didn't need any kind of back-story for Myers, be it thorn cults or a troubled childhood, but seeing as Zombie went in that direction I decided to take the remake for what it was and I enjoyed it. But the second half of the film seemed more or less totally redundant, and rather poorlt lit to boot. Still, I certainly think it's one of the better horror remakes to come down the pipe this decade. Wouldn't say I'm exactly looking forward to the sequel, but I'll give it a watch at some point. Kidder is an interesting choice.

Agreed on it being one of the better horror remakes this decade (for me, it's right up there with Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead).

What I liked about the remake was that Zombie didn't just decide to go ahead and simply remake Halloween. Had he done that, the film could have turned out to be just flat out awful. The remake of Psycho comes to mind when thinking about how a remake shouldn't be done (come to think of it, though, that was a very curious film in that it was a shot-for-shot remake of the original, with very capable actors, yet still managed not to be a good movie), and Halloween avoided being a standard, bad remake of a classic horror film.

Another thing that I like about it is that it sets up each of the characters to have a really interesting story arc in H2 and other future films. Zombie has a unique opportunity on his hands because he doesn't necessarily have to limit himself to the standard storyline of "Michael Myers returns, goes on rampage, is stopped at end" that has been the template of every single film in the franchise. The direction that I would go in would be:

Spoiler

Rob Zombie said at some point in the lead-up to the release of the remake that the film had a definite ending and was not necessarily leaving things open for a remake, which to me means that in his mind, Michael Myers did not survive the end of the remake. In H2, have it not known whether or not Michael Myers is alive in the film (make it a real possibility that it could be one way or the other). Have his body taken to the morgue, but then it is found missing later on. The rampage continues, but nobody is able to identify Myers as the culprit. Is it Myers, has Laurie Strode snapped (which was a very real possibility at the end of the remake) and gone on her own rampage, is it someone else? That could be one very interesting way to take the franchise. Another opportunity that Zombie has is to really explore the character of Laurie Strode and what almost falling victim to Michael Myers has done to her mentally and how she goes on from that point.

[Safari Suit]

The only problem I had with Zombie's remake was that in the second half it did start to remind me of Gus Van Sant's Psycho, so strictly did it adhere to the original at times. I almost wish Zombie had stuck to his early idea of having the adult Myers talk; it might have backfired but at least it would have clearly differentiated it from the original, and perhaps added an interesting new perspective.

Here is an interesting defence of Van Sant's Psycho BTW:
http://cc.usu.edu/~a...s/psycho98.html
I don't agree with it, in fact I think it's a considerable stretch, but a valiant effort nonetheless.

[tdalton]

The only problem I had with Zombie's remake was that in the second half it did start to remind me of Gus Van Sant's Psycho, so strictly did it adhere to the original at times. I almost wish Zombie had stuck to his early idea of having the adult Myers talk; it might have backfired but at least it would have clearly differentiated it from the original, and perhaps added an interesting new perspective.

That would have been interesting to see. It probably would have backfired, but if done minimally and in an intelligent way, then it could have been a good addition to the franchise. My guess is that he may have intended to go that route, but couldn't find a way to pull it off.

[tdalton]

IGN has a set visit for H2, in which they detail a very interesting scene featuring Michael Myers and Laurie Strode. I'm not going to post a link here, due to there being some profanity (although censored, but blatantly obvious) in the article as well as a fairly prominently displayed still shot of Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie Strode that is somewhat unsettling and may not be appropriate.

Anyway, as for the scene, there is apparently

Spoiler

some interesting changes to the appearance of Michael Myers. He now wears some sort of a vest over the jumpsuit that he wore in the previous film, as well as some sort of a hood (which I'm assuming is part of the jumpsuit). The scene detailed here features Myers stalking Strode through a field, while experiencing visions of his dead mother and his younger self wearing the clown costume.

In reading the entire article, it does appear as though Zombie recognizes that he has an opportunity to do something with this film that is much more original than anything that has been seen in the franchise up to this point. Overall, I have to admit that I'm quite excited for this film now after having read this set visit article and can't wait to find out what Zombie has in store for the franchise with H2.

