Halloween: The Remake Disaster.

[PeruvianSkies]

Despite the original HALLOWEEN (1978) not being broken, Rob Zombie thought he could somehow 'fix' the film by remaking it, which only proves 2 things: 1. Rob Zombie is more insane than we may have though and 2. shows just how amazing the original is as this version attempts to get the same feel, but fails and then some.

I simply don't understand why Zombie felt that this film needed updated, but he did anyway and I gave the film a chance thinking that if Zombie is such a fan of the original that maybe he did it some justice. Think again! Instead of doing a faithful adaption of the original, Zombie does something much worse, he takes the original, adds a bit of Slipknot, more unncessary perverted nudity, senseless killing, and his usual white-trailer-trash flare to the film to inevitably gut the entire original films essence and parade the content around like some sort of circus show, not unlike his other films THE DEVILS REJECTS and HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. At times Zombie shoots the film in a very spot-on fashion using similar dialogue, the same music, and this is when the film actually works well. However, he tries to 'spice' up the original a bit too much by adding too much.

For example, the beginning of the film shows much more character development as we see a young Michael Myers living in redneck hell as his parents are abusive, perverted, and dysfunctional, we are suppose to believe that because of this he turns 'psycho' and ends up killing his entire film, with the exception of his baby sister, who was written into the story in order to align with the ridiculous subplot that was later inserted into the franchise about Laurie Strode being Michael Myers younger sister. Backstory and character development are OK, but at least have it make sense. Then we transport 15 years later to Michael in the insane asylum in which case he hasn't spoken for 15 years AND somehow has grown up ...let's say somewhere around 8 feet tall now. He escapes killing a bunch of people (again our body count at this point has already doubled the original film), which only had about 4 on-screen murders and 1 of them was a dog. We never really see blood in the original film and we also never really see the acts being done, we mostly hear them happening out of frame. Yet the original film is more scary, more suspenseful, and downright a better film. Zombie thinks that by adding blood and gore that it suddenly becomes a more horrifying and chilling tale, but quite the opposite is true.

Perhaps is Mr. Zombie would have watched a few Alfred Hitchcock movies he would have realized that [we ] are often more afraid of what our mind and imagination makes up instead of what we are shown. Maybe he can get that right next time when he hacks up another classic.

Yes, key scenes of the film are still somewhat intact and there are a few twists in the story, which mainly seem to be inserted in order to rack up the body count and the near-pornographic nature of the film. It's a endless parade of silliness that just doesn't know when to quit. Again, what ends up happening is that we realize just how great the original film is and how it stands the test of time so well. So why is that exactly? Well, the original film had a lot of ambition to it and really simplified itself down to the point where it only becomes complex at the very psychological core. Myers is pure evil and that evil is trying to exist in a world that he was never really attached to in an emotional sense, he recognizes that taking his way of coping is by attacking those who seem to be able to enjoy this life that he couldn't be a part of. The fact that Dr. Loomis presents most of the story on Myers really helps forge a sense of believability and Donald Pleasance is brilliant in that role.

Zombie's interpretation takes out the soul of the original film and that essence is lost, which is why it fails so much. By taking that element we aren't really left with much depth. Besides the killing parade...what else is left? The suspense, mystery, and thrill is really gone at that point. By taking out the psychological aspects and the undertone of doom and evil, there really isn't much left, especially by making the connection that Myers has come back to find his sister...how lame!

[musicman1999]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$35,000,000 the first week, $9,500,000 the second, i think that is the why.He is just giving the people what they want.It seems that these days about a third of the new releases are remakes or sequels.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

You can't buy credibility in my book. Jacques Tati, one of the greatest, yet unknown filmmaker to ever live made a film called PLAYTIME in 1968, the film caused him to go bankrupt. He spent tons of money to make this film, even made it in 70mm, which it still remains one of the few comedies in 70mm, but it wasn't about making money, it was about just DOING something, making art, making a statement. Despite the fact that he lost money on the deal, he still left a print on the film industry, even if we are still unfamiliar with him today, by 'we' I am referring mostly to N. America, in France he is still shown around at theaters and such to this day, then again cinema has always been alive and well in Paris and such.

My point is that in 30-50 years no one will probably remember Zombie or Tati, but if they root through history and uncover a bit about them, they'll discover that Zombie was a hack and Tati was a master and that's how they will be remembered, even after every last cent is spent. Whether our 'legacy' is remembered or not, it's more important that it be one of credibility.

[PeruvianSkies]

Can anyone name the song by White Zombie/Rob Zombie that sampled part of the dialogue from the original HALLOWEEN film AND name the film that the song was featured in.

