free counter with statistics Halloween | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

scout_taylor_compton6.jpg

Bye Bye Bogey

Halloween / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | August 31, 2007 | Comments (50)


The original 1978 Halloween was an excellent ode to sparseness, owing as much to John Carpenter’s microscopic budget as stylistic intent. Without buckets of blood, heavy effects, or stars mugging for the camera, Carpenter made a great thriller, a simultaneous homage to and hodgepodge of modern American ghost stories and Bogeyman mythos that succeeded because it kept the killer in the shadows and periphery. Rule number one for scary movies is, after all, that no visual you can throw at an audience will ever match their imaginative conjuring. Keep the frights sparse and just off-camera — the audience will do your work for you.

Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween has Michael Myers in almost every goddamn frame. He’s seen walking around his dilapidated home; he’s seen doddering around and peeking in on his victims-to-be; he’s seen shuffling through yards, gathering his mask and weapon, scratching his ass — virtually anything you could conceive Michael Myers doing when he isn’t stalking or killing someone, well, Rob Zombie will show you. Zombie’s screenplay rams itself (or attempts to) right into Mike’s brain, showing the lousy childhood leading up to his killing spree and part of his stay in the loony bin, things hitherto left to ambiguity or Donald Pleasance’s cryptic explanations. So long, Imagination! Don’t forget to write!

So, it turns out little Mike (Daeg Faerch) was cuckoo-bananas from the start, torturing his pets and stray animals for kicks. But additionally, his family life leaves a touch to be desired: Well-meaning stripper mama (Sheri Moon Zombie — the director’s wife and perennial cast clogger) tries to keep things together with little success; loathsome stepdad (William Forsythe) regularly calls the kid a “faggot” or “creep” in regular conversation while leering at his equally loutish stepdaughter’s ass. So, either Mike was just evil from the get-go, or his worthless family and school bullies drove him to it — either way, it’s neither telling nor evocative, it just makes us confused as to whether we’re supposed to root for him or not. He’s the central character now; but does that mean he’s the protagonist?

Anyway, as promised, lil’ Mike loses what’s left of his tenuous sanity one day and whacks or slashes his tormenters into pulp. He’s then carted off to a sanitarium to be cared for by Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell, who actually approximates Donald Pleasance’s cheesiness to a decent degree). The film continues to show us what Mike is up to — essentially making a bunch of masks and failing to reveal why he’s so bonkers. Fast-forward 15 years, Michael is now a Kane Hodder-sized hulk who looks like a member of Slipnot. On Halloween he busts loose, murdering about 50 hospital employees along the way.

The last third of the film, wherein big Mike returns to Haddonfield to track down the infant sister he let live (a detail not explored until the original’s abundant sequels) and reenact some of his mayhem, largely condenses the 1978 film’s plot — which followed protagonist Jamie Lee Curtis around her humdrum suburbia as she slowly got wise to the encroaching terror — into a hectic mess. We aren’t given much time to gather interest or sympathy for this Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), the unknowing victim of Michael’s attention, as her friends and their boytoys are slashed apart.

Zombie’s Halloween is remarkably incongruous, given his usual penchant for dutiful homage to old horror films; he thoroughly debunks the mythology of the original Carpenter film, replacing an enigmatic horror icon with a hulking thug whose motives seem explained and yet uninteresting, replacing thrills with lurid violence. Zombie’s Myers isn’t the Bogeyman; he’s just boring.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR.









Balls of Fury | Thomas Crown Pajiba


Comments

I don't know...it wasn't THAT bad.

Posted by: EJ at August 31, 2007 9:13 PM

Great review. You sum up my biggest issue with most horror films of the last, oh, twenty years. They leave so little up to the imagination (which I agree can be much more frightening than anything special effects can cook up).

The current audience for horror has become so jaded by these types of movies that filmmakers are cranking out more and more brutality and gore to try and shock them and keep them buying tickets.

Hopefully the box office returns for these unfortunate remakes of (or re-imagined versions of) horror classics will dry up, as they did with torture porn, and Hollywood will stop making them.

But then, like the hydra, some other nastified genre will pop up in its place to vex the scary movie fan.

Posted by: Alabamapink at August 31, 2007 9:14 PM

slipknot**

good review, i wasnt planning on seeing this crap anyway... the original will always be the best. (that and zombie cant write/direct/anything for shit)

Posted by: razh at August 31, 2007 10:41 PM

I don't know why Zombie keeps making movies -- we get it already, Rob. You makes films as badly as you make music.
Maybe it's so he can put in each one a villain/killer type with long, ratty hair and fulfill his subliminal desire to be the evil, slaughtering fiend.