Edited by tdalton, 18 March 2009 - 04:27 AM.

[Harmsway]

New details have emerged, and the main bits are as follows.

Zombie wants the actual title to be HALLOWEEN: THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US. Apparently THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US is the title of the book Dr. Loomis will be selling in this installment.

In a big deviation from the standard HALLOWEEN formula, the famous Shatner mask is going to appear very little in Zombie's H2. For 70% of his screentime, Michael Myers is going to look like this:

[tdalton]

New details have emerged, and the main bits are as follows.

Zombie wants the actual title to be HALLOWEEN: THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US. Apparently THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US is the title of the book Dr. Loomis will be selling in this installment.

In a big deviation from the standard HALLOWEEN formula, the famous Shatner mask is going to appear very little in Zombie's H2. For 70% of his screentime, Michael Myers is going to look like this:

This is certainly going to be interesting. I, for one, like the new look (from reading another article elsewhere, it appears as though this is Myers' actual face). It's a bold move for the film, and one that could go either way, but I'm looking forward to it.

[dodge]

New details have emerged, and the main bits are as follows.

Zombie wants the actual title to be HALLOWEEN: THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US. Apparently THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US is the title of the book Dr. Loomis will be selling in this installment.

In a big deviation from the standard HALLOWEEN formula, the famous Shatner mask is going to appear very little in Zombie's H2. For 70% of his screentime, Michael Myers is going to look like this:

This is certainly going to be interesting. I, for one, like the new look (from reading another article elsewhere, it appears as though this is Myers' actual face). It's a bold move for the film, and one that could go either way, but I'm looking forward to it.

H2 could really rock. I dig the boldness that inspired their decision. Not so sure about the mountain man look, but it prepare the way for MM modifying his appearance. And the idea of him wearing a number of masks? Sheer inspiration. I'll be there.

[tdalton]

New details have emerged, and the main bits are as follows.

Zombie wants the actual title to be HALLOWEEN: THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US. Apparently THE DEVIL WALKS AMONG US is the title of the book Dr. Loomis will be selling in this installment.

In a big deviation from the standard HALLOWEEN formula, the famous Shatner mask is going to appear very little in Zombie's H2. For 70% of his screentime, Michael Myers is going to look like this:

This is certainly going to be interesting. I, for one, like the new look (from reading another article elsewhere, it appears as though this is Myers' actual face). It's a bold move for the film, and one that could go either way, but I'm looking forward to it.

H2 could really rock. I dig the boldness that inspired their decision. Not so sure about the mountain man look, but it prepare the way for MM modifying his appearance. And the idea of him wearing a number of masks? Sheer inspiration. I'll be there.

Agreed. I think that the mountain man look could potentially be explained away if it turns out that, after the opening moments of the film, there's a period of time that passes before we pick the film back up again. I seriously doubt that Myers learned to shave in Smith's Grove, which would make the look a fairly realistic one if there's a gap in time in the film.

I like the bold moves that they're taking with this film, and I think that by having Myers shift his appearance throughout the film could make it all the more frightening. The classic Shatner mask is an iconic look, but I think that by going in a different direction for a film could make the whole thing a big more unsettling, especially since it appears as though we'll see Myers' face (along with the hole in it from the ending of the remake) for quite a bit of the film.

[Loomis]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

[tdalton]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

I think that it's meant for him to look extraordinarily pale, which does make sense since he's been locked up in an institution for the better part of two decades, as well as the fact that, in the remake, he was always seen with a mask on, which would cause his face to be very pale as it was, for close to 20 years, not exposed to any light at all. For the purposes of filming, it's probably facepaint (it's definitely artificially done, whatever it is), but I don't think that it's going to be said to be face paint in the film. I would imagine that that is just how Myers' face would look considering it's been hidden from any form of light for nearly two decades.

I also didn't ever questioned whether or not he learned to shave at Smith's Grove either, but I just thought of it as a way of explaining away the mountain man look that he's going to sport in the film.

