PDA

View Full Version : Halloween (2007) The Verdict.


Ash28M
09-01-2007, 06:00 PM
Alright lets just have a vote to see where everyone stands on this. Are the poor reviews just a loud minority or the majority.

IMO I think it's between good and great, so i'm going to round up:)

Mortis
09-01-2007, 06:03 PM
Awful.

JBPumpkin
09-01-2007, 06:17 PM
Painful to sit through. Considered walking out.

gunner
09-01-2007, 06:39 PM
My wife and I went to this last night. It's scattered with badness throughout, especially the last quarter. But when it was good it was very good, and I loved all the cameos. By far the best Rob Zombie effort to date imo.

DeathDealer
09-01-2007, 07:18 PM
Below average

Midnight Buddha
09-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Awful !

17thJuggalo
09-01-2007, 07:30 PM
Below average. :(

onebyone
09-01-2007, 08:16 PM
The version that was released to the theater was good. The workprint was great- well save one awful "What the hell was Rob on?" scene that is.

maybrick
09-01-2007, 08:17 PM
Average, maybe a low average but not "below" average. When you forget the original it isn't any better or any worse than 95% of the mainstream horror movies produced today, and if it wasn't the severely shaky camerawork I would've even rated it as "good": a solid B. As is: C-.

Dwhots
09-01-2007, 09:39 PM
I liked it, enjoyed the workprint more though. I think if this was just a straight slasher movie, not a "Halloween", people would love it.

Mark Relford
09-01-2007, 10:39 PM
Below average. Enjoyed the first half with young Mikey. The second half was as limp as Larry Flynt's dick. I couldn't stop looking at my watch after he broke out of the asylum. I got to see the trailer for The Mist, so it wasn't a complete waste.

ThievingWinona
09-01-2007, 11:43 PM
Spectacularly horrible

Dusk
09-02-2007, 12:47 AM
For the love of fucking JC, that was the worst horror movie I've ever seen.

fceurich39
09-02-2007, 01:12 AM
i thought it was good hopefully when the dvd comes alot of the workprint footage will be inserted back in or in the deleted scenes

the most disturbing thing i thought about the film was the language man everyone in that damn family and people cussed no wonder michael turned out the way he did

bigdaddyhorse
09-02-2007, 01:16 AM
Theater was O.K. so I voted good.
Workprint was great.

fceurich39
09-02-2007, 01:21 AM
Theater was O.K. so I voted good.
Workprint was great.

where can you see the workprint?

WesReviews
09-02-2007, 01:31 AM
There is no listing less than "awful", so I must vote "awful". But it's much worse.

indiephantom
09-02-2007, 01:33 AM
where can you see the workprint?

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. I knew a site that had really easy downloads but I've forgotten the name. Zappo or something weird like that. Someone please let us know...I've paid to see the film already, and I'm just curious.

Anyway, I have to rate the film as good overall. Although, I think it's Zombie's worst film. The prequel half is the strongest and the film drops quite a bit in the remake half, and there is really no genuine tension. Too much info about Michael has diminished his mystique and the film is more grindhouse schlockly than atmospheric...making it VERY different from Carpenter's.

I enjoyed most of the cameos; especially Ken Foree and william Forsythe. Loved seeing Sybil Danning but I was expecting a boob shot. Yeah, yeah, I know she's nearly as old as my mother...but that's still prime ass MILF, folks. :evil:

I know I'm going to get slammed for this but Danielle Harris's titties are just too damn small. Bit of a letdown there, and Sheri Moon is still the hottest chick in a Zombie flick.

Think the Dr. Loomis part could have been changed or dropped. It just doesn't work.

Loved the music, especially cool to hear Rush. :banana:

Where do I rank it in Halloween terms. Well, it's not as good as the first 4...but I think it's better than everything that came later...especially Resurrection which remains the all-time low.

Oh, and I have a feeling this film will age well and be more revered as time goes by. This is certainly the most interesting horror remake of recent times, if not the most succesful. Will see it again in the theatre.

cjg
09-02-2007, 02:29 AM
i agree with maybrick with the shakey camera work and the darkness it was hard to see what was happening

bigwes15
09-02-2007, 02:49 AM
I really wanted to love this and went in more than willing to give it a chnce, but I absolutely hated it. No tension or atmosphere, and the demystifying of Michael really didn't work for me at all. However, as somebody pointed out, if it wasn't a Halloween remake and just a seperate movie I very well may have liked it a lot more.

MorallySound
09-02-2007, 04:22 AM
I thought it was good.

ReelFear
09-02-2007, 04:24 AM
i voted below average. theres very little to recommend here aside from a few interesting cameos, and an occasional moment or 2 that made me smile. this is one of the biggest disappointments of the year, and in my opinion a big mistake.

Slow
09-02-2007, 04:26 AM
Voted great, because it was.

MrVess
09-02-2007, 05:24 AM
There should be an "Uwe" option, too.
Although "Uwe" and "Zombie" may soon become synonyms...

onebyone
09-02-2007, 05:30 AM
I am surprised you wasted your time watching it MrVess. Or did you?

DrHerbertWest
09-02-2007, 05:37 AM
This felt like another horror movie put out in recent years, meaning it didn't feel special. There were a lot of things I enjoyed, mostly the cameos from all the recognizable people and I was also pleasantly surprised with how much I liked Malcolm McDowell. Going in, I thought no one could top (or match) 'The Donald' but I really liked how he portrayed the role.

The kills were gross, graphic and disturbing... But so were the kills in a lot of other recent movies. Rob Zombie made a decent horror film but he did not reinvent the legend of Michael Meyers. He just made a better Halloween film than, say, Halloween: H2O or Halloween: Resurrection.

EDIT: As a little after thought, I have not seen the work print but am interested in doing so. Now that I've seen the film, I can check out all the spoilers previously posted to see what the difference is.

Katatonia
09-02-2007, 06:04 AM
Interesting poll results and comments thus far. I'm not really in a hurry to see this one!

fattyjoe37
09-02-2007, 06:57 AM
It's between average and good, but leans closer to average.

Bobbywoodhogan
09-02-2007, 10:10 AM
I have to wait until October to see it as us in the UK have to wait (like always), but I'm going in open minded because I usually find I dont like alot of the horror films most people on here like anyway and I like the ones you dont like.

RyanPC
09-02-2007, 12:04 PM
I just viewed the workprint and here are some thoughts:

-The use of the original Halloween music was decent, though the placement of the movie's title was cringe-inducing.

-I don't understand all of the Sheri Moon Zombie bashing that's going on; I thought her performance was very good. Same with Malcolm McDowell.

-The kid who played young Michael wasn't as annoying as I thought he was going to be, but I can totally see why people picked on him so much in the movie... he was a bit weird.

-William Forsythe was hilarious! Zombie tried to make him an abusive father but I couldn't help look at him as comic relief. "Bitch, I will SKULL FUCK THE SHIT OUTTA YOU!" :lol: :lol:

-I was upset that Dee Wallace Stone was killed. I love her. :(

-Unlike the original, the girls were annoying all around and I didn't care about them one bit.

-Why do all the guys in this movie have long hair?

-Most of the scenes in the second half were completely devoid of the suspense that made the original so great.

-I'm a bit confused about the time frame because everybody in this movie dresses in modern day clothing (which somewhat resembles 70's fashions), even in the beginning of the movie when Michael was a kid. If the second half of the movie is supposed to be present day, wouldn't the prologue have taken place in the early 90's? It certainly didn't look 90's.

-The shaking camerawork needed to stop like yesterday. Seriously, it's not realistic and it's giving me a headache. Yes, the point of view would be shaky and chaotic if we were the one being attacked, but since we are merely voyeurs to the action taking place, can't you at least keep the fucking camera steady? Also, the camera was zoomed in too close most of the time and that, combined with the shakiness and bad lighting, made it impossible to see anything during the chase scene near the end.


Overall I felt the film was pretty good. The first half was great and the second half was not so good, but it sort of balances out for me.

I realize that I viewed the workprint and apparently many things were changed for the final cut--hopefully for the better. I admit I'm curious as to what they changed and will probably go to see it in theaters before the run is over.

indiephantom
09-02-2007, 03:03 PM
agree that there was too much long hair, and I really hated the look of Myers at both ages.

Ash28M
09-02-2007, 03:16 PM
So far 56% of us think this film is OK or better. So right now it looks like the minority is speaking up loudest. It also has a solid 6.8 rating at IMDB if you put any stock in that.

Tien21
09-02-2007, 04:06 PM
I voted good. There are a lot of things I didn't like about this movie but if I don't compare it to any of the original Halloween films I think it is still a pretty decent horror film.

VenicuS
09-02-2007, 06:56 PM
I voted "Good". I wasn't expecting anything particularly mindblowing, and so I wasn't disappointed. I think that for the most part the changes between the workprint and the theatrical release were good changes, with the exception of the additional stuff involving Danny Trejo's character. It just seemed superfluous to me, and as such dragged it down a bit, but I do think that the theatrical ending is far better than the workprint.

As far as performances go, all the principals were decent, but I think Sherri Moon is a tad rough around the edges yet.

indiephantom
09-02-2007, 08:22 PM
As far as performances go, all the principals were decent, but I think Sherri Moon is a tad rough around the edges yet.

Depends on the edges you're talking about...she looks nice and soft to moi. :D

zombi3
09-02-2007, 10:23 PM
I voted "average". The first part was pretty decent, but the second half felt kind of rushed. Seemed like more of a re-cap of the original with some different elements thrown into the story...a little like the beginning of Evil Dead II.

I don't really think this one added anything to the series. I thought it was better than the last two Halloween sequels, but that's not saying much.

RyanPC
09-02-2007, 11:22 PM
Seriously, what's wrong with Sheri Moon's performance? I thought she was rather believable in the role. :confused:

onebyone
09-02-2007, 11:26 PM
Seriously, what's wrong with Sheri Moon's performance? I thought she was rather believable in the role. :confused:

I thought she was great in the role too, especially when she dialed it back and was just sad for the loss of her son. I think *some* folks are just hatin' cause she is Rob's woman.

Livingdead102
09-03-2007, 12:30 AM
No kidding. As far as I can tell, she delivered an adequate--not bad, and maybe even on the good side--performance. I understand people not liking the movie, but I'm amazed that some people honestly say it is far worse than awful, or the worst movie they have ever seen.

maskull
09-03-2007, 01:08 AM
I really liked Sherri when she was visiting Michael after the murders. Thought she did a great job of being a caring mother and when she walked in and saw what Mike had done to the nurse...loved her reaction.

The movie itself I would say was a high average or a low good. Decent slasher flick, not a good Halloween remake, but I think I shall round up and vote good because I think I'll like it better next time I watch it.

Ash28M
09-03-2007, 02:07 AM
62% of us now think it's OK or better. It's aready getting better with age:)

Mutilated Prey
09-03-2007, 05:09 AM
Haven't seen it yet, but I definitely will. I'm interested to see how much of the "Rob Zombie touch" this movie has. Interesting that such an in your face Director took on a remake of a horror flick that was originally pretty graphically tame.

allmessedup
09-03-2007, 11:16 AM
I'll definitely check it out on video. Generally, when there's any significant number of people here who think a remake is good, it usually ends up being worth seeing.

Anthropophagus
09-03-2007, 02:49 PM
I loved Sherri Moon's performance, thought she was great in The Devil's Rejects too.

Livingdead102
09-03-2007, 05:37 PM
62% of us now think it's OK or better. It's aready getting better with age:)

Or 59% who think it's mediocre or worse. I like your numbers better, though. :)

MrKateB
09-03-2007, 10:56 PM
went to the last showing last night....

I thought that parts of it were done incredibly well, then there were parts that were just embarrasing...I walked out before it was over, but there were probably only about 10 minutes left...I couldn't take the "I never knew you cared" speech...won't say anymore to avoid...um...spoilage.

Some observances:

I really like Danielle Harris, and would like to see her become a successful actress as an adult--she deserves to have decent roles come her way, but I didn't think she did anything special here, and hope she doesn't degrade into parts where she does nothing but show off her tits.

Dee Wallace was fabulous in this--again, she is an excellent actress who deserves to get good roles...While she did great with what she was given, she wasn't given much.

Sheri Moon did an amazing job once the scenes took place out side of the home...She plays trash pretty well, but the scenes at home were mostly a series of "fuck yous" that just about anyone could scream out and do a good job of looking trashy while doing so. (myself included) When she was visiting her little boy, I thought she was quite believeable, and she had me feeling for her character a lot in her last few scenes...So, I agree w/Ryan--don't know what all the bashing of her is about, I think she has the potential to be a great actress--would be nice to see what she can do with something outside of the horror genre (or at least a non-white trash role)

The girls were terrible. The original Annie and Linda may have been bimbos, but they had personality...I think both P.J. Soles and Nancy Loomis really need to both get some major credit for making the movie what it was, and I've always felt that they should have both gone on to much bigger and better things...