Posted by: Brett at August 31, 2007 11:16 PM

Well said, Phillip. The original Halloween is one of the few films that actually benefits from the lack of character development regarding the villain. As Dr. Loomis said, no matter how long he kept researching and psychoanalyzing, he just came to the conclusion that Michael Myers was just born evil, down to the core. All this emotional crap (stripper mom and abusive dad) just makes it like any other typical bad-guy's-not-really-bad flick. You're not supposed to give a shit about his feelings, he's just fucking evil.

Did they really show him scratching his ass? How pathetic.

Posted by: Brie at August 31, 2007 11:38 PM

it wasn't nearly as awful as you depicted.

Posted by: emma at September 1, 2007 12:25 AM

Exactly, he's just fucking evil.

Posted by: goldend at September 1, 2007 1:08 AM

this movie was hilarious. did anybody else have a theatre dying of laughter at all the unintentionally hilarious parts? Like the "dramatic" shot of young Michael Myers running down the school hallway? That was unbearable. What a awful mess this thing was. I'm pretty sure Zombie will not direct after this.

Posted by: jordan at September 1, 2007 1:15 AM

the first time i saw the preview for this movie i let out the biggest groan, "WHHHHHHHHYYYY???." then i let out a bigger groan when i hear rob zombie's name.

why is hollywood so intent on ruining classics? oooh big fucking surprise, michael meyers had a shitty childhoood. wouldn't it make a better film if he had a good childhood, or at least a normal one that was hinted at in the original?

Posted by: citizen_cris at September 1, 2007 1:24 AM

i didn't get the impression that phillip thought the movie was awful, just that it lacked some of the classiness and mystique of the original (which made it worthwhile in the first place...).

zombie has potential talent (at least he did on "devil's rejects"), he just needs to get his head out of his ass and quit trying to shove everything down the viewer's throats. this works sometimes, but in the case of "halloween", he obviously missed the point.

Posted by: idiot dentist at September 1, 2007 1:25 AM

Am I the only one who thought House of 1000 Corpses was freaking awesome?! If not the storyline (which I actually didn't hate) I at least give props to the acid-trip filming style. And Grandpa has got to be one of the most awesome (see: perverted and insane) old guys I've ever seen in a movie.

I thought Zombie would deliver on this one...ah, oh well. I'll probably see it anyway. I just can't lose hope that there will be some horror flick, sometime, somewhere, that won't make me piss myself (with laughter).

Posted by: Amber at September 1, 2007 3:35 AM

The point was to show why Michael Myers is who he is. Why you would want to tell that story is debatable to begin with. Part of the fascination and horror of the original and the second movie in part comes from the fact that we don't know why. But....

Rob tries to give us the reasons behind it. I don't think he went far enough in this aspect. The depiction of the family life and its affect on him happen within a single day. And Loomis talks about Michael being a perfect storm of external and internal factors coming together to make a psychopath. We should have seen more of that from Michael and the family. And Loomis should have explained it more in his little speech.

The premise itself might be the problem, for reasons I stated above. Maybe we just aren't supposed to know what made Myers who is or what makes him tick. Because if you do, you run the risk of making him a sypathetic figure. This is a big problem with the 4th and 5th sequels. Myers shows conflicted feelings towards killing his niece. What is up with that? He is supposed to be a monster without feelings.

I think Rob did a decent job with this movie given the circumstances. The original just casts too big of a shadow over the franchise. Its like asking someone to do a gangster movie and forcing them to remake The Godfather. Or asking someone to do a workplace comedy and forcing them to remake Office Space.

Posted by: Dave at September 1, 2007 4:01 AM

I didn't really care for House of a 1000 Corpses but I thought The Devil's Rejects was fantastic. I just came from watching Halloween and I loved it, I thought the dialog was wonderful (the breakfast table scene was brilliant) and Zombie's direction was maybe a little less spot-on than in Rejects.

I thought the kid playing young Michael Myers was fucking creepy looking... he looked like the kind of freak who tortures small animals, so his acting skills didn't trouble me too much.

For the record, the original scared the shit out of me when I saw it as a teen (more so because I had to walk home from the theater at night!).

Oh, and Brie, they didn't really show him scratching his ass, I think Phillip was exaggerating for humorous effect there...