[musicman1999]

I am afraid i could not name any White Zombie song.
Unfortunatly the movie business is about money,same as the music business,and credibility has little to do with it.I have not seen Zombies version,nor will I,but have no doubt that it is crap but it will likely do $100 million worldwide and that makes it a hit movie no matter how bad it is.I have not seen Playtime so i can't comment but i do know he made only one additional film and Rob Zombie will go on making films as long as he has an audience.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

I am afraid i could not name any White Zombie song.
Unfortunatly the movie business is about money,same as the music business,and credibility has little to do with it.I have not seen Zombies version,nor will I,but have no doubt that it is crap but it will likely do $100 million worldwide and that makes it a hit movie no matter how bad it is.I have not seen Playtime so i can't comment but i do know he made only one additional film and Rob Zombie will go on making films as long as he has an audience.

bill

Well, even a hack like Zombie will eventually lose steam and interest in people. You can only fool people for a little while, then they eventually learn.

[musicman1999]

Unfortunatly it does not seem to work that way.Zombie's first 2 films cost $7 million each and combined to make nearly $50 million,not counting dvd,and the new one has already passed that.As long as people pay to see this trash there will always be someone willing to make it.It is a simple plan,dark stormy night,house down the road from the mental hospital,pretty 20 year old girl likes to watch tv naked late at night,she hears a noise outside,she goes to have a look,forgets clothes,and mayhem ensues.I think i just wrote a script,any producers interested please contact me.

bill

[Gerald Cooperberg]

You can't buy credibility in my book. Jacques Tati, one of the greatest, yet unknown filmmaker to ever live made a film called PLAYTIME in 1968, the film caused him to go bankrupt. He spent tons of money to make this film, even made it in 70mm, which it still remains one of the few comedies in 70mm, but it wasn't about making money, it was about just DOING something, making art, making a statement. Despite the fact that he lost money on the deal, he still left a print on the film industry, even if we are still unfamiliar with him today, by 'we' I am referring mostly to N. America, in France he is still shown around at theaters and such to this day, then again cinema has always been alive and well in Paris and such.

Hey, Jacques Tati! I always thought that if I ever bought & operated a movie house, it'd be for the sole purpose of getting to watch that movie on the big screen all the time. Home video just ain't the same!

-Coop

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey, Jacques Tati! I always thought that if I ever bought & operated a movie house, it'd be for the sole purpose of getting to watch that movie on the big screen all the time. Home video just ain't the same!

-Coop

I was lucky enough 2 summers ago to see a restored print in 35mm taken from the 70mm, which still needs work, but it was nice to see on the huge screen in this moviehouse that has also been refurbished to show films like back in the day, it's a single screen movie-house with all kinds of fancy sconces on the wall and really sets the mood. Very nice place, they play great stuff year round, lots of independant films and classics, especially Foreign films, thus far I have seen the following there:

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY
KILL BILL Double Feature
KOYAANISQATSI
BRAZIL
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
Fellini's 8 1/2
PLAYTIME
THE BIRDS
AGUIRRE THE WRATH OF GOD
and a whole bunch more I can't think of at the moment.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

I did see Playtime a number of years ago at the college rep theater. Not sure what kind of a print it was-- at the time I remember sitting right up front and staring vertically at the screen as if I was a small child again.

-Coop

[PeruvianSkies]

I did see Playtime a number of years ago at the college rep theater. Not sure what kind of a print it was-- at the time I remember sitting right up front and staring vertically at the screen as if I was a small child again.

-Coop

Well, it's one of those films that is so ingeniously smart, that it often just goes over most people on first viewing. I have come to really love this film after seeing it numerous times. It's also one of those films, like CITIZEN KANE, APOCALYPSE NOW or ANNIE HALL where the director is so emotionally attached to the artform and the film itself that it's this huge expression, which gives the film it's uniqueness.

[Gerald Cooperberg]

I bet people will be disappointed to open this Halloween thread and find it half-filled with discussion of an old French slapstick master.

-Coop

[PeruvianSkies]

There has to be some way to link together Halloween and Jacques Tati....

[Fred333]

I thought this movie had some good parts, but it was like beating a dead horse. The original will always be the best in my mind.

[SlumpBuster]

Hey good thing this post got brought back up. I totally overlooked it.

Peru, I bet you thought I was taking the piss when I recommended Devils Rejects in your other thread on revisiting movies. I wasn't. I have since watched House of 1000 Corpses, too, which I don't recommend. I liked it from a B-movie perspective, but understand why it wouldn't stand up to serious critique.

However, I don't think Devils Rejects should be lumped in with Corpses. Do we judge Sam Raimi on Evil Dead I or on Spider-Man? I thought Rejects was much better focused Corpses. I really like the direction Zombie is going in and will see Halloween only because Zombie directed it. If anyone else had I would skip it. Zombie really does have an esthetic that he successfully acheives. Everything from set design to acting to casting. He even managed to loosen up Sheri Moon's wooden performance in Corpses into a real performance in Rejects. Again, the casting of Sid Haig alone was genius.