I did like the twist re: Annie's character....

Malcolm McDowell was annoying towards the end. Like I said, I walked out during a speech delivered to a certain bemasked individual that I couldn't bear to watch.

Ash28M
09-03-2007, 11:48 PM
went to the last showing last night....

I thought that parts of it were done incredibly well, then there were parts that were just embarrasing...I walked out before it was over, but there were probably only about 10 minutes left...I couldn't take the "I never knew you cared" speech...won't say anymore to avoid...um...spoilage.

Some observances:

I really like Danielle Harris, and would like to see her become a successful actress as an adult--she deserves to have decent roles come her way, but I didn't think she did anything special here, and hope she doesn't degrade into parts where she does nothing but show off her tits.

Dee Wallace was fabulous in this--again, she is an excellent actress who deserves to get good roles...While she did great with what she was given, she wasn't given much.

Sheri Moon did an amazing job once the scenes took place out side of the home...She plays trash pretty well, but the scenes at home were mostly a series of "fuck yous" that just about anyone could scream out and do a good job of looking trashy while doing so. (myself included) When she was visiting her little boy, I thought she was quite believeable, and she had me feeling for her character a lot in her last few scenes...So, I agree w/Ryan--don't know what all the bashing of her is about, I think she has the potential to be a great actress--would be nice to see what she can do with something outside of the horror genre (or at least a non-white trash role)

The girls were terrible. The original Annie and Linda may have been bimbos, but they had personality...I think both P.J. Soles and Nancy Loomis really need to both get some major credit for making the movie what it was, and I've always felt that they should have both gone on to much bigger and better things...

I did like the twist re: Annie's character....

Malcolm McDowell was annoying towards the end. Like I said, I walked out during a speech delivered to a certain bemasked individual that I couldn't bear to watch.

So you walked out on a movie that you didn't hate, because of some annoying dialog? I guess should have walked on the original then because I've always cringed at most of Donald Pleasence's dialog.

burieddeep
09-04-2007, 12:51 AM
I just came home from seeing it and I am disappointed. Much of the dialogue throughout the film was pretty bad and even embarrassing at times. Overall the performances were weak especially McDowell. The girls in it were very annoying making it hard for me to care about their characters as I did in the original.

I really didn't care for the mask in this one. The mask from the original is still the best. I also didn't like the fact that Michael Myers had long hair as a child and as an adult.

The movie was like watching two seperate films. The first half was a prequal to the original and the second half was a remake. The formula didn't work for me at all.

I hope Rob Zombie goes back to the drawing board and creates something original and refreshing like we saw in House of 1,000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects.

Mortis
09-04-2007, 01:04 AM
Ho1KC aka Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

I hope Rob Zombie goes back to the drawing board and creates something original and refreshing like we saw in House of 1,000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects.

MrKateB
09-04-2007, 04:01 AM
So you walked out on a movie that you didn't hate, because of some annoying dialog? I guess should have walked on the original then because I've always cringed at most of Donald Pleasence's dialog.


Yeah...pretty much sums it up...

Ash28M
09-04-2007, 06:24 PM
This looks like it's going to be another Love or Hate it film, much like House of 1000 Corpses:)

maskull
09-04-2007, 10:45 PM
This looks like it's going to be another Love or Hate it film, much like House of 1000 Corpses:)

Not really. Most of the people seemed to vote in the good-average area. Hardly love it or hate it. More like "this movie was ok".

Grim
09-04-2007, 11:14 PM
I felt it was good. Same with the workprint. I think you could probably mix and mash the great scenes from both and come out with an awesome film.

Agent Z
09-04-2007, 11:39 PM
Not really. Most of the people seemed to vote in the good-average area. Hardly love it or hate it. More like "this movie was ok".

I find myself settling on "average" for the workprint, and "below average" with the theatrical cut.

The film has so many uneven qualities, but I really appreciated the experiment Rob took with Michael Myers, in making him a sympathetic monster, ala Frankenstein's monster.

I'm not saying that I prefer it to the original film's tone, as it's not even close in that regard, but it was interesting to see another perspective, even with all of the miscues that came with it.

Sidenote: While I feel that the workprint version is superior to the theatrical cut, I am glad that Zombie decided to drop Gary Coleman being the bully who got beaten to death with the tree branch.

Talk about an awkward early casting decision!

"WhatchuhittinmewiththatbranchforWillis?!?" :(

So glad they brought in Daryl Sabara and reshot that scene for the final cut!

DrHerbertWest
09-05-2007, 02:10 AM
Sidenote: While I feel that the workprint version is superior to the theatrical cut, I am glad that Zombie decided to drop Gary Coleman being the bully who got beaten to death with the tree branch.

Talk about an awkward early casting decision!

"WhatchuhittinmewiththatbranchforWillis?!?" :(

So glad they brought in Daryl Sabara and reshot that scene for the final cut!

PLEASE tell me this really took place and exists. I have not seen the work print.

Xtro_13
09-05-2007, 07:21 AM
I found it somewhere between average and below average. One thing I did not like, was all the back story to Micheal. To me, that takes away the "boogeyman" aspect of it away that made the first film such a classic.

bigdaddyhorse
09-05-2007, 09:08 AM
PLEASE tell me this really took place and exists. I have not seen the work print.

It's not in the workprint, sorry man.:(
It may exist though.:)

Ash28M
09-05-2007, 01:11 PM
Not really. Most of the people seemed to vote in the good-average area. Hardly love it or hate it. More like "this movie was ok".


Nah Good is better then OK. I originally had OK listed Instead of average before the Mods changed it. Quite a few people had already voted above OK at the time. Good means it's a Good movie. Maybe not Love but OK means It was Alright, Average, Satisfactory, Mediocre.

baggio
09-05-2007, 08:09 PM
Below average

Zombie managed to make a mockery of the franchise. Something only Busta Rhymes did prior to this film.

Congrats Rob, you win the trophy.

P.S. - 2 things learned, Rob like cameos & rape. Contents in all 3 of his films to date.

maybrick
09-05-2007, 09:15 PM
I watched Resurrection the other night after seeing the remake.

I think Busta Rhymes gets a bad "rap".

You can laugh now.

maybrick
09-05-2007, 09:30 PM
Oh yeah, and, uh, Tyra Banks has a nice "Shape".

Anybody? Hello?

Is this mike on?

baggio
09-05-2007, 09:47 PM
Your on a roll. Hey everybody, try the veal. :D

mclay18
09-06-2007, 03:14 AM
Awful, just awful.

The thing that really killed this movie was the backstory and the editing. The backstory is derived (or inspired by) Zombie's previous The Devil's Rejects, but it works against the movie by removing what makes Michael so scary in the first place and why is Zombie is so fascinated with degrading women and white trailer trash? It's just many of the mistakes wrong with the remake.

And the editing... hoo boy, this is a case where a more seasoned, professional editor would've made the film a bit scary, if not suspenseful. The action scenes are cut up and incoherent, not to mention the death scenes were terribly inconsistent. While the quick cutting worked for 28 Weeks Later, the same technique doesn't work well in the remake of Halloween.

There were a few things I liked about the remake: the Michael mask, the music themes, Danielle Harris (and the twist involving her character), Malcolm McDowell and the numerous cameos. Too bad everything else was subpar or piss-poor. I'm not opposed to remakes, but this one is one of the worse remakes I've had the displeasure of seeing. A wasted opportunity.

Ash28M
09-06-2007, 04:05 AM
OK I just watched the Work Print. Earlier this week after choosing "Great" I kind of thought to myself I was being a bit generous. Now that I have seen the Work print I completely stand behind my rating. The work print I believe is the better version. It has a better flow, and it had an almost surreal like quality to it. I also like that it holds back on all those extra cameo appearances which in a way was distracting in the theatrical version. The film just made more sense. Why he killed the lady staff member at the asylum, why he was searching for his sister, everything just came together much smoother.

I just really thought it was a step up which is saying allot especially when I was already impressed with the theatrical version.

I don't know, for those who took an honest look at the film and still thought it was awful. Well you must really have a different idea then I do on what makes a good horror movie. Looking at the recent poll, I guess the Black Christmas remake is more up your ally. Personally I look for a bit more grit.

Agent Z
09-06-2007, 06:12 AM
It has a better flow, and it had an almost cereal like quality to it.

Yes, there were moments where I felt like I was in a giant bowl of corn flakes, which was being filled with milk.

It was a helpless (and delicious) feeling, to say the least. :(

Deus Ex Machina
09-06-2007, 11:59 AM
after seeing this I felt tainted....like Rob Zombie rubbed his taint in my face and projected it across the country

Ash28M
09-06-2007, 01:05 PM
Yes, there were moments where I felt like I was in a giant bowl of corn flakes, which was being filled with milk.

It was a helpless (and delicious) feeling, to say the least. :(

Actually I was eating raisin bran while I was watching it, that must have had in influence on my spelling.:)

zompirejoe
09-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Well below average, though I didn't expect much from the get go. I try to give Zombie a chance, but this movie blows( very interested in seeing the workprint though).Probably one of the worst endings I've ever seen. The movie has a few moments, but a few don't make up for the rest.When Laurie was trying to escape the Firefly, I mean Myers house,it just felt like we've seen it all before. I almost expected to see her in a bunny suit when she emerged.I don't know if it's just me or not, but the female victims really were brutalized in this movie. It seemed as if the male victims died pretty quick, while the women were tortured and suffered a lot more. Zombie is a huge and loyal horror fan, but it really does not show in his movies. I am torn as I had very low expectations for this movie, but I really wanted to like it and hoped I would be proven wrong. Oh well, wish in one hand, shit in the other.

mclay18
09-06-2007, 04:42 PM
I don't know, for those who took an honest look at the film and still thought it was awful. Well you must really have a different idea then I do on what makes a good horror movie. Looking at the recent poll, I guess the Black Christmas remake is more up your ally. Personally I look for a bit more grit.

Well, I like the classic horror movies and for me, a good horror movie constitutes a good story, good pacing, good acting and a great score. I'm really not a gorehound, but I don't mind gore being in movies anyway, as long as it's not distracting or unneeded.

For all three of his remak-- er, movies, Zombie just seems to borrow plots from the some of the many '70s grindhouse movies in his collection (like Last House on the Left and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and pass them off as original stuff. Using the '70s grindhouse inspirations for the Halloween remake was a big mistake.

Personally, I would've preferred to see the guys behind the Final Destination movies handle a Halloween remake rather than Zombie.

satans-sadists
09-06-2007, 06:26 PM
I rated this below average. My wife kinda liked it, but she's in no rush to see it again. Haven't seen the workprint.

Some random thoughts:

Malcolm McDowell was excellent as Dr. Loomis. He literally looked as though he aged nearly twenty years in this film. Sheri Moon Zombie's performance was decent, but wasn't all that different personality wise from Baby Firefly. Will Sheri always be playing white trash centerfolds?

The great Danny Trejo is always welcome in just about any movie I watch, but I wished he was given more to do here. Daeg Faerch was beyond annoying as the young Michael and lacked any credibility. Tyler Mane did nothing for me as the adult Michael and would have been better suited to a Slipknot video or stepping back in the wrestling ring for a pay per view event.

The murders were really overdone. Way too many characters were eliminated with little or no purpose. The shaky camera and generically loud bombastic musical score from Tyler Bates during the killings was consistently dull & uninspiring. Didn't feel sympathy for most of Michael's victims.

Worst of all, I didn't find the film scary or suspenseful in the least bit. I loved Rob Zombie's first two films: House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. His grindhouse filmmaking style felt totally out of place in this remake.

Jamm
09-06-2007, 08:04 PM
Normally I stay away from these threads until I've seen the movie but I just couldn't resist for this one. I have free tickets (any night, any theater) and I'm now wondering that even if the movie is free if it'll still be a waste of time and gas money to go.

latenite
09-07-2007, 03:19 PM
I put "good" but now I'm not sure. It was uneven. The backstory was bad, even embarrassing and/or unintentionally funny at points, but there were a few great scenes mixed in there. Too much bad writing, bad filmmaking, and bad acting in the first half of the movie. The closest thing Zombie has come to making a solid movie is House of 1,000 Corpses, ironic since it was his first movie.

The adult Myers portion of the movie was significantly better than the first half. Some of the teen killings were disappointing but the Danielle Harris half-dead scene was AWESOME - not because of the boobs but because of the sheer intensity and pain going on - and the movie really picked up after that. The theatrical ending was crap compared to the workprint but it still left me satisfied and more forgiving of the rather lousy first half of the movie. Overall, Zombie made some great writing decisions and really made some things work better emotionally than they did in the original. That is not to say this can in any way compare to the original, which is a masterpiece.