Posted by: canology at September 1, 2007 4:09 AM

I don't know. I wasn't a huge fan of the original. I like that Zombie at least put a new spin on the story. It beats the hell out of a pointless remake, ala Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I'll still check this one out, but I'm not going to go in expecting something great, something horrible, or the same film or intent as the original.

Posted by: Deviant at September 1, 2007 6:20 AM

Zombie still owes me a refund for that crapfest House of 1,000 Corpses. I was told that I would probably like The Devil's Rejects, but the only I part I liked was the end. There is no way that I'm funding any further directorial endeavors from Zombie by seeing his Halloween. I can't even verbalize how much I dislike the man's writing and directing. But hey, people don't go to movies to see something good anymore, they just go to see something, right? How else do we explain Wild Hogs?

Posted by: Dangle McGee at September 1, 2007 8:05 AM

I'm not really surprised by the reviews. I thought to myself "Hmm, the whole Halloween thing seems to be about as under-developed as the Police Academy series". Then I noticed that it was directed by none other than ole Rob Zombie. House of 1000 Corpses, if I remember correctly, rips off 3 or four classic horror films (original Hills Have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ect ). Being un-original is okay, just one theme at a time thank-you.
I think ole Zombo's film career was probably done after Devil's Rejects, but since he would be working on an established series in this one, the gutless turds of Hollywood thought it was worth a shot.
I feel that Zombo is probably a knowledgeable horror fan, but hasn't yet been even a decent horror director/writer. The ole film White Zombie, for which his former band was named, was a good film, but I am comfortable in stating that we have probably seen the last of Rob & Wifey's films.

Posted by: Destro at September 1, 2007 9:05 AM

See, I look on the bright side here. This is the kindest review a gory movie has received on the site in a long time. It's not good by any means, but it's not an aggravated analysis leading to the inevitable conclusion that all horror film fans are pathetic ass holes who get their jollies by watching girls in distress; which leads to the natural corollary that anyone who claims they don't get off on those films and still enjoys them is a liar and a pervert.

It's nice to see someone step outside that particular Pajiba mind set for once.

Undoubtedly, it will return when they review upcoming films like 30 Days of Night and Trick R Treat.

I still have no intentions of seeing the Halloween remake, as I didn't enjoy the original to begin with. Even as a retelling, it doesn't interest me, because I like my horror films with a healthy dose of intelligence, clearly lit scenes, and good performances.

Posted by: Robert at September 1, 2007 9:57 AM

@jordan, I'm pretty sure Rob will direct after this just because horror films have such a low standard in the first place in what makes a marketable film. All Rob needs to do is have Halloween make "enough" money and some studio will gladly have him do another film. Considering a number of people liked the film, or didn't think it was bad as reviewed, I won't be surprised if he pulls it off.

Posted by: mb at September 1, 2007 10:19 AM

Oh Destro, how I wish that Zombie and Sheri "Show me yer Moon" Zombie were through. But alas, a two picture deal beyond Halloween with Dimension has been inked.

Posted by: Dangle McGee at September 1, 2007 11:25 AM

Why would you remake a classic like Halloween, for crap's sake?? There is no way I could pay money to see this. If I wanted to fill my eyes with gallons of feces, I'd go swimming in a vat of raw sewage with no goggles. Hey, maybe next he will decide to remake "Stairway to Heaven." Then again, I could stick a funnel in my ear and have someone crap directly into it. I'm sure that would pretty much have the same effect.

Posted by: Mistress Violet at September 1, 2007 11:44 AM

I think ole Zombo's film career was probably done after Devil's Rejects, but since he would be working on an established series in this one, the gutless turds of Hollywood thought it was worth a shot.

Huh? Devil's Rejects was far superior to House of a 1000 Corpses, and Devil's Rejects actually got some good reviews from mainstream reviewers. Even the ones that didn't like it thought he improved significantly as a director. I don't know where that leads to "career probably done" or "we've seen the last of Rob Zombie" as another commenter stated.

Sigh...

Why can't people just 'not like' a movie/director/actor/genre without wishing it into the fucking cornfield?

Posted by: canology at September 1, 2007 11:56 AM

Oh, that part wasn't real? Damn, I was kinda hoping it was. Thanks for clarifying that, Canology.