Your complaints suggest to me I will like it for the reason you don't: Zombie effectively shifted genres and slaughtered a Sacred Cow in the process. I say line 'em up for slaughter. Movies like Zombie's or Eli Roth's or Turistas, Saw, ect are fundamentally different from Halloween, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Omen, or even more recent fare like The Decent or The Ring. Hostel and Rejects are so far removed from even their contemporaries as to be and entirely differnent genre within the "Horror" category. To go further and compare them to movies from the 70 and 80s is to miss the point.

Zombie is aware of the past and has seen all the movies too. He's got his direct homages to Last House on the Left and Halloween in The Devil's Rejects (Even after 20 years my love for PJ Soles has not waned). Complaining of more gore and more nudity and not enough psycho drama is like complaining that Indian food is too spicy. It goes with the territory. Those are parts of the fundamental components that shifted the genre. So unfortunately I will cast my vote for Zombie and still watch the new Halloween. Not only that, I'll also go see Werewolf Women of the SS if he ever makes it into an actual movie.

What I think is great about Zombie is that he can illicit such an opposing response from two aspiring cinephiles. While I have to admit that you have seen way more movies than I have, I had plenty of film classes in college too. Which helps me understand why you are objecting to Zombie, but I just disagree. Its the same point Roger Ebert made in his favorable review of Devils Rejects.

Finally, you have to remember that Hitchcock was thought by many contemporary critics to be hacky. Only later did people recognize his highly stylized movies for their genius. I'm not saying the Zombie will be the next Hitchcock, I'm just suggesting that it is hard to say he won't be with only three real movies under his belt.

[PeruvianSkies]

I thought this movie had some good parts, but it was like beating a dead horse. The original will always be the best in my mind.

Agreed. It deviated way too much from the original and really went into hillbilly, white-trailer trash, Texas Chainsaw Massacre-wannabee land.

I don't mind 'flavoring' things up a bit, but this remake went so far against the original and attempted to make the story more 'scary' or 'horrifying' and ended up being lame, lame, and lame. Why try and fix something that isn't broken?

Now, if they wanted to remake THE OMEGA MAN, that would be one thing cause that movie has more plot holes than a field that's just been aerated. Plus, updating this film with better make-up and better acting would make for an interesting story.

[PeruvianSkies]

Hey good thing this post got brought back up. I totally overlooked it.

Peru, I bet you thought I was taking the piss when I recommended Devils Rejects in your other thread on revisiting movies. I wasn't. I have since watched House of 1000 Corpses, too, which I don't recommend. I liked it from a B-movie perspective, but understand why it wouldn't stand up to serious critique.

Ok.

However, I don't think Devils Rejects should be lumped in with Corpses. Do we judge Sam Raimi on Evil Dead I or on Spider-Man? I thought Rejects was much better focused Corpses. I really like the direction Zombie is going in and will see Halloween only because Zombie directed it. If anyone else had I would skip it. Zombie really does have an esthetic that he successfully acheives. Everything from set design to acting to casting. He even managed to loosen up Sheri Moon's wooden performance in Corpses into a real performance in Rejects. Again, the casting of Sid Haig alone was genius.

Your complaints suggest to me I will like it for the reason you don't: Zombie effectively shifted genres and slaughtered a Sacred Cow in the process. I say line 'em up for slaughter. Movies like Zombie's or Eli Roth's or Turistas, Saw, ect are fundamentally different from Halloween, Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, The Omen, or even more recent fare like The Decent or The Ring. Hostel and Rejects are so far removed from even their contemporaries as to be and entirely differnent genre within the "Horror" category. To go further and compare them to movies from the 70 and 80s is to miss the point.

Zombie is aware of the past and has seen all the movies too. He's got his direct homages to Last House on the Left and Halloween in The Devil's Rejects (Even after 20 years my love for PJ Soles has not waned). Complaining of more gore and more nudity and not enough psycho drama is like complaining that Indian food is too spicy. It goes with the territory. Those are parts of the fundamental components that shifted the genre. So unfortunately I will cast my vote for Zombie and still watch the new Halloween. Not only that, I'll also go see Werewolf Women of the SS if he ever makes it into an actual movie.

Gore and nudity are not necessary in a horror film though, neither is violence or death. It's not about what you see on screen, but what your imagination does when it fills in the blanks... I'd recommend that you see EYES WITHOUT A FACE or any Hitchcock film really.

What I think is great about Zombie is that he can illicit such an opposing response from two aspiring cinephiles. While I have to admit that you have seen way more movies than I have, I had plenty of film classes in college too. Which helps me understand why you are objecting to Zombie, but I just disagree. Its the same point Roger Ebert made in his favorable review of Devils Rejects.