I haven't seen any of the Halloween sequels in awhile but I think this probably rates as my 2nd or 3rd favorite in the series.

maybrick
09-07-2007, 03:47 PM
The remake is so different that I can't rank it with ANY of the old series. It is what it is and that's all that it is.

Mok
09-07-2007, 04:25 PM
90% of Workprint < 90% of Theatrical
Workprint Ending > Theatrical Ending

Myron Breck
09-07-2007, 04:56 PM
I trusted the reviews/comments of my fellow posters when it came to DEVIL'S REJECTS and found that I completely disagreed with the majority of the reviews (which were favorable). I plan on renting this one for free when it comes out on DVD. Rob Zombie is a joke as a moviemaker; unfortunately for us, he didn't go the same route as Dee Snider.

rhett
09-09-2007, 09:58 PM
Awful.

Is it ironic that the most professional looking photography in the film was the Super8 home video footage?

Hellbilly
09-10-2007, 03:30 AM
Halloween (1978) was all about: Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasence & 'Michael Myers'.
Halloween (2007) was all about: 'Michael Myers', Sheri Moon Zombie & Malcolm McDowell.

Laurie Strode turned into a giggling supporting character. That was my only gripe with the remake. Other than that, I thought it was good.

Mok
09-10-2007, 03:07 PM
Awful.

Now I like it even better :D

rhett
09-10-2007, 04:50 PM
Now I like it even better :D
And you even less. :D

ThievingWinona
09-10-2007, 05:03 PM
I don't mean this as a comment of disrespect to the people who genuinely enjoyed Zombie's Halloween film, but I've used the film as a way to find the reviewers who have no credibility whatsoever.

I don't really see how people can argue that this movie is good with a straight face. It's a train wreck from beginning to end. That being said, people can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean they can argue that the film is good.

It's kind of like, Plan 9 From Outer Space is undeniably an atrocity of cinema...but I like it. I can differentiate my personal feelings of enjoyment for a movie from the film itself. Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such.

Look, I realize there are gray areas, but Halloween was so ungodly awful that there really is no excuse. I'm sure all arguments would stop if the film's supporters would say "yeah, taken on its own merits it sucks, but I liked it anyway". There, everyone is appeased and everyone knows where everyone is coming from.

But this is the internet and that isn't going to happen :D

Ash28M
09-10-2007, 05:16 PM
anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such.


That's funny I was thinking the same thing about you after your review.

Enough with the elitist attitude. Give it a rest. Horror is probably the most subjective genre there is. If a film freaks me out, scares or creeps me out. I really don't care how technically good a critic thinks it is. It did it's job. Isn't that why we grew a love for horror films in the first place?

This is something general film critics do not understand and why their views rarely match the horror communities.

Please enlighten me on recent films that you thought were good, I'm sure there will be quite a few people on this board including Rhett that would think you overrated.

The difference is we wouldn't make the condescending comments that you just made.

When it comes to horror films there is no checklist.

If a director gets the right mood, tone or atmosphere, sometimes that's all you need.

rhett
09-10-2007, 05:25 PM
The difference is we wouldn't make the condescending comments that you just made.
The increasing problem with this board is that yeah, many people would.

Ash28M
09-10-2007, 05:29 PM
The increasing problem with this board is that yeah, many people would.

You might be right. I don't remember it always being that way though.

What people forget is that most of the people on this board have watched 1000's of horror films and yes many even more then you have ThievingWinona. If you watch that many horror films you are going to know what makes a good horror film. After that it just comes down to personal tastes.

Mok
09-10-2007, 09:54 PM
And you even less. :D
Hahaha, awesome. I feel like a better man :)

I don't mean this as a comment of disrespect to the people who genuinely enjoyed Zombie's Halloween film, but I've used the film as a way to find the reviewers who have no credibility whatsoever.

I don't really see how people can argue that this movie is good with a straight face. It's a train wreck from beginning to end. That being said, people can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean they can argue that the film is good.

It's kind of like, Plan 9 From Outer Space is undeniably an atrocity of cinema...but I like it. I can differentiate my personal feelings of enjoyment for a movie from the film itself. Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such.

Look, I realize there are gray areas, but Halloween was so ungodly awful that there really is no excuse. I'm sure all arguments would stop if the film's supporters would say "yeah, taken on its own merits it sucks, but I liked it anyway". There, everyone is appeased and everyone knows where everyone is coming from.

But this is the internet and that isn't going to happen

Although I admire your broad-sweeping, back-handed way of insulting people, I still have to say: fuck you and your vapid existence (no disrespect ;) ).

Luna
09-10-2007, 10:26 PM
So, let me get this straight:

People who liked Halloween and don't feel a pressing need to appease people who hated it, people who have some sort of strange desire to pressure everyone else into apologizing for their clearly appalling lack of taste, by saying "Gee, I know it sucks but..." couldn't possibly know a damned thing about film.

Good to know! I'll add that fact to my Big Book of Knowledge Gleaned From The Internets.

bigdaddyhorse
09-11-2007, 12:38 AM
I'll add that fact to my Big Book of Knowledge Gleaned From The Internets.

Let me know when you put that book out, I want to buy a copy, off the interbet of course.:)

Luna
09-11-2007, 12:42 AM
I have plans to do that through Lulu. Watch this space. :p

_pi_
09-11-2007, 12:57 AM
Enough with the elitist attitude. Give it a rest.

You know, I'd say that ThievingWinona's post was anything but elitist.

It's true what he says - we should all acknowledge it: We love a lot of films even though we know they are bad. We can't help ourselves, we just like them.

It's a good point and a valid one too.

That said, I still haven't seen Halloween 2007 so I have no idea if this applies to it or not. And of course, whether or not this applies to any film or not is always a matter of personal judgment. But really, even though I looooove Valentine and Congo and Black Christmas 2006 (and would probably take the middle one with me to a desert island) I'd never argue that they are very good.

onebyone
09-11-2007, 01:01 AM
You know, I'd say that ThievingWinona's post was anything but elitist.

It's true what he says - we should all acknowledge it: We love a lot of films even though we know they are bad. We can't help ourselves, we just like them.

It's a good point and a valid one too.

That said, I still haven't seen Halloween 2007 so I have no idea if this applies to it or not. And of course, whether or not this applies to any film or not is always a matter of personal judgment. But really, even though I looooove Valentine and Congo and Black Christmas 2006 (and would probably take the middle one with me to a desert island) I'd never argue that they are very good.

It is true of A LOT of movies. I have a big dvd collection of so bad they are good movies and am proud of it. However, it does not apply to why some of us, including me, like Halloween. I think it was a good movie, period. Hence a comment like, "Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such." is the very meaning of elitist to me.

The whole part about needing to appease the haters though well, that was just strange. You learn something new every day.

_pi_
09-11-2007, 01:08 AM
Hence a comment like, "Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such." is the very meaning of elitist to me.

Yes, agreed. Fair enough. I guess his larger argument was what stuck with me, but reading the post again ... well, yeah ... it is kind of ... strange ;)

But strange is goooood. It adds fuel to the fire, and prolongs fun threads like this one! :)

welb25
09-11-2007, 01:24 AM
Yeah, I didn't like this at all. I saw the theatrical cut so I guess I'll give the workprint a shot.

Livingdead102
09-11-2007, 02:20 AM
Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such.

That was very kind of you to tell me that you weren't intending to disrespect me by saying I should be regarded as knowing nothing about movies. I hope you understand I intend no disrespect when I say that your sweeping, fallacious, obnoxious (to me) generalizations kind of make me inclined to disregard your opinions as juvenile and, perhaps, uninformed, and in any case not really worth putting forth special effort to parse. That's just me, though.

VenicuS
09-11-2007, 03:41 AM
I don't mean this as a comment of disrespect to the people who genuinely enjoyed Zombie's Halloween film, but I've used the film as a way to find the reviewers who have no credibility whatsoever.

I don't really see how people can argue that this movie is good with a straight face. It's a train wreck from beginning to end. That being said, people can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean they can argue that the film is good.

It's kind of like, Plan 9 From Outer Space is undeniably an atrocity of cinema...but I like it. I can differentiate my personal feelings of enjoyment for a movie from the film itself. Halloween is just garbage as a film, and in my view anyway (again, no disrespect intended to people who liked it), anyone who says it's awesome and tries to defend it is an immediate red flag of "I know nothing about movies!" and should be regarded as such.

Look, I realize there are gray areas, but Halloween was so ungodly awful that there really is no excuse. I'm sure all arguments would stop if the film's supporters would say "yeah, taken on its own merits it sucks, but I liked it anyway". There, everyone is appeased and everyone knows where everyone is coming from.

But this is the internet and that isn't going to happen :D

Well thank you for those blatant contradictions. "I've used the film as a way to find the reviewers who have no credibility whatsoever". Please, nobody on these boards (at least from what I've seen) professes to be Siskel, or Roeper, or Gene Schalit, or any sort of professional critic in any way shape, form or fashion. We're all movie fans, period. I like what I like, you like what you like, Luna likes what she likes, BigDaddyHorse likes what he likes, so on, and so forth, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Individuality, it's a beautiful thing, especially when we can all engage in a mature discourse on a given topic in such a way that honest and open dialog is the end result without resulting to petty name-calling (Mok can get testy at times, but we like 'im anyways. :D).

"people can like whatever they want but that doesn't mean they can argue that the film is good." Well, actually, they can. That's what debate is all about. It's not so much about trying to convince someone that opinion A is right or wrong, but more of "I've heard what you think, this is what I think, take from it what you will".

" It's kind of like, Plan 9 From Outer Space is undeniably an atrocity of cinema...but I like it. I can differentiate my personal feelings of enjoyment for a movie from the film itself." Well isn't that what formulating an opinion actually revolves around at it's most basic, whether or not you enjoy it? You say Poyay-to, I say Potah-to?

Basically, opinions, and all that. You have yours, you've voiced it, and that's a great thing. By all means, tell us you don't like it, tell us why you don't like it, and give us justification on why you don't like it, but don't harp on somebody else because they might happen to like it .

Zillamon51
09-11-2007, 05:05 AM
I voted "good."

I really liked the new "origin" stuff. The kid playing young Mike is both sympathetic, and believable in his creepy rage. Tyler Mane makes a truly imposing adult Myers, both in and out of the loony bin.

The "remake" part, I have problems with. The characters are annoying, the dialogue is inane, and while it covers the same ground, Carpenter's original was much better. The actress playing Laurie had potential, if she was written as well as Jamie Lee. She isn't. Her friends are bitches, and I didn't buy scuzzy old Brad Dourif as the sheriff.

Also, I'm no Thomas Carder (http://www.capalert.com/now_playing.htm), but the whole movie was needlessly sleazy. Did we really need to see Sherri Moon's ass, or Ken Foree's porno mag? No. And the fate of Danielle Harris (who was great as the girl in parts 4 and 5) is degrading. I felt sorry for the actress a lot more than the character.

Overall, this is a must-see for Halloween and Zombie fans. Could have been great. As is, I would say it's most like Halloween II, and much better than some of the crappy sequels. I'm looking forward to the DVD, so I can experiment with watching the Zombie prequel footage before the real '78 Halloween.

ThievingWinona
09-11-2007, 03:58 PM
nice to see some light debate and personal attacks! :D

Look, I realize this is an internet message board and everybody just assumes the worst when they read a post. My intent was never to insult the people who liked the film, but rather to point out that from a purely cinematic level, the film is terrible.

Again, people can like whatever they want, but that doesn't mean what they like is, objectively, a good movie. If you think that's elitist, then whatever. I can't really argue with someone's views on elitism.

As for my comment about the films supporters just saying "the film sucked, but I liked it anyway", that's partly my fault for not clarifying. I'm of the opinion that most people who liked the film just don't recognize good films, objectively. That's my opinion and it's kind of sad that there is so much venom towards an opinion. I never singled anybody out in particular (again, my intent was to be civil, but unsurprisingly it was taken out of context), yet the posters who responded with insults (the Halloween supporters, right?) only reinforce my opinion that their views on movies aren't to be taken seriously. That's just my view on this. I'm not telling everybody what to think here and forcing people to look at things my way, I was simply giving my outlook on things. It's unfortunate that the Halloween supporters seemed to take it as an attack on their person. Believe me, that was not the intention.

The fact of the matter is this: bad movies exist. Some people may like those bad movies, but that doesn't mean the movies in and of themselves are suddenly "good". That's not opinion, that's just fact. In my view, if somebody can't differentiate between a bad movie and it being something they like and enjoy, well then that person doesn't have a valid opinion to me when it comes to discussing movies.