Posted by: Brie at September 1, 2007 1:59 PM

Actually, I;m kinda surprised at how not-nasty this review is. My S.O. insisted we go see this movie (I knew it couldn't be good, and I'd never actually seen the original, but I'm stupid, so I went along.) We actually walked out somewhere near the hour mark, it was so awful. Zombie turned the damn thing into torture porn and I don;t know much about his background, but this seemed more like a wish fulfillment fantasy of Rob Zombie as Michael Myers than a real investigation of the character's background. Not to mention, I am the most easily frightened person on the planet and I didn't even jump once in the full hour we were there. I was definitely way more freaked out by the original (we went straight from the theater to the video store). Seriously, there is no point to seeing this movie except maybe to laugh at some of the obvious in-jokes.

Posted by: s. pisaster at September 1, 2007 3:46 PM

The original Halloween is one of my all time favourite movies. Even though I saw it at too young an age and it gave me nightmares and all.
The entire film is perfect, in my opinion. And it genuinely scares me again every time I see it, which is probably weird of me, but I prefer to think it shows how thoroughly the film nailed it.
I know I should just ignore this new one and not see it because it's existence offends me, and that is the way I will probably handle it. With much "Lalalalala I can't hear you" if people try to tell me about it.
The fact that it got remade at all though, just leaves me feeling really angry and assaulted. Angry that once again some asshole who couldn't come up with an original thought decided to rip off and destroy someone else's fabulous work.
And assaulted 'cos get your hands off my precious childhood memories, you talentless prick! ;)

Posted by: Loob at September 1, 2007 4:05 PM

Great review!

Micheal Myers was never meant to be fleshed out, we were never meant to know his motivation. He was forever to remain the shadowy monster lurking in the dark; quick and silent and sudden as death. He was the bogeyman, the creeping fear of what could suddenly inexplicably and terribly happen when our humanity slips away and there's nothing left but a murdering beast. Rob Zombie cast that all away and give the monster a human face, and not a very good one at that.

Posted by: vdantev at September 1, 2007 8:46 PM

I've been a fan of Rob Zombie's music for quite a few years, and I can't wait until he actually makes a movie. Nothing I've seen from him quite qualifies yet. It sounds like this one at least had some sort of narrative structure, which I suppose is an improvement.

His wife is hot as hell though.

Posted by: jvon at September 2, 2007 4:21 AM

I always figured Laurie Strode was his sister and that after the massacre she was adopted by the Strode family and raised as their own. Doesn't Loomis say something to that effect in the original about Myers coming back to "finish the job"? That statement only makes sense in Laurie Strode is Myers' lost baby sister; why else would he be so obsessed with killing her. The ages seem to be right for that too.

Posted by: Julian at September 2, 2007 9:06 AM

Honestly, was Hannibal Lecter any scarier when we found out his sister was eaten by Russians? No. Was Leatherface any more terrifying when we found out he was a bastard child? No. And is Michael Myers any more frightening now that we know his stepfather was a jackass? No. In fact, quite the opposite happens, and the killers are given a face, have feelings, and intermingle sympathy as well as disgust.

If I wanted that kind of emotional breakthrough, I'd watch Oprah. Or go back into therapy.

I want my bad guys scary, dumb, and fast. I don't care if their little baby feelings were hurt in school or if their moms didn't breast feed them. I just don't care. Kill, be killed, and resurrect. That's all I ask for from a horror-star.

Posted by: Shane at September 2, 2007 4:02 PM

This is depressing. Reuters reports:

"A re-imagining of the classic slasher movie 'Halloween' broke the record for a new release during the U.S. Labor Day holiday weekend, according to studio estimates issued on Sunday.

The movie, directed by rock star-turned-filmmaker Rob Zombie, earned about $26.5 million since opening on Friday, easily beating the rosiest predictions."

Nuts. Double Nuts.

Crap is indeed king.

Posted by: Alabamapink at September 2, 2007 9:03 PM

The movie, directed by rock star-turned-filmmaker Rob Zombie, earned about $26.5 million since opening on Friday, easily beating the rosiest predictions."

Yay!!!!

I hope that means that Zombie can keep making movies for the people that actually enjoy them, you know, us sadistic, stupid, will-watch-anything-projected-on-a-screen, Australopithicenes...

Posted by: canology at September 2, 2007 10:11 PM

Well Canology, share a popcorn with Lucy and enjoy yourself.

You're the hot target market now.

Seems you've learned to stand upright and walk at just the perfect time.

Yeah for you!

Posted by: Alabamapink at September 3, 2007 12:21 AM

Well Canology, share a popcorn with Lucy and enjoy yourself.