This is just a very low-res picture from a considerable distance, which takes away from it a bit. I think that once we get a better look at what Myers is going to look like in the film, it's going to be something that's very intense and menacing. That hole in his head is going to really be unsettling if it's done right, and I'm really interested to see how Zombie explains how Myers is still alive with that gaping hole right there.

Edited by tdalton, 11 April 2009 - 08:27 PM.

[Harmsway]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

I entirely agree.

[Righty007]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

I entirely agree.

I would normally be appalled at the dramatic change in Michael Myers appearance, however, the inspired casting of Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter gives me hope that maybe this change to Myers' appearance will be positive once we see the movie.

[Harmsway]

Uh, how does Jeffrey Wright's great turn as Leiter have anything to do with how successful a bearded, hobo-esque Michael Myers will be?

[tdalton]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

I entirely agree.

I would normally be appalled at the dramatic change in Michael Myers appearance, however, the inspired casting of Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter gives me hope that maybe this change to Myers' appearance will be positive once we see the movie.

I think that the change in appearance is a bit necessary, considering what is known about the film.

Spoiler

The film picks up, or at least the main body of the film does, two years after the remake, which is plenty of time for that beard to grow.

Also, if you look at the picture at the bottom of the page that Harmsway posted, the original Shatner mask from the remake is in terrible condition, and is really ripped almost to shreds, which means that it probably won't last that long through any more wear and tear. This isn't a fact by any means, but I would imagine that he starts out with it and it deteriorates to the point that there's no purpose in wearing it anymore, and he takes it off. Again, I don't know that for a fact, but it seems like a reasonable assumption.

[Righty007]

Uh, how does Jeffrey Wright's great turn as Leiter have anything to do with how successful a bearded, hobo-esque Michael Myers will be?

Casino Royale gave us a dramatically different take on Felix Leiter, which I absolutely loved. Normally I would be dismissive of this change in Michael Myers iconic appearance but since it worked with Leiter, I will give Rob Zombie the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgement until I see the film.

[Loomis]

Sorry, he just looks ridiculous with that beard. It's not an SNL sketch. Whether he would have ever learned to shave at Smith's Grove has never been a question that's bothered me. He doesn't look at all menacing, and what's with the white facepaint?

I entirely agree.

He looks like a regular schlub walking out of a donut shop. Heck, he's gonna look like many members of the audience! He looks like a poor old man you'd give some change to.

I mean, unlike yourself, I thoroughly enjoy Zombie's HALLOWEEN and really respect what he did with the material (I consider Carpenter's original one of the all-time greats), but I'm really not sure I want to see any more entries in this deathless franchise.

[tdalton]

Uh, how does Jeffrey Wright's great turn as Leiter have anything to do with how successful a bearded, hobo-esque Michael Myers will be?

Casino Royale gave us a dramatically different take on Felix Leiter, which I absolutely loved. Normally I would be dismissive of this change in Michael Myers iconic appearance but since it worked with Leiter, I will give Rob Zombie the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgement until I see the film.

I'm more than willing to give this a chance as well. We've seen, now, 8 movies featuring, more or less, the same iconic look to the character, and quite frankly, it had become very stale by the time Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN hit theaters two years ago. I thought that Zombie did a great job of infusing new life into the series, and I greatly appreciate his wanting to make the Michael Myers character a human character rather than an indestructible boogeyman like in the previous seven films in which Myers had appeared. Now we're getting an even different take on the character, which I find refreshing. It's certainly better than watching the same old thing yet again for what would this time be a ninth time. Besides, in piecing together the few clues that we have at this point, I think that the way in which Myers will arrive at this look will be fairly interesting and fit the story very well.

I also read something else very promising about the film on Comingsoon.net (I'm not going to post the link here because there's a fair amount of profanity in the article),

Spoiler

but the basic idea of it is that this film is going to be a film about the relationship between Michael Myers and Lorie Strode (and her deterioration as a character in the wake of what happened to her in the remake),

which I find to be very interesting, and it's territory that we've only seen glimpses of in the prior films.

Edited by tdalton, 11 April 2009 - 10:41 PM.