When I say to the supporters "Just agree it sucks, but say you like it", that's not trying to disrespect you in a backhanded way. From my view, I can have much more respect for someone who recognizes what a poorly constructed film Halloween is and all of its other faults, while still saying "but you know what, I really dug it". It seems some of your gut reaction to my post was taking it as an insult on your ability to enjoy certain movies. That's not the case at all! Anybody can like whatever they want!

In closing, once again, I'm not and it was never my intention to demean anybody on this board. It sucks that some of you decided to strike back with insults rather than attempt to engage my comments on a critical level, but this is an internet message board, so that's expected :)

Still, I hope my comments and position have been clarified a bit. I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion with anybody and welcome any questions that you have. Now, can we all have a group hug and move on? :)

Ash28M
09-11-2007, 04:45 PM
The fact of the matter is this: bad movies exist. Some people may like those bad movies, but that doesn't mean the movies in and of themselves are suddenly "good". That's not opinion, that's just fact. In my view, if somebody can't differentiate between a bad movie and it being something they like and enjoy, well then that person doesn't have a valid opinion to me when it comes to discussing movies.

When I say to the supporters "Just agree it sucks, but say you like it", that's not trying to disrespect you in a backhanded way. From my view, I can have much more respect for someone who recognizes what a poorly constructed film Halloween is and all of its other faults, while still saying "but you know what, I really dug it".:)


It's a Fact that this isn't a good film? Did you actually say that. What the hell are you talking about? Is there a magic mathematical formula on how to make a good horror film I'm not aware of? Listen, I think the Halloween Remake is a good film period (Workprint more then Theatrical). Not a "so bad it's good film" but a good film. I like it's gritty feel, I think the workprint has a surreal aspect and flow to it. It's not as good at the original and not even the best of the recent remakes but it worked for me.

I really don't care if you don't take my views seriously. Who the hell are you that your views should be taken over anyone else's? If you think this is the worst film you have ever seen then you really don't deserve to be taken seriously.

onebyone
09-11-2007, 04:49 PM
Ash you just don't recognize good films, objectively. Didn't you get the memo??

Ash28M
09-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Ash you just don't recognize good films, objectively. Didn't you get the memo??

I might as well just stop watch horror films as I'm obviously just staring blankly at the screen reacting to boob shots and cat scares.

satans-sadists
09-11-2007, 05:02 PM
[QUOTE=Zillamon51;505188]Did we really need to see Sherri Moon's ass, or Ken Foree's porno mag?

Yes to the first question! :evil: Why not to answer the second question.

Mok
09-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Yeah, Winonatheif, just stay down man. You had more credibility being a flat-out asshole rather than suddenly caring for people's feelings. You know what? I'm with you in your way of thinking. Anyone who tells me they like Uwe Boll really lets me down the same way - and yes, I do mean disrespect.

Personally I do like both versions for different reasons. Kind of like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

_pi_
09-11-2007, 05:49 PM
This whole discussion really reminds me of conversations I often have with my friends about music.

Like, how they can't possibly take me seriously because I love Avril Lavigne or Girls Aloud. It doesn't matter what else I listen to, even if it is "respectable" by their standards, because Avril and the Girls simply aren't cool and suck and so must my taste in music.

I did kind of agree with what I thought was Winona's point is his first post: that some people seem to be a little bit protective of films that even they themselves must admit are not really good.

But it IS elitist to think that everyone shares the same opinion of what's good and what's bad - or rather that your own idea of what's good and bad is the prevailing one.

So go Congo, go Girls Aloud and go Halloween 2007! Screw The Beatles and Led Zeppelin and Halloween '78 and Dawn of the Dead.

Oh, and Scream is the best horror film of the 90s, no contest. Followed closely by Scream 2.

Luna
09-11-2007, 08:34 PM
I did kind of agree with what I thought was Winona's point is his first post: that some people seem to be a little bit protective of films that even they themselves must admit are not really good. That was where the problem arose for me... I actually liked this movie on a serious horror film level. Everyone knows I love cheesy movies too, and I appreciate levels of cheese and pure badness most other people have very little tolerance for... but I did not see this film in that light at all. It was brutal and kept me fully entertained and engaged for its entirety, which is more than I can say for a lot of horror movies these days. I damn well know the difference between bad-good and good-good and to me, Halloween was of the latter. That's really all I have to add to this discussion because other than this, it's really a question of differing tastes and those arguments are fairly useless to me.

And you go, girlfriend, with your Girls Aloud and stuff. :D

spawningblue
09-12-2007, 03:36 AM
nice to see some light debate and personal attacks! :D

Look, I realize this is an internet message board and everybody just assumes the worst when they read a post. My intent was never to insult the people who liked the film, but rather to point out that from a purely cinematic level, the film is terrible.

Again, people can like whatever they want, but that doesn't mean what they like is, objectively, a good movie. If you think that's elitist, then whatever. I can't really argue with someone's views on elitism.

As for my comment about the films supporters just saying "the film sucked, but I liked it anyway", that's partly my fault for not clarifying. I'm of the opinion that most people who liked the film just don't recognize good films, objectively. That's my opinion and it's kind of sad that there is so much venom towards an opinion. I never singled anybody out in particular (again, my intent was to be civil, but unsurprisingly it was taken out of context), yet the posters who responded with insults (the Halloween supporters, right?) only reinforce my opinion that their views on movies aren't to be taken seriously. That's just my view on this. I'm not telling everybody what to think here and forcing people to look at things my way, I was simply giving my outlook on things. It's unfortunate that the Halloween supporters seemed to take it as an attack on their person. Believe me, that was not the intention.

The fact of the matter is this: bad movies exist. Some people may like those bad movies, but that doesn't mean the movies in and of themselves are suddenly "good". That's not opinion, that's just fact. In my view, if somebody can't differentiate between a bad movie and it being something they like and enjoy, well then that person doesn't have a valid opinion to me when it comes to discussing movies.

When I say to the supporters "Just agree it sucks, but say you like it", that's not trying to disrespect you in a backhanded way. From my view, I can have much more respect for someone who recognizes what a poorly constructed film Halloween is and all of its other faults, while still saying "but you know what, I really dug it". It seems some of your gut reaction to my post was taking it as an insult on your ability to enjoy certain movies. That's not the case at all! Anybody can like whatever they want!

In closing, once again, I'm not and it was never my intention to demean anybody on this board. It sucks that some of you decided to strike back with insults rather than attempt to engage my comments on a critical level, but this is an internet message board, so that's expected :)

Still, I hope my comments and position have been clarified a bit. I'd be more than happy to continue the discussion with anybody and welcome any questions that you have. Now, can we all have a group hug and move on? :)

hmm... so what do you consider good horror films? You still haven't answered what you didn't like about this film and how it is so terrible, so how does your opinion matter anymore then anyone else's? AS well, who are you to decide what is good or bad, or know whether we just liked it because we are fan boys or like bad films? I, like most on here thought it was a well made tense horrific film. Oh, and for that matter, lets see some horror movies that you made that show that you can do a better job.

Livingdead102
09-12-2007, 04:52 AM
You might have to better define "well made". If you define it as "better than average", you have an uphill battle--right now, 48 participants label it better than average and 49 participants label it worse than average. If "well made" is defined as "mostly competent", you may have a case.

TW, what you fail to recognize is that most of us--maybe all of us--don't have any reason to believe that your opinion is the one that defines quality vs. lack-of. You say that we cannot honestly say this film is well-crafted, but fail to tell us why other than you found it poorly crafted. You say that an individual who declares that the film is well-done and offers reasons for this opinion clearly knows nothing about movies, without telling us why we should value your judgment over any other. You seem to say, though you fall short of explicitly declaring, that if someone fails to recognize a film as bad when you have done so, in your opinion, their thoughts on movies is no longer valid. Yet you fail to enlighten us as to why your opinion is so authoritative in the first place. You modestly choose not to declare your opinion as the definitive truth on every given matter, yet you declare your opinion as the definitive truth on this particular matter without telling us why we should care more about what you think (and vociferously claim as fact) than what others think.

Simply put, you present fallacious arguments and kindly, gently insult those who may disagree. Why would we want to engage in a thoughtful discussion under those circumstances?

spawningblue
09-12-2007, 04:56 AM
haha yes Livingdead, you pretty much summed up what i wrote but in a more intelligent manner haha.

ThievingWinona
09-12-2007, 05:34 AM
most of us--maybe all of us--don't have any reason to believe that your opinion is the one that defines quality vs. lack-of.

That's a fair enough point, and really, there's no way I am going to be able to articulate that to anyone on this board. And even if I could, I don't think anybody would care or believe me. I suppose my only defense to this question would be to offer qualifications, but then I'd probably be seen as elitist. It's a no-win situation from my point of view.

You say that an individual who declares that the film is well-done and offers reasons for this opinion clearly knows nothing about movies, without telling us why we should value your judgment over any other.

I never said people needed to believe my opinions or judgments on a given film. I simply said that from my point of view, these people know nothing about movies. Therefore, if I see someone praise Zombie's Halloween film, by default I'm going to look suspiciously upon any of their comments on subsequent films. Nowhere did I declare that I am the be all end all authority on movies and nowhere did I say people must listen to me. I simply stated things from my point of view. I think it's telling about those that overreacted to my statement.

Simply put, you present fallacious arguments and kindly, gently insult those who may disagree. Why would we want to engage in a thoughtful discussion under those circumstances?

And I completely get where you're coming from. This kind of goes back to my response earlier in this post. I mean, I've studied film and the horror genre for many years. I've done scene-by-scene breakdowns of horror films for classes to understand how good films work and operate; what the mechanisms are that make them succeed. I've read countless books on the genre as well as hundreds of critical scholarly looks by people like Robin Wood, Tanya Kryzywinksa, and Joan Hawkins. I've actually directed a horror film that has gotten decent reviews (http://deadlantern.com/index.php?page=features&feature_date=2007-03-14). I've seen thousands of horror films and, all things considered, think I have a pretty good handle on this topic. Of course, now the obligatory "You're an elitist" comments will come out. Whatever, but the fact of the matter is that my interest in the horror genre, aesthetics, and film in general for that matter, goes much further than simply "this movie sucked/this movie was good".

I have absolutely no expectation that anything I've written will change anyone's mind on whether my view's are "authoritative", though it should be pointed out that I never said they were, only that from my personal point of view, some people just have wrong outlooks on things. If you think that's some sort of nice insult to people, well then so be it. I don't think that's an insult, I think that's a fact and usually the people who get defensive and pissed off about it are the ones who can't handle getting told that.

But unlike those people, it doesn't bother me if someone says they think my point of view is bunk. That's fine with me, I don't lose any sleep over it. Their insults and defensive posturing aren't going to make me change how I view their opinions (note that this is completely separate from them as people. Too often on internet message boards, people take criticism as a personal attack on themselves as people rather than the opinion at hand), nor will anything I say have much effect on how you guys feel. No biggie. My only issue is that there is no real need to get pissy about such trivial things.

So, if you want to get into a point by point debate on the merits of Zombie's Halloween film, I'll be more than happy to do so. But I suppose I should start by asking a simple question:

Do you guys believe there is a such thing as a "bad" movie and if so, what criteria do you ascribe to it?

Mortis
09-12-2007, 12:16 PM
Like most?

I, like most on here thought it was a well made tense horrific film.

Ash28M
09-12-2007, 01:56 PM
That's a fair enough point, and really, there's no way I am going to be able to articulate that to anyone on this board. And even if I could, I don't think anybody would care or believe me. I suppose my only defense to this question would be to offer qualifications, but then I'd probably be seen as elitist. It's a no-win situation from my point of view.?

So you wish you were able to articulate how much better of a Judge you are then us on what makes a good horror film?

Actually your right don't bother nobody would believe you.



I never said people needed to believe my opinions or judgments on a given film. I simply said that from my point of view, these people know nothing about movies. Therefore, if I see someone praise Zombie's Halloween film, by default I'm going to look suspiciously upon any of their comments on subsequent films.
?

OK so no matter how many horror classics we have loved and analysed and studied at nauseam in the past. Just because you think the Halloween remake is the "worst film of all time" (sorry those kinds of IMDB blanket statements still makes you loose major credibility) any one who disagrees with you knows nothing about horror?


And I completely get where you're coming from. This kind of goes back to my response earlier in this post. I mean, I've studied film and the horror genre for many years. I've done scene-by-scene breakdowns of horror films for classes to understand how good films work and operate; what the mechanisms are that make them succeed. I've read countless books on the genre as well as hundreds of critical scholarly looks by people like Robin Wood, Tanya Kryzywinksa, and Joan Hawkins. I've actually directed a horror film that has gotten decent reviews (http://deadlantern.com/index.php?page=features&feature_date=2007-03-14). I've seen thousands of horror films and, all things considered, think I have a pretty good handle on this topic. Of course, now the obligatory "You're an elitist" comments will come out. Whatever, but the fact of the matter is that my interest in the horror genre, aesthetics, and film in general for that matter, goes much further than simply "this movie sucked/this movie was good".