Alabamapink, I liked that, sharp and dry, like a Damascus steel sirocco.

Even though it hurt, on the inside, where it hurts the most :(

Posted by: canology at September 3, 2007 4:24 AM

My pleasure, Canology. You used "Australopithicenes" in a post and I couldn't pass up the opportunity to put to use all those anthropology classed I took in college.

Actually, I thought "Corpses" and "Reject's" were not half bad flicks and pretty entertaining. Zombie borrows pretty heavily from grindhouse 70's schlock. I am just weary of Hollywood cranking out all these remakes of perfectly decent horror films. They seem to be cheap to make and apparently pull a good enough profit so I am sure "Halloween" won't be the last of them.

Pardon my bitterness.

Posted by: Alabamapink at September 3, 2007 8:16 AM

Has anyone read a J.A. Konrath novel called Whiskey Sour? I have and I clearly remember an antagonist with the exact same poor upbringing and animal cruelty issues. I believe his name was the Gingerbread Man. I'm hoping Zombie did not rip off source material.

Posted by: Jon at September 3, 2007 12:56 PM

Jon, I think it is very common for serial killers to have started out by torturing small animals. Throwing in bad parenting isn't a big stretch.

Alabamapink, now if you had just made clear that your real gripe was "remade older horror movies" I would have actually agreed with you. I thought you were coming from the "Rob Zombie is talentless and should be expunged from the face of creation" angle.
I'm also glad I could put your anthropology classes to use. :)

Posted by: canology at September 3, 2007 3:06 PM

While I'd certainly agree that the original Halloween is untouchable...

I'm awfully sick of people whining and complaining about remakes. If you're such a fan of the original, don't watch the new one. But don't cry about the fact that a director loved the original enough to attempt to pay homage to it.

Seriously. Just grow up.

Posted by: David at September 3, 2007 5:37 PM

I'm glad Malcolm McDowell is still making movies.

Posted by: Tenzil at September 3, 2007 7:44 PM

I watched the movie, have never seen the first, and I must say, yet again, that (bad) horror flicks are not something I enjoy. I went with three other friends. The fact that not one of us had a single thing to say while walking out of the theater but "So, what do you want to do now?" speaks of that. I do have one question, how many times must a woman crawl across the floor screaming and blubbering before it stops being scary? The answer must be three.....

Posted by: cynthia at September 3, 2007 8:15 PM

I watched the movie, have never seen the first, and I must say, yet again, that (bad) horror flicks are not something I enjoy. I went with three other friends. The fact that not one of us had a single thing to say while walking out of the theater but "So, what do you want to do now?" speaks of that. I do have one question, how many times must a woman crawl across the floor screaming and blubbering before it stops being scary? The answer must be three.....

Posted by: cynthia at September 3, 2007 8:16 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with vdantev - who commented on September 1, 2007 around 8:46 PM.

The 1978 film was a classic. The beauty of Michael Myers is that he killed his sister, as a child, without explanation, and then grew to adulthood to resume killing with the same level of cold calculation. There was no exposition about why Michael was a monster; he simply was. And in modern-day Haddonfield, those that fought Michael on Halloween night quickly learned he couldn't be hurt or even killed by conventional force - and this, too, lacked explanation or exposition of any kind. It was perfect story-telling, because it left us all to wonder what WAS Michael, exactly, and when would he strike again?

Zombie's chief failing was trying to humanize the monster - attempting to show us what contributed to Michael becoming what he was. It failed miserably. My audience watched the first thirty minutes of the film as if it was comedy - laughing uproariously at Mrs. Myers and her injured husband's banter. It was annoying as hell. When Michael began his killing spree, there were moments of laughter, but thankfully, that began to subside.

In all, although the body count and gore was increased, the film was a disappointment. The attempt to bring us closer to Myers and help us understand his origins muddled the mystique of the original. He was no longer just "the Shape" or "The Boogeyman;" now he was an abused child and the product of a dysfunctional household . . . that couldn't be harmed or even killed by conventional force? It didn't hang together.

And although the actress Zombie chose for Laurie Strode could certainly scream her head off, I couldn't empathise with her at all given the time constraints of the final act of the film. I was praying Michael would succeed and just kill his sister, ending the whole mess once and for all.

It's too bad we couldn't get so lucky.