I give all films and filmmakers a chance and Zombie is just a copy and paster in my book.

Finally, you have to remember that Hitchcock was thought by many contemporary critics to be hacky. Only later did people recognize his highly stylized movies for their genius. I'm not saying the Zombie will be the next Hitchcock, I'm just suggesting that it is hard to say he won't be with only three real movies under his belt.

Well, that's not 100% true, Hitchcock was the master of marketing and his films always made money on some level or another and had a following. He worked with some of the best producers as well and made a huge amount of movies over a long career, which is very rare these days.

[SlumpBuster]

Gore and nudity are not necessary in a horror film though, neither is violence or death. It's not about what you see on screen, but what your imagination does when it fills in the blanks... I'd recommend that you see EYES WITHOUT A FACE or any Hitchcock film really.

Eyes Without A Face is in my queue. And I guess your right about Hitchcock, I always forget that Rebecca won the Oscar. But, he did certainly enjoy greater recognition for the "art" of his movies later on and after his death.

I agree that gore and nudity are not necessary for horror in general. I still think Shamalamadingdong's Signs is one to the greatest actually "scary" horror movies. Very little, almost no gore. Just the knife and alien fingers really. But, I can't think of a single Hitchcock movie that is "scary." Sure, NBNW, Rear Window, Rope and Lifeboat are four of my favorite movies. But Psycho and The Birds are not "scary." At least not to my modern sensibilities, anyway. Also, the shower scene in Psycho played then like a gory Zombie scene plays today. Alot of people were shocked and outraged by how graphic it was. But, I don't think Zombies movies are "scary" either. Not in the sense of building suspense and then schocking the audience. Or building up the "creepy crawlies" and the quiet desire to turn on the lights. Hell, there were some scenes in The Exorcism of Emily Rose that were "scarier" then anything in any Zombie or Hitchcock movie.

My point I guess is this: Sure Psycho and Devils Rejects might both fit into the "horror" category, but only in the same way Poison and Sepultura are both "heavy metal." That is what I'm suggesting when I talked about a genre shift. Alot of the horror movies really belong in a sub-genre. I don't know what the name of that is. I guess it used to be "slasher" maybe now its "torture-porn." Both of those are bad names that don't really go to the heart of what this newer breed of movie is about. I think it may be a sub-genre with roots in movies like Last House on the Left and Zombie Holocaust, but they seem really different in my estimation and worlds apart from the Birds or even the Jason/Freddy type movies of the 80s. Whatever that new genre is called, gore and nudity are required.

But, I can live with liking Zombie, because you recommended Species. Really? Species? Also, I can't wait to see Halloween now. That would be sweet if I watched it and I was like "Damn, Peru was right... That totally sucked."

Finally, have you actually seen Devil's Rejects? Or was Halloween enough of a bad sign?

[PeruvianSkies]

Eyes Without A Face is in my queue. And I guess your right about Hitchcock, I always forget that Rebecca won the Oscar. But, he did certainly enjoy greater recognition for the "art" of his movies later on and after his death.

I agree that gore and nudity are not necessary for horror in general. I still think Shamalamadingdong's Signs is one to the greatest actually "scary" horror movies. Very little, almost no gore. Just the knife and alien fingers really. But, I can't think of a single Hitchcock movie that is "scary." Sure, NBNW, Rear Window, Rope and Lifeboat are four of my favorite movies. But Psycho and The Birds are not "scary." At least not to my modern sensibilities, anyway. Also, the shower scene in Psycho played then like a gory Zombie scene plays today. Alot of people were shocked and outraged by how graphic it was. But, I don't think Zombies movies are "scary" either. Not in the sense of building suspense and then schocking the audience. Or building up the "creepy crawlies" and the quiet desire to turn on the lights. Hell, there were some scenes in The Exorcism of Emily Rose that were "scarier" then anything in any Zombie or Hitchcock movie.

My point I guess is this: Sure Psycho and Devils Rejects might both fit into the "horror" category, but only in the same way Poison and Sepultura are both "heavy metal." That is what I'm suggesting when I talked about a genre shift. Alot of the horror movies really belong in a sub-genre. I don't know what the name of that is. I guess it used to be "slasher" maybe now its "torture-porn." Both of those are bad names that don't really go to the heart of what this newer breed of movie is about. I think it may be a sub-genre with roots in movies like Last House on the Left and Zombie Holocaust, but they seem really different in my estimation and worlds apart from the Birds or even the Jason/Freddy type movies of the 80s. Whatever that new genre is called, gore and nudity are required.

But, I can live with liking Zombie, because you recommended Species. Really? Species? Also, I can't wait to see Halloween now. That would be sweet if I watched it and I was like "Damn, Peru was right... That totally sucked."

Finally, have you actually seen Devil's Rejects? Or was Halloween enough of a bad sign?

Let me know how it all goes.