Yes you do sound very conceded. Lets take for example, I'm pretty sure I've read (I apologize if I'm talking about the wrong guy from Dead Lantern) you put down films like BWP, Open Water, Carrie. films that the vast majority of "respected film critics" have rated highly. Yet you are the Messiah of film so I guess that these critics don't know what constitutes a good movie either?

If there was a right way and a wrong way to make a horror film Hollywood would have bottled that formula long ago. Yet they rarely make a good one why is that?


So, if you want to get into a point by point debate on the merits of Zombie's Halloween film, I'll be more than happy to do so. But I suppose I should start by asking a simple question:

Do you guys believe there is a such thing as a "bad" movie and if so, what criteria do you ascribe to it?

Of course we do, I already listed a few posts back that personally I thought Black Christmas, and The Fog where bad examples of horror films. I'll throw in House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil Apocalypse, Pulse.

Why? because for the most part "IMO" they played it safe, The acting was wooden there was nothing in them that inspired any emotion out of me, the characters and plot were also by the numbers.

You know what though, what makes horror films differ then any other genre is that they can have a number of flaws but as long as they get the right tone, mood or atmosphere or feel. it can make up for all that.

A horror film can be technically well done but if it doesn't evoke emotion out of you, does it fully succeed a horror film? Everyone has life experiences that are going to come into play. This is why there can't be a formula.

And I too have seen 1000's of horror movies and read every horror related book and magazine I could get my hands on.

Mok
09-12-2007, 03:13 PM
Look all he meant to say was that if you like this film, he'll take your opinion with a grain of salt when it come to other movies. It's like when people have this conversation: "Ebert hated _______." Which is countered with, "Yeah but he liked _______."

I understand that way of thinking. At the same time, he deserves to be flammed for telling everyone about it. :D

Ash28M
09-12-2007, 03:45 PM
Look all he meant to say was that if you like this film, he'll take your opinion with a grain of salt

And you don't realize how ridiculous that sounds? That's like me completely dismissing Ebert's knowledge of film as obsolete because he gave FearDotCom a good review or Rhett because he liked The Wicker Man remake.

It's funny how everyone thinks the best reviewers are the ones who agree with us.

ThievingWinona
09-12-2007, 04:17 PM
Of course we do, I already listed a few posts back that personally I thought Black Christmas, and The Fog where bad examples of horror films. I'll throw in House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Resident Evil Apocalypse, Pulse.

Why? because for the most part "IMO" they played it safe, The acting was wooden there was nothing in them that inspired any emotion out of me, the characters and plot were also by the numbers.

OK, so we've established that you DO believe that bad movies exist.

Just so I double check, are you saying these movies are "bad movies" or are you saying you just don't like them? I mean, if Rhett or Roger Ebert said Black Christmas and The Fog were good films, would you suddenly then believe they weren't bad movies?

Just trying to figure out your position

As for some of your reasons to what makes a good horror film: what do you mean by "play it safe"? The fact that you said "for the most part" and "in my opinion" sorta leads me to believe that there were indeed good things in these films for you. What were they? What types of films do you consider to be good and how do they differentiate from, say, House of the Dead?

I mean, it could be argued and pointed out that Halloween had "wooden characters" (with nary any sort of development whatsoever, I might add). What types of emotion did Halloween bring out of you? Terror, I believe you said. Name the scenes and instances where you felt "terror". The plot of Halloween is also "by the numbers" (Myers kills as a kid, escapes sanitarium, murders the girls, etc.).

Jamm
09-12-2007, 04:19 PM
I've actually directed a horror film that has gotten decent reviews (http://deadlantern.com/index.php?page=features&feature_date=2007-03-14).
Well, you should have told us that earlier!! Then no one would have questioned your supreme authority on the matter!

spawningblue
09-12-2007, 04:38 PM
No offense ThievingWinona but you seem kind of conceited. Your movie looks interesting, but when you've done one movie you don't really have the right to be full of yourself, and say that all these movies are bad because you've shot one and know how to make a good horror movie. That will turn off a lot of people who might have checked out your movie otherwise.

An opinion is an opinion, there is no right or wrong, and we appreciate you saying you didn't like Halloween, although it would have been nice if you wrote a review and stated what was so bad about it to you. I can find faults with it as well, although I still enjoyed a lot about it, and thought the directing was done quite well. It's the fact that you blatantly came out and said that whoever liked it is wrong, and you consider them fools in the movie world for liking it. If you wanted to just ignore any opinions from those who liked it, then that would have been fine, but you didn't have to post that, and make yourself come off as a jackass. Also, I am sure there are many on here who have read the same books and magazines you have, and there are a few on here as well who have done their own movies. It doesn't make them or you an expert on what makes the perfect horror film.

Mok
09-12-2007, 04:46 PM
And you don't realize how ridiculous that sounds? That's like me completely dismissing Ebert's knowledge of film as obsolete because he gave FearDotCom a good review or Rhett because he liked The Wicker Man remake.

It's funny how everyone thinks the best reviewers are the ones who agree with us.

It's not really ridiculous. Calling that ridiculous undermines Ebert's profession. People read his reviews because there is a level of trust established based on the validity of his opinion. If he were to break that trust by liking a shitty movie, then can you blame someone for thinking twice about what he has to say?

Ash28M
09-12-2007, 04:52 PM
OK, so we've established that you DO believe that bad movies exist.

Just so I double check, are you saying these movies are "bad movies" or are you saying you just don't like them? I mean, if Rhett or Roger Ebert said Black Christmas and The Fog were good films, would you suddenly then believe they weren't bad movies?


Yeah I'm a friggin sheep that why I like The Halloween remake when every critic hates it.

I haven't seen those films in a while so I'm not going to go into detail about why I think they are "Bad" films. Whatever that means everyone has their own tastes. There are many films I don't care for but I can still recognize them as well constructed.

I'm sure everyone in your film class agree's on every film right?


Just trying to figure out your position

As for some of your reasons to what makes a good horror film: what do you mean by "play it safe"? The fact that you said "for the most part" and "in my opinion" sorta leads me to believe that there were indeed good things in these films for you. What were they? What types of films do you consider to be good and how do they differentiate from, say, House of the Dead?


By playing it safe I mean they stayed in the PG13 framework and it felt like they were just catering to the market that would lend to the most profit.

As for the most part. I meant I named a few films, they are all different. I'm not talking about each film individually.


I mean, it could be argued and pointed out that Halloween had "wooden characters" (with nary any sort of development whatsoever, I might add). What types of emotion did Halloween bring out of you? Terror, I believe you said. Name the scenes and instances where you felt "terror". The plot of Halloween is also "by the numbers" (Myers kills as a kid, escapes sanitarium, murders the girls, etc.).


I never said "Terror" I believe that was someone else. I said I liked it's gritty feel and the surreal feel feel of the workprint.

You haven't answers any of my questions so I'm not waste any more time with this.

Have you noticed not many people agree with you?

Ash28M
09-12-2007, 04:56 PM
It's not really ridiculous. Calling that ridiculous undermines Ebert's profession. People read his reviews because there is a level of trust established based on the validity of his opinion. If he were to break that trust by liking a shitty movie, then can you blame someone for thinking twice about what he has to say?

So if I was a racist simply because one person from a different race did me harm. That would be logical?

Mok
09-12-2007, 05:02 PM
So if I was a racist simply because one person from a different race did me harm. That would be logical?

Thread officially
GODWINNED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)

ThievingWinona
09-12-2007, 05:53 PM
No offense ThievingWinona but you seem kind of conceited. Your movie looks interesting, but when you've done one movie you don't really have the right to be full of yourself, and say that all these movies are bad because you've shot one and know how to make a good horror movie. That will turn off a lot of people who might have checked out your movie otherwise.

Um, I never said that A) my film was any good (which I don't think it is) and B) that I was some supreme authoritative being because I made one.

I was responding to the gentlemen who made some comment to the effect of "well let's see the movie you have made?!". I was using it as an example that I have worked within the horror genre. There's nothing conceited about that. Believe me, my film is not some amazing piece of work by any means :)

I haven't seen those films in a while so I'm not going to go into detail about why I think they are "Bad" films. Whatever that means everyone has their own tastes. There are many films I don't care for but I can still recognize them as well constructed.

Well now you're just doing what you're bitching that I'm not. That is, saying a movie sucks without mentioning the reasons why. That's called hypocrisy, right?

By playing it safe I mean they stayed in the PG13 framework and it felt like they were just catering to the market that would lend to the most profit.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with horror fans today. Instantly, if something is PG-13, it must equal shit. There are plenty of horror films rated G and PG that are far more unsettling and horrific than any R rated film that's been released recently. I mean, what's the problem with PG-13 horror films? Not enough gore for you? Gore doesn't necessarily equate to good horror.

I said I liked it's gritty feel and the surreal feel feel of the workprint.

So grittiness and surrealness constitute a "good movie" in your opinion?

The only reason I ask is because you still don't seem to understand my point of view on this.

My position is that there is a difference between emotionally enjoying a movie and a movie's quality. You mention a "formula" for creating a good movie. To a degree, there is one. Included in that formula is structure, narrative, editing, pacing, acting, scriptwork, cinematography, etc. etc. Those movies that get the formula correct, and the director's that can solve that formula, create movies that supersede one's on personal feelings of like and dislike.

Where you lose me is that on one hand you say there is a such thing as a bad movie, but then on the other hand you say it's all in someone's point of view. Therefore, by your own estimation, there can't be a such thing as a bad movie because there is always going to be someone who likes what you consider a bad movie. Somebody out there really digs Black Christmas, therefore it can't be a bad film in your mind because it's quality is defined by the person who watches it, not by an objective reading of a film.

And that's fine if you believe that, most people do, and most people operate that way. Personally, I don't, and I feel you can make a distinction between quality and personal taste.

Ash28M
09-12-2007, 06:17 PM
And that's fine if you believe that, most people do, and most people operate that way. Personally, I don't, and I feel you can make a distinction between quality and personal taste.

You can never separate the two completely and I've yet to find a reviewer that can. Personal enjoyment always comes into play on reviewer rating.

Sure there are horror films where the subject matter didn't appeal to me that I can still recognize were well made. Many times I've gone back to those films and enjoy them more the second time. I'd be hard pressed though to think of a film I Hated yet thought was well very well constructed.

The only way that would be possible is if I found the film offensive and I don't get offended by art.

Please though give me your long list of horror films that you Hate yet you feel are brilliantly constructed.

Bobbywoodhogan
09-12-2007, 08:16 PM
I just watched a Screener version, I think it may have been the workprint. I wasn't impressed TBH. The reason Michael Myers is so scary is because there is no reason why he flips, he just does. In this you just get the feeling he is a psyhotic person not something that is pure evil. I am not suprised that he becomes a killer, his life is s**t. I am so glad Zombie isnt getting anywhere near a sequel.

Luna
09-12-2007, 09:40 PM
Thread officially
GODWINNED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law):lol: :lol: :lol:

ThievingWinona
09-13-2007, 03:07 AM
You can never separate the two completely and I've yet to find a reviewer that can. Personal enjoyment always comes into play on reviewer rating.

Sure, but you fail to realize that 95% of mainstream reviewers (i.e. the kind you're likely to find on Rotten Tomatoes, that kind of stuff) review specifically by personal enjoyment. Therefore by default, if that is what you are constantly exposed to, then it's natural to think that personal feelings are just a part of the process.

Look, I'm not saying those types of reviews are bad or anything. There's a place for them. I review plenty of movies like that at deadlantern.com. Why? Because that's just the way most people's minds operate and that's how people like to interact with movie reviews. And sometimes you just don't want to delve that far into a movie, y'know?

All I'm saying is that there is another level of reviewing and understanding film that has nothing to do with personal enjoyment as a factor. Film scholars do this all the time. They aren't "mainstream" critics that you'll find in your local newspaper, but these people disect films and write in depth about how they operate.

For example, I hate musicals. Despise them actually. I had to write a long essay about Mary Poppins for a class. I had to watch the film multiple times and I didn't get any enjoyment out of it. It pained me to have to do that. But I can divorce myself from my own personal feelings of dislike for the movie itself and the entire genre as a whole to understand that it is a brilliant musical and an incredibly well made film. Believe me, it's not something that is easy to do. But it can be done. I hate the film, but I recognize it as an excellent piece of cinema and a shining example of how musicals can be constructed.