Posted by: Brandy at September 3, 2007 9:43 PM

Zombie's first mistake was trying to humanize a monster. The whole appeal to Michael Myers as a stone cold killer was that he was "born evil". He came from a good home, and was just a twisted individual; not the tormented youth from a broken home in Rob's version. I like the idea of seeing Myers as a youth in the hospital, though I don't agree with the direction that Rob took. I also don't agree with not introducing Laurie Strode until the final 45 minutes of the film. Isn't she suppose to be the protagonist?
Another major flaw with the film is the time it took Michael Myers to slay his victims. He's kinda famous for quick deaths. Not banging them into walls for a minute straight, or clubbing them with bats until there was nothing left. I mean; He stabs people, they die, he props them up somewhere in some messed up manner for some later victim to discover, he moves on.
Rob succeeded in making an average slasher film. It just didn't feel like a Halloween film.
Its not at all the masterpiece the original was.

Posted by: Sulli at September 4, 2007 6:34 PM

I have just one thing to say about this movie, this review, and the whole damnable mess:

I told you so.

I told you so.

I told you so.

If you don't believe me, here:

http://www.dailyhaggis.com/2007/05/07/mikey-likes-itsmokin-not-so-much/

Posted by: Smokin at September 4, 2007 7:29 PM

Oh and before I forget, to David up above me, who apparently takes exception to some of the comments here:

I like a good remake as much as the next person. A good remake. This remake, sad as it is to say, does not fall into that category.

Posted by: Smokin at September 4, 2007 7:41 PM

I haven't seen this movie...maybe I'll Netflix it.

But I totally agree that the original was so chilling because Michael Myers was faceless, noiseless and merciless. Just like someone else said, I still get scared when I see it. His stoic murderousness is truly terrifying!

I can't believe there are people who say that they didn't like the original, but they liked this one. Wha...?

And I really can't believe that Zombie turned it into another torture porn flick. I mean, could he have done anything more predictable and uninspired? That sucks.

Posted by: Ginger at September 4, 2007 8:57 PM

Ginger, how on earth is this version of Halloweeen considered "torture porn"???

Posted by: canology at September 4, 2007 11:34 PM

Sherri Moon Zombie as a mere "cast clogger"? You're being far too kind, Phillip. I haven't seen the new "Halloween" yet, but I have seen Mr. Zombie's previous efforts...suffice it to say, some hubbies should leave the little lady at home!

Posted by: SugarKane at September 5, 2007 1:49 AM

First off, Rob Zombies' Halloween, in no way, qualifies as another torture porn movie. Secondly, those of you who take Pajiba's review as gospel, without seeing the movie for yourself, need to get a life. I love reading Pajiba's reviews, but I don't necessarily agree with every one of them. Don't criticise a movie until you've seen it for yourself.

Posted by: Jason at September 5, 2007 9:37 AM

Rob Zombie is the man.....this was a GREAT movie!!!! It's about time someone makes movies that are actually SCARY & not lame or so far fetched that they end up being stupid!!!!
I can't wait to buy the DVD!!!!
ROB ZOMBIE ROCKS!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Melody K. at September 6, 2007 12:44 PM

I saw this "reimagining" last night, and only because my friend had free passes. Yet somehow I still wanted somebody to give me a refund.

I did try to keep an open mind but after the first few scenes I knew it was going to be terrible.The movie wasn't frightening at all, it was just gory and disgusting. The plot holes are too numerous to mention, and the acting was awful. The characters like Laurie, Annie, & Co. were passed over too quickly before the mayhem began so it was impossible to feel sympathy for any of them; I just wanted all of them to hurry up and die. It says a lot about the quality (actually, lack thereof) of the film that at each critical moment that was meant to evoke fear or sympathy, there was laughter, especially at the end. People didn't even wait for the credits to start rolling, they just got up and left.

Posted by: Donna at September 8, 2007 3:47 PM

I saw the remake on over the weekend. The original Halloween will always be my favorite scary movie so when I heard they made a remake of the original, I figured why not? I don't know, that movie scared the living daylights out of me. And I actually left feeling quite unsettled because of all the blood and guts. This was the first horror flick I have seen in a while that actually scared me. The original will still be the best and scary because you are left to your imagination. The music in that movie alone sends chills up my spine. I was glad they left the music in the movie because the music is so chilling. Oh even more disturbing than the actual scene's in the remake, someone brought their 6 year old into that movie. Now that is really SCREWED UP!

Posted by: Tiffany at September 17, 2007 8:31 AM



searchthesite.jpg