I think your main disagreement is that you just don't think it is possible to divorce oneself from personal enjoyment completely. And you may have a point there. That's more of a philosophical debate, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you can get as close to the edge of separation as possible. Let's make it easy and put it on a 10 point scale with 1 being someone as close to objective distance as possible without getting to 0, and 10 being someone who uses full personal enjoyment as the basis for movies.

What I am saying is that it is possible to get to 1. It entails changing the way you think about movies. It takes practice and active engagement with all aspects of the film. It takes study, filmic breakdowns, and scholarly reading. So now, let's imagine a scenario where you ask two friends for an opinion on a film. Friend A has studied how film operates while Friend B bases his entire judgement on other films he's seen. Now, which Friend would you say has the most experience and knowledge to make a qualified decision? You would naturally choose Friend A because they have far more knowledge and expertise in the given area. This is no different than any other type of field. I'd much rather get the answer to a Physics problem from someone who is a Physics Major rather than someone who is an English major. I'd much rather get help with a computer programming problem from someone who knows a lot about programming than someone who doesn't. Someone who is trained for this sort of thing is obviously going to be better qualified and more reliable, right?

But if you like that type of reviewing style, then more power to you! That's perfectly fine if it's your preference. For me, though, I just take those types of opinions with a grain of salt. People know a lot about what they like and dislike, but very few actually know what makes film work in the first place.

Like you said, there are films you don't enjoy at all, but can recognize that they are excellent examples of good filmmaking. Why is that? Get past the superficial "this sucks/this is great" personal emotional reactions and feelings and dig below the surface and you'll find something more. The fact that you didn't like the film yet still realized it was a good piece of film making is testament to its craft and aesthetic.

Please though give me your long list of horror films that you Hate yet you feel are brilliantly constructed.

Carrie, The Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust, Don't Look Now, Last House on the Left, etc. etc.

I don't like any of these movies, yet I recognize that they are excellent examples of what the genre can do and what talented filmmakers can accomplish. I'll never watch The Blair Witch Project ever again, but that doesn't mean that the aesthetic isn't valid because I don't like it.

This is a great debate though, and I'm glad you've engaged.

onebyone
09-13-2007, 03:22 AM
Carrie, The Blair Witch Project, Cannibal Holocaust, Don't Look Now, Last House on the Left, etc. etc.

I will put the construction of Halloween 2007 up against that of Last House on the Left any day of the week. Hell, off the top of my head, I can't think of a horror film that is put together in a more ridiculous fashion than Last House on the Left. I am (thankfully) not a film student, but I can assert that easily. Lots of different things come together to make a movie good, and I didn't see a one in that movie.

I'd much rather get the answer to a Physics problem from someone who is a Physics Major rather than someone who is an English major.

The laws of physics and whether or not a movie is enjoyable to someone are totally different things. Please don't drag physics into this. It wants no part of it and thinks we are all a bunch of nerds.

ThievingWinona
09-13-2007, 03:44 AM
Please don't drag physics into this. It wants no part of it and thinks we are all a bunch of nerds.

:D

Lots of different things come together to make a movie good, and I didn't see a one in that movie.

You are absolutely right about this. Construction is only one part, though it is a big one. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the "formula" includes many things, such as cinematography, script, editing, power, effect, etc.

_pi_
09-13-2007, 04:00 AM
You hate Don't Look Now????

I don't care about Carrie, but Don't Look Now??

And you think we are not to be taken seriously?

ThievingWinona
09-13-2007, 04:34 AM
You hate Don't Look Now????

I don't care about Carrie, but Don't Look Now??

And you think we are not to be taken seriously?

It's not a bad movie by any means. In fact, I'd argue that Don't Look Now is one of the most effective films of its time.

But on personal enjoyment level, I just don't care for it. It's not something I'd pop in my dvd player just because.

But like I said, it's not a bad movie at all. I just don't like it.

Coverdale
09-28-2007, 03:56 AM
I'm kind of late to the party here, but I got to see the workprint/director's cut/whatever DVD last night. I liked it. I guess I could say "Nothing can compare to the original" but I liked how it delved into the years in the asylum.

Personally (and this is just personally) but I never liked the "Supernatural" aspects of the Halloween series, how he could sense Laurie was his sister. I kind of wished Zombie could have dropped that angle completely (hell, even make Laurie and Michael not related whatsoever, which didn't come up until Part Two anyway).

I did enjoy all the cameos, plus I thought Malcolm McDowell was a good choice to play Dr. Loomis. Plus there were some hot girls.

I thought some of the action/killing scenes were filmed too choppily and too dark. It was hard to tell what was going on. Carpenter used dark cinematography in the original, but it was more arty and yet also easier to tell what was going on.

Overall, not a bad job. I liked it better than the Texas Chainsaw remake a few years ago.

Slow
09-28-2007, 04:12 AM
As of today it's the top grossing Halloween film ever. Not counting for inflation which is just a bullshit excuse to say some old movie made more anyway.

maybrick
09-28-2007, 05:14 AM
As of today it's the top grossing Halloween film ever. Not counting for inflation which is just a bullshit excuse to say some old movie made more anyway.

Are you retarded, or are you just being "slow"? Look man, it isn't bullshit. Inflation counts quite a bit. Monetary gross doesn't matter in the long run. What counts is the number of tickets sold.

Slow
09-28-2007, 06:44 AM
And Halloween 2007 sold a shit load. Top grossing Halloween movie ever you know.

othervoice1
09-28-2007, 06:49 AM
I am finally going to see this movie this weekend- seems to be mixed feelings on it on here -

henrychinaski
09-28-2007, 07:31 AM
Saw the work print first...voted good. Saw the theatrical version at the drive-in last night....want to change my vote to great. The escape was better, the ending kicked ass, and the cameo's were great. The story closed up loose end the work print didn't and the film was much better with the soundtrack completely in place. :evil:

Luna
09-28-2007, 07:46 AM
You guys are making me want to watch the workprint all over again. :D

maybrick
09-28-2007, 01:07 PM
And Halloween 2007 sold a shit load. Top grossing Halloween movie ever you know.

It didn't do a shit load. It did about average. Sorry but you really do have to adjust for inflation. $47 million circa 1978 was way more money then $55 million today. It's a lot easier for movies to break box office records today when tickets are $8-$10 than it was 30 years ago when they were only $2.

Slow
09-28-2007, 02:42 PM
And people who like to adjust for inflation don't take into mind that the internet and DVD didn't exist back then so box office was more inflated.

Halloween made triple it's budget so far, that's a lot better than average.

maybrick
09-28-2007, 02:51 PM
And people who like to adjust for inflation don't take into mind that the internet and DVD didn't exist back then so box office was more inflated.

Halloween made triple it's budget so far, that's a lot better than average.

And the original movie's domestic gross was $47 million. It production budget was $325,000. Do the math. That's 144 TIMES the budget. There's simply no comparison. Even if there was no such thing as DVD or the internet it's extremely unlikely that Zombie's film would have the longevity needed to pull those kind of figures.

Using the inflation calculator I found online:
What cost $47,000,000 in 1978 would cost $150,985,827.07 in 2006.

Zombie's movie has a ways to go yet. Sorry dude, but reality check. You HAVE to account for inflation! If you don't, you're believing a falsehood and buying into corporate spin.

Ash28M
09-28-2007, 03:03 PM
And the original movie's domestic gross was $47 million. It production budget was $325,000. Do the math. That's 144 TIMES the budget. There's simply no comparison. Even if there was no such thing as DVD or the internet it's extremely unlikely that Zombie's film would have the longevity needed to pull those kind of figures.


And maybrick Wins!


Oh yeah but The Blair Witch Project had an estimated $60,000 budget (some say lower)
and had a domestic gross of $140,530,114.

That's 2342 times the budget so take that! Blair Witch wins again! :)

maybrick
09-28-2007, 03:11 PM
Yeah, Blair Witch's success to this day still boggles the mind!

Ash28M
09-28-2007, 03:26 PM
Yeah, Blair Witch's success to this day still boggles the mind!

You know you secretly love it.

maybrick
09-28-2007, 03:33 PM
You know you secretly love it.

It wasn't a secret. ;) I just meant that it's monetary success was phenomenal no matter what your personal opinion regarding the movie may be.

Slow
09-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Wow Ash good point that Blair Witch out box officed Halloween. Nice.

Grim
09-29-2007, 03:01 AM
And maybrick Wins!


Oh yeah but The Blair Witch Project had an estimated $60,000 budget (some say lower)

I still ask myself to this day where all the damn money went.

othervoice1
09-29-2007, 04:57 AM
Blair Witch was and is a classic- and scary too

othervoice1
09-30-2007, 04:04 AM
I finally saw this tonight and it was about what I expected- I wasnt overly impressed with the opening bit about Myers as a child- okay at best- then when it got to the meat of the picture I found it to be a tad better than I expected (i went in with a very open mind and TRYING not to compare it to the classic original which is hard to do) - the ending I thought again was okay. I thought Malcolm Mcdowell did a great job as Dr Loomis - I voted average but could have maybe gone good- if there would have been a pretty good I would have gone for that<: C+ if I was giving it a grade- id watch it again

BroodingHope
09-30-2007, 04:32 AM
I finally saw this tonight and it was about what I expected- I wasnt overly impressed with the opening bit about Myers as a child- okay at best- then when it got to the meat of the picture I found it to be a tad better than I expected (i went in with a very open mind and TRYING not to compare it to the classic original which is hard to do) - the ending I thought again was okay. I thought Malcolm Mcdowell did a great job as Dr Loomis - I voted average but could have maybe gone good- if there would have been a pretty good I would have gone for that<: C+ if I was giving it a grade- id watch it again

I'd have to agree. I enjoyed it on some level since I read pretty much every negative review before seeing it. I do that sometimes to see if the bad moments will be easy for me to ignore. In this case they were.

Jamm
01-14-2008, 07:31 PM
We finally got to watch this last night and I thought it stunk. If I could still cast a vote in this poll I'd say it was awful. All of the reasons I thought it stunk have been previously stated.

I'll agree that Sheri was good. Better when she wasn't in the house playing the trashy mother. But the scenes at the breakfast table seemed too reliant on the over use of vulgar language to portray the trashiness.

Young Michael annoyed the fuck out of me and I wanted to squash him so badly. I was really turned off by the history of Michael, or rather, how the history of Michael was told in this movie.

I cared nothing for any of the people who got killed. In fact, I couldn't wait for the girls to get sliced up so I wouldn't have to listen to any more of their annoyingness.

The cameos were fun. Adrienne's scene should've been left in. And Sybill Danning still fucking rocks.

I was kinda jazzed about Malcolm MCDowell playing Dr. Loomis. He was one of the film's few redeeming qualities. But as was said about Dee Wallace, they did their best despite the fac that there wasn't much to work with.

Just my two cents.

Dave
01-14-2008, 08:05 PM
We finally got to watch this last night and I thought it stunk. If I could still cast a vote in this poll I'd say it was awful. All of the reasons I thought it stunk have been previously stated.

I'll agree that Sheri was good. Better when she wasn't in the house playing the trashy mother. But the scenes at the breakfast table seemed too reliant on the over use of vulgar language to portray the trashiness.

Young Michael annoyed the fuck out of me and I wanted to squash him so badly. I was really turned off by the history of Michael, or rather, how the history of Michael was told in this movie.

I cared nothing for any of the people who got killed. In fact, I couldn't wait for the girls to get sliced up so I wouldn't have to listen to any more of their annoyingness.

The cameos were fun. Adrienne's scene should've been left in. And Sybill Danning still fucking rocks.

I was kinda jazzed about Malcolm MCDowell playing Dr. Loomis. He was one of the film's few redeeming qualities. But as was said about Dee Wallace, they did their best despite the fac that there wasn't much to work with.

Just my two cents.

But wait! What about seeing Danielle's boobies for 5 minutes straight?

Oh yeah....nevermind!

Jamm
01-14-2008, 09:46 PM
But wait! What about seeing Danielle's boobies for 5 minutes straight?

Oh yeah....nevermind!

Yeah that's right, never mind!!! Your boobies will always be my favorite!

Paff
01-14-2008, 10:36 PM
But wait! What about seeing Danielle's boobies for 5 minutes straight?

Oh yeah....nevermind!

Damn, can't somebody put that up on YouTube (or YouBoob?), so I can see that without watching the rest of the movie?

Livingdead102
01-15-2008, 05:20 AM
Hey, I never noticed that the Good/Greats outnumbered the Below Average/Awfuls. We win! :glasses:

Dave
01-15-2008, 07:53 PM
Damn, can't somebody put that up on YouTube (or YouBoob?), so I can see that without watching the rest of the movie?

You're not missing much (literally), but she's still HOTTTT.

sundownrider
01-25-2008, 10:42 PM
This movie sucked hairy asshole. Biggest piece of shit ever made IMO.

othervoice1
01-26-2008, 04:51 AM
I still find the voting on this so interesting- the votes are all over the place- seems a lot of people felt so many different ways about this movie- a ton hated it while even more thought it was "good" - cant remember seeing too many polls on a movie so all over the place like this on a major release- I am still of the opinion that the prequal part kinda sucked while the remake part was actually pretty good

Livingdead102
01-26-2008, 05:41 AM
I think the Halloween purists are going to hate it for what it does wrong, while the Zombie fanboys (myself included) are going to appreciate it for what it does right. I strongly suspect that you can divide opinions largely along those lines, with of course some variation and the undecideds scattered here and there. I think it would be interesting for those who voted to say a word or two about their feelings about Halloween and Rob Zombie, independent of this remake.

And I'm the opposite--I thought the prequel part was pretty good, while the remake part wasn't that special. Another layer of differing opinions about the film!

Workshed
02-11-2008, 04:55 PM
The unrated version was my first Rob Zombie film, and I made it to the one-hour mark. Before this film came out, I'd read all the complaints that the dialogue would be filled with "FUCKING FUCK YOUs" and that characters would all have shaggy hair and seem creepily interested in the floor, but I chalked it up to...I don't know, Rob Zombie hate. I have no such dislike for the guy (or his music) and I was in no way against the idea of a remake.

In the first three minutes I laughed outright at the dialogue. FUCKING FUCK YOUs abound! Hoo man! We got drunk, shaggy-haired cripples, screaming babies, stripper moms, slutty sisters, burned-out boyfriends, and shaggy-haired evil kids; basically, the liner notes to the two White Zombie albums I own.

I turned it off after the rape scene, which was beyond gratuitous--although I thought it also contained a pretty evocative moment: when the two shaggy-hair attendants put on Michael's masks mid-way through their shriek-show, yikes--but, honestly, I should have turned it off at the last session between Dr. Loomis and Michael. Paraphrasing the good doctor: "Michael, you haven't spoken in over fifteen years, that's longer than my first marriage. You know, come to think of it, you're my best friend in this whole mixed-up crazy world." :spit: Howzzat, Doc? Cue the rape, quick!

Humorless, grisly, and while certainly bombastic, Halloween Astro-Creep 2000 ultimately bored me. I turned it off and cracked a book (and a brew--I needed one).

Bobbywoodhogan
02-11-2008, 09:13 PM
This is one of the worst films I have ever watched

rhett
02-12-2008, 02:36 AM
Humorless, grisly, and while certainly bombastic, Halloween Astro-Creep 2000 ultimately bored me. I turned it off and cracked a book (and a brew--I needed one).
Well, at least the film can evoke some good in the world. Nice review, as always!

Workshed
02-12-2008, 04:52 PM
Well, at least the film can evoke some good in the world. Nice review, as always!

Thanks, Rhett! The book was the new Stephen King, Duma Key, which ended up being a fine read over the weekend. Recalled a bit of Bag of Bones in its slow reveal.

zompirejoe
02-13-2008, 10:13 PM
I just finished watching the "unrated" Halloween 2007 piece of shit fest. That rape scene was horrible and added nothing to the movie. Rob Zombie must have gotten all of his "ideas" for his "screenplay" from his subscription to White Trash Misogynist Monthly (and if they were a real magazine they could sue). I tried to like this movie, saw it in the theater, and watched the dvd. I just can't justify any amount of like for this film. If all of his movies are going to have his same signature attributes, you can count me out. I'd actually like to see him make a movie where everyone doesn't have long hair greasy hair, beats their kids, rapes people,tortures women, murders innocent people (and we're supposed to feel sorry for the killers),gets fucked up and does fucked up shit, curse like sailors, etc..... Step out of his element, if you will. I really think he could be a great director, but so far I don't think he's shown us much. House of 1,000 Corpses was okay, Rejects okay as well, Halloween- been there done that, nothing new here, let's move on to something new. I just don't care for any of that shit anymore. Halloween is right down there with The Fog and The Hitcher remakes, but much more offensive and vulgar.

onebyone
02-13-2008, 11:16 PM
I If all of his movies are going to have his same signature attributes, you can count me out. I'd actually like to see him make a movie where everyone doesn't have long hair greasy hair, beats their kids, rapes people,tortures women, murders innocent people (and we're supposed to feel sorry for the killers),gets fucked up and does fucked up shit, curse like sailors, etc.


:lol:

I can imagine the reaction to Rob's movie where none of this occurs at all.

"Where the fuck is his signature style? Rob's gone soft. I couldn't imagine him being a bigger pussy than he was for breaking up White Zombie but there it is. He sucks dick and donkey balls and I hate his hot I mean too skinny wife. Sure I masturbate to her tighty ass nightly, but that's beside the point. Fuck you Rob Zombie for ruining horror and my life in general. Until you put back the rape, murder and torture in your films, you are dead to me."

bigdaddyhorse
02-13-2008, 11:53 PM
:lol:

I can imagine the reaction to Rob's movie where none of this occurs at all.

"Where the fuck is his signature style? Rob's gone soft. I couldn't imagine him being a bigger pussy than he was for breaking up White Zombie but there it is. He sucks dick and donkey balls and I hate his hot I mean too skinny wife. Sure I masturbate to her tighty ass nightly, but that's beside the point. Fuck you Rob Zombie for ruining horror and my life in general. Until you put back the rape, murder and torture in your films, you are dead to me."

:lol: :lol:

Too true.
We'll have to keep an eye on who says what next time, cuz judging by threads I've read, Rob is already dead to many so chiming in with this would lose all weight behind it. We all know that the closet is packed with Zombie fans who still take any chance to bash him.

I have and alway will stand by the fact that his wife annoys me, isn't nearly as hot as she gets credit for (she ain't ugly, but I'll never stroke to her unless I'm stroking with her:D ), and until Halloween, couldn't act either. She did impress me acting-wise in that.

The day Rob has any impact on my life will be, um, err, impossible. He does make some great driving music, can't deny him that. That's about the only way he could impact my life now, if I get a speeding ticket from bumping his tunes which make me want to floor it.:) If that happens, then he will be dead to me too.:D

zompirejoe
02-14-2008, 03:33 AM
Some of his music is still okay. Not near as good as when White Zombie was together,but I do dig the one remix cd of his solo stuff that I have.It is cool to listen to on my long road trips, but anyways......I don't know, his next movie is supposed to be titled Rob Zombie's Tyrannosaurus Rex, but has not a damn thing to do with dinosaurs. I kind of would like to see an R rated movie with dinosaurs,but he would probably set it in a trailer park where they are created in a huge meth-lab run by Bill Mosely and Sid Haig. Meanwhile, Sherri Moon shakes her tits and ass for no apparent reason but I won't complain. All of the male victims will die quickly, while the female victims would be slowly eaten or swallowed whole and slowly digested while alive. The movie could begin with the backstory of what really set the dinosaurs off, and why are they so mean and carnivorous ? I had high hopes for this guy, as he is a huge horror fan. Now when I see "screenplay by Rob Zombie" in the credits it makes me laugh (There was a screenplay ?). Really though whether his movies suck or not it does not affect me in the least. I just found Halloween 2007 to be an offensive piece of shit, and I don't get offended too easily.

Katatonia
02-14-2008, 05:07 AM
Besides all the cool cameos in the film (best thing!), it basically fails. I didn't give a flying shit about the "prequel" segment showing little Michael as an annoying pubescent idiot.

Zombie Dude
03-03-2008, 10:04 AM
I liked Zombie's version, though during my first viewing I was unsure of how I felt. The second time round it was much better. Biggest problem was character development. I felt more for Michael than Laurie at the end.

Whatever happened to Michael talking? Wasn't he supposed to say BOO when pursuing Laurie?

Bobbywoodhogan
11-01-2013, 09:18 PM
Sorry to bring up an old thread but I rewatched this recently but it was the theatrical version which I hadn't seen all of before and I must say I've actually warned to this more. The theatrical cut was far better than the work print or Directors Cut, it just seemed to flow better. The escape was the big thing for me, although it's over the top the escape of taking out the guards is far more tasteful than the disgusting rape escape. All in all I'd say the theatrical version is quite decent.

Body Boy
11-01-2013, 09:21 PM
Awful. H2 is leagues better.

Mok
11-01-2013, 09:50 PM
Man, looking back at some of what I posted in this thread, what an asshole I am! :lol:
I still love the Zombie Halloweens though. And I miss Luna and onebyone :o

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 12:24 AM
Awful. H2 is leagues better.

I think that's the worst one of the Franchise

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 12:27 AM
I've grown to love Zombie's efforts over the years. Flawed but I was entertained by both.

For my money Resurrection is the worst of the franchise.

Mikey Horror
11-02-2013, 12:35 AM
I think that's the worst one of the Franchise

Are you sure? 'Cause this guy would say otherwise.

http://i1360.photobucket.com/albums/r647/michaeljromano/image_zpsd4231aef.jpg

Zombie Dude
11-02-2013, 12:45 AM
I think that's the worst one of the Franchise

H2 is a fave of mine. It's uber violent and has the balls to do something different with Michael.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 01:15 AM
Are you sure? 'Cause this guy would say otherwise.

http://i1360.photobucket.com/albums/r647/michaeljromano/image_zpsd4231aef.jpg

I don't mind H:R all that much tbh, bar a few stupid things. Zombie's H2 felt nothing like a Halloween film, it was typical Zombie crap in my eyes. He just intended to shock epithet the kills etc, infact that's my biggest reason he's nit a good director. He's obsessed with rape and violence, he has no idea how to build suspense.

Mikey Horror
11-02-2013, 01:25 AM
I don't mind H:R all that much tbh, bar a few stupid things. Zombie's H2 felt nothing like a Halloween film, it was typical Zombie crap in my eyes. He just intended to shock epithet the kills etc, infact that's my biggest reason he's nit a good director. He's obsessed with rape and violence, he has no idea how to build suspense.

Oh, I completely agree. Zombie's Halloween films were hilariously bad, but to me they were a laugh it off, just walk away and I'll never have to watch it again kind of bad, whereas I think Resurrection was a complete fucking insult and I'm angry that it even exists in the series kind of bad. I literally felt like I was watching someone make a parody of a Halloween film.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 01:33 AM
Oh, I completely agree. Zombie's Halloween films were hilariously bad, but to me they were a laugh it off, just walk away and I'll never have to watch it again kind of bad, whereas I think Resurrection was a complete fucking insult and I'm angry that it even exists in the series kind of bad. I literally felt like I was watching someone make a parody of a Halloween film.

See I can laugh off H:R it's the 8th film in a franchise compare it to Friday the 13th Part VIII and you have an equally ridiculous film. But I can have fun with them.

Zombie's H2 is the only film that's made me furious ever. I felt completely ripped off, I really wish Zombie had never been near the franchise quite frankly but I don't think his first film is all that bad, apart from chunks of it.

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 02:10 AM
I won't argue that H2 doesn't really feel like a Halloween movie (more like a down & dirty exploitation film but I dig that!) but it's better than seeing Michael Myers being kung fu'd by Busta Nut.

maskull
11-02-2013, 02:18 AM
I think H2 works if you kind of forget it's a Halloween film. Some of the dream stuff is kind of...odd, but I think it fit the feel of the movie. At least Zombie wasn't doing a rehash of a Halloween sequel. He tried something different. It worked for me, didn't work for others but I tend to prefer remakes that aren't exact clones of the originals.

As for H:R, I like a lot of the ideas that were used, it's just some of the execution was was poorly done....ok it's really just Busta Rhymes and to a lesser extent Tyra Banks, but at least she had the decency to get killed (for the record, I don't hate Tyra I just thought her character was annoying). I liked that the people at the party are helping to guide the girl away from Michael and that they got so invested in her plight. Sort of made me feel like I was part of that group.

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 03:04 AM
There are some things I like about H:R. I really liked Loree as Michael and I dig the kills but I can't get over the fact they spit on the ending of H20. And Busta Nut.

othervoice1
11-02-2013, 03:22 AM
Yea Busta Rhymes was awful - he helped bring that movie waaaay down in quality. Kinda reminded me of Ryan Reynolds affect on Blade Trinity. Sure they are both bad movies without either of these actors - but their performances were so horrid and out of place it took them from maybe okay to downright awful.

Vortex
11-02-2013, 08:27 AM
I quite enjoy both of Zombie's Halloween films. The first, third and sixth entries aside, the original series is one of the most underwhelming when viewed as a whole.

thing
11-02-2013, 09:01 AM
One of the worst films I have ever seen

Zombie Dude
11-02-2013, 10:58 AM
One of the worst films I have ever seen

You mustn't have seen many shit films then.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 11:51 AM
You mustn't have seen many shit films then.

He's entitled to his opinion, If I had to say how I felt about it I think it's the worst film of the big there's series as in Freddy, Jason and Michael.

Zombie Dude
11-02-2013, 12:45 PM
He's entitled to his opinion, If I had to say how I felt about it I think it's the worst film of the big there's series as in Freddy, Jason and Michael.

It's quite a vague opinion. There's a lot of trash out there, so if this is one of the worst he's seen then I'll stick to my comment that he mustn't have seen many shit movies.

I personally thing Freddy got the shortest straw if we're talking about this in regards to those other films.
Whilst I enjoy the remake I'm nit in denial that it gas its problems. One of those is the fact that Zombie seems to shoot things that aren't scripted which causes plot holes. If he spent more time perfecting the script to a final form then he'd probably make a better movie.

thing
11-02-2013, 01:08 PM
It's quite a vague opinion. There's a lot of trash out there, so if this is one of the worst he's seen then I'll stick to my comment that he mustn't have seen many shit movies.

I personally thing Freddy got the shortest straw if we're talking about this in regards to those other films.
Whilst I enjoy the remake I'm nit in denial that it gas its problems. One of those is the fact that Zombie seems to shoot things that aren't scripted which causes plot holes. If he spent more time perfecting the script to a final form then he'd probably make a better movie.

Well just because you font think it's one if the worst ever doesn't mean I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad or have seen enough good or. Bad films . It would be like me saying "you havnt seen enough good films" coz you like it. Halloween Dyson zombie is a genuine 1-2/10 for me, a total disaster and a disgrace.

Zombie Dude
11-02-2013, 01:13 PM
Well just because you font think it's one if the worst ever doesn't mean I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad or have seen enough good or. Bad films . It would be like me saying "you havnt seen enough good films" coz you like it. Halloween Dyson zombie is a genuine 1-2/10 for me, a total disaster and a disgrace.

Just because I enjoy it doesn't mean I think it's high art. It's far from being terrible. It's at least watchable.

maybrick
11-02-2013, 02:20 PM
Both of you guys need to turn your spellcheckers off. Egads.

Zombie Dude
11-02-2013, 02:26 PM
Both of you guys need to turn your spellcheckers off. Egads.

Off? Either way, typing on a phone is infuriating when it comes to auto-correct. If it's off you're constantly going back to fix words and errors, when it's on it makes shit up and you don't even realize it. :mad:

thing
11-02-2013, 04:40 PM
Yup on my phone whilst squinting in the dark

maybrick
11-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Off? Either way, typing on a phone is infuriating when it comes to auto-correct. If it's off you're constantly going back to fix words and errors, when it's on it makes shit up and you don't even realize it. :mad:

Oh, believe me, I know. I'm typing on a phone myself. I'm just giving you shit. ;)

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 05:02 PM
Well just because you font think it's one if the worst ever doesn't mean I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad or have seen enough good or. Bad films . It would be like me saying "you havnt seen enough good films" coz you like it. Halloween Dyson zombie is a genuine 1-2/10 for me, a total disaster and a disgrace.

That was exactly my point, it's everyone's opinion at the end of the day.

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 06:27 PM
Well just because you font think it's one if the worst ever doesn't mean I'm not qualified to say what's good or bad or have seen enough good or. Bad films . It would be like me saying "you havnt seen enough good films" coz you like it. Halloween Dyson zombie is a genuine 1-2/10 for me, a total disaster and a disgrace.

ZD is right, though. Hating this is one thing but calling it one of the worst films ever is ridiculous.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 06:34 PM
ZD is right, though. Hating this is one thing but calling it one of the worst films ever is ridiculous.

Why is it? I think it is too, it's all about opinion end of the day.

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 10:03 PM
Why is it? I think it is too, it's all about opinion end of the day.

Than you both need to seriously watch A LOT more movies ASAP.

Body Boy
11-02-2013, 10:48 PM
Than you both need to seriously watch A LOT more movies ASAP.

While I agree that saying Halloween 2007 is one of the worst films EVER is ridiculous...

I also have to stop myself, because while my bottom 50 is like, low low budget SOV crap most often, I admit that Alien vs Predator: Requiem is among them, despite the 40 million dollar budget. It just rubbed me the wrong way, more than something like Night of Horror would...

Bobbywoodhogan
11-02-2013, 11:46 PM
Than you both need to seriously watch A LOT more movies ASAP.

No you need to respect others opinions. I've never been so disappointed at a film in my life.

While I agree that saying Halloween 2007 is one of the worst films EVER is ridiculous...

I also have to stop myself, because while my bottom 50 is like, low low budget SOV crap most often, I admit that Alien vs Predator: Requiem is among them, despite the 40 million dollar budget. It just rubbed me the wrong way, more than something like Night of Horror would...

We're not we're saying a Halloween II (2009) is one if the worst films ever. It's nit ridiculous it's called opinion.

MisterTwister
11-02-2013, 11:53 PM
No you need to respect others opinions. I've never been so disappointed at a film in my life.



We're not we're saying a Halloween II (2009) is one if the worst films ever. It's nit ridiculous it's called opinion.

I respect you dislike it but I do not understand how you can say its one of the worst films of all time.

I just don't understand.

Dobby
11-03-2013, 12:14 AM
Respect my authority and put your bunghole in my teepee!

Mikey Horror
11-03-2013, 12:46 AM
In a way, I kind of understand where he is coming from. I consider Halloween Resurrection the worst film I've ever watched. Is it the worst film ever made? Of course not, but the difference being going into Resurrection I had excitement, hopes and expectations that I wouldn't have brought in to other films. When you sit down to watch movies like, Hillbillys in a Haunted House or The Aztec Mummy against the Humanoid Robot, let's face it, you kind of know what you're in for whereas Halloween was once (a long time ago) a respectable franchise. It's all about the expectations you have going in and how viciously those expectations are destroyed.

Zombie Dude
11-03-2013, 01:07 AM
Oh, believe me, I know. I'm typing on a phone myself. I'm just giving you shit. ;)
I don't know what phone you have but believe me, that shit is even worse on a Windows phone. They need to fix that keyboard and dictionary ASAP.
ZD is right, though. Hating this is one thing but calling it one of the worst films ever is ridiculous.
Thank you. I'm glad a few people know what I'm talking about.

Dobby
11-03-2013, 01:14 AM
I don't know what phone you have but believe me, that shit is even worse on a Windows phone. They need to fix that keyboard and dictionary ASAP.

Thank you. I'm glad a few people know what I'm talking about.

I have no clue what your yapping half the time on youtube. However I just imagine you saying fouostaazs Austrailian foh beeear.......

Zombie Dude
11-03-2013, 01:15 AM
In a way, I kind of understand where he is coming from. I consider Halloween Resurrection the worst film I've ever watched. Is it the worst film ever made? Of course not, but the difference being going into Resurrection I had excitement, hopes and expectations that I wouldn't have brought in to other films. When you sit down to watch movies like, Hillbillys in a Haunted House or The Aztec Mummy against the Humanoid Robot, let's face it, you kind of know what your in for whereas Halloween was once (a long time ago) a respectable franchise. It's all about the expectations you have going in and how viciously those expectations are destroyed.

I agree about expectations. I know I've been disappointed in films because of what I've gone in expecting. I often re-watch them if that's the case because I know I wasn't judging them fairly. I disliked Hatchet when I first saw it because I wasn't expecting a horror comedy, now it's one of my favorite films!

Also, just because you know a film is going to be shit doesn't mean it should be exempt from the shittest movies ever made category.

Mikey Horror
11-03-2013, 01:24 AM
I agree about expectations. I know I've been disappointed in films because of what I've gone in expecting. I often re-watch them if that's the case because I know I wasn't judging them fairly. I disliked Hatchet when I first saw it because I wasn't expecting a horror comedy, now it's one of my favorite films!

Also, just because you know a film is going to be shit doesn't mean it should be exempt from the shittest movies ever made category.

Oh I agree, there's just too many incompetent and utterly abhorrent movies in existence for any one to be the worst film ever made. It's all subjective. And ZD, love your YouTube videos man, you've got an amazing collection going.

Zombie Dude
11-03-2013, 01:33 AM
Oh I agree, there's just too many incompetent and utterly abhorrent movies in existence for any one to be the worst film ever made. It's all subjective. And ZD, love your YouTube videos man, you've got an amazing collection going.

One just has to facepalm and some of the films that get made.

Thanks Mikey! I've been slack lately and haven't made anything new but I definitely have some more stuff to show.

Dobby
11-03-2013, 01:35 AM
One just has to facepalm and some of the films that get made.

Thanks Mikey! I've been slack lately and haven't made anything new but I definitely have some more stuff to show.

You got stds ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww so many kuddies you have. :nervous:

Zombie Dude
11-03-2013, 01:37 AM
You got stds ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww so many kuddies you have. :nervous:

:rolleyes: I have no idea what you're on about half the time Dobby.

Dobby
11-03-2013, 01:44 AM
:rolleyes: I have no idea what you're on about half the time Dobby.


I do believe Americans call it flitrting. :D

Zombie Dude
11-03-2013, 01:46 AM
I do believe Americans call it flitrting. :D

:o

Dobby
11-03-2013, 01:49 AM
:o


Oh and Halloween 2 is one of the worst movies ever made! :D

Bobbywoodhogan
11-03-2013, 10:24 AM
I respect you dislike it but I do not understand how you can say its one of the worst films of all time.

I just don't understand.

Well that's cause you don't hate it like I do. It pisses me off toon end so that's why I consider it one of the worst films of all time. Add to that the films boring, done in a style I hate, is poorly scripted and has the stupidest looking Myers ever and there you have it.

Bobbywoodhogan
11-03-2013, 10:28 AM
In a way, I kind of understand where he is coming from. I consider Halloween Resurrection the worst film I've ever watched. Is it the worst film ever made? Of course not, but the difference being going into Resurrection I had excitement, hopes and expectations that I wouldn't have brought in to other films. When you sit down to watch movies like, Hillbillys in a Haunted House or The Aztec Mummy against the Humanoid Robot, let's face it, you kind of know what you're in for whereas Halloween was once (a long time ago) a respectable franchise. It's all about the expectations you have going in and how viciously those expectations are destroyed.

My expectations were low for H2 and I still hated it. I just think
Zombie's a poor film maker, he just likes to shock. He has no idea how to build suspense which is what ruined his first film in many ways. I just wish he'd left thus one alone after his first one and let someone else continue the story on.

spawningblue
11-07-2013, 11:22 PM
I was too generous when I first viewed this film as I remember coming out of the theatre thinking it was okay. Now it is really hard to get through, as is the sequel. Zombie's problem isn't his Directing, he can actually create some pretty tense grisly scenes, and he knows full well how to stage/ frame a shot. He does a great job picking out his cinematographers as well. If there's one thing he excels at is creating some great scenes/ images. His problem is his terribly awful writing! All of his characters are so offensive and unlikeable that spout out some of the most repulsive unintelligent dialog ever put to paper. I'm sure there are many SOV films with bad dialog, but Zombie's scripts aren't just bad, they are insulting. At least he showed some promise in that regard with Lords of Salem, even if I didn't think the movie was very good.

I would definitely movie my vote from the Average or Good category to the Awful, same with the sequel. That scene at the breakfast table alone movies this film to the shit category. Don't even get me started on the sequel. I never thought it would be possible for some one to make me hate Loomis and Laurie's character, but Zombie proved me wrong there. I always use to state that if it wasn't a Halloween film and just some random slasher film I could probably enjoy it more, but I don't even know if that's true, because it still has the most annoying unlikeable characters and awful dialog. A few well staged kill scenes don't make a movie.

ImmortalSlasher
11-15-2013, 03:58 AM
Movie is crap. Truly surprising in how bad it is. Lucky for me I barely remember it.

maybrick
11-15-2013, 05:45 AM
Zombie wouldn't be half as bad of a director if he devoted all of his time to actually directing. But no, he has to write everything as well. It takes a very special person to be able to do both of those things, but Rob just doesn't have what it takes. It's important to know one's limitations, and if he quits now after Lords of Salem then maybe he's finally learned.

Bobbywoodhogan
09-25-2014, 08:53 PM
Zombie wouldn't be half as bad of a director if he devoted all of his time to actually directing. But no, he has to write everything as well. It takes a very special person to be able to do both of those things, but Rob just doesn't have what it takes. It's important to know one's limitations, and if he quits now after Lords of Salem then maybe he's finally learned.

Wonderful post