Halloween opens 8/31/07

[ppanda]

So Rob Zombie's remak of Halloween opens on August 30th.
I am always a bit sketchy when it comes to remakes...especially classics like Halloween.
I LOVE the original and it would take someone bold to tackle a remake of this without fucking it up- why fuck with perfection.
Especially since Devil's Rejects was such a disappointment...in my opinion.
I've read a lot about what Rob Z was doing with the film and saw the preview tonight....honestly it looks good.
In light of the new Dawn of the Dead which I thought was great..although it was a retelling- not a remake.
Is this something you are going to check out?...or Boycot?
I am def checking it out.

I would be interested to hear Paul-O's thoughts.

Edit: I also wonder why they didnt wait until Halloween week to release this.

[PapaBear]

I'll give it a chance. I'm just happy it's not another Cedric The Entertainer type remake.

[ChimneyFish]

I also wonder why they didnt wait until Halloween week to release this.

Mindboggling why they at least wouldn't wait to release it at the beginning of October.:huh:

Like all other movies, my sociopathic ass will see it when it comes to DVD.
Probably my #1 horror movie, so I hope he pulls it off.

[MadMatt]

Halloween is one of my favorite horror flicks, and i am really trepid about the remake. However, it looks like a deeper re-imagining of the Michael Myers character going deeper into his psychosis than other movies.

I agree with you guys though, it makes me nervous that they aren't releasing the movie on October 31. Why August 31? Do the execs not have any faith in it?

[EddieMoscone]

I agree with you guys though, it makes me nervous that they aren't releasing the movie on October 31. Why August 31? Do the execs not have any faith in it?

I think the opposite. The fact that they are releasing it in summer (albeit the end of summer) makes me think the studio has confidence in the fact that the film is going to make some money. Releasing it on Halloween, or even in october is a bit "Hacky"...looks like they are trying to get you in with a "Horror Movie for Halloween" hook instead of relying on the quality of the film.

You really didn't like Devil's Rejects? I saw it twice in the theater. Different Strokes...

[EliSnow]

In light of the new Dawn of the Dead which I thought was great..although it was a retelling- not a remake.



What's the difference between a retelling and a remake?

[King Hippos Bandaid]

[quote=PapaBear;1412704]I'll give it a chance. I'm just happy it's not another Cedric The Entertainer type remake.[/quote


you Mean Hizalloween

that joint iz due out in September Kiddd!!!!

:king:

[JustJon]

I think the opposite. The fact that they are releasing it in summer (albeit the end of summer) makes me think the studio has confidence in the fact that the film is going to make some money. Releasing it on Halloween, or even in october is a bit "Hacky"...looks like they are trying to get you in with a "Horror Movie for Halloween" hook instead of relying on the quality of the film.

You really didn't like Devil's Rejects? I saw it twice in the theater. Different Strokes...

End of summer (especially Labor Day weekend) is considered a dead time for movies and usually they toss out end of summer garbage that they don't expect to do well.

[cougarjake13]

What's the difference between a retelling and a remake?

to me a remake is a almost complete line for line version of the original


a re telling may follow a few major plot points but if you saw the 2 movies back to back you'd say they were 2 completely different movies

[EliSnow]

to me a remake is a almost complete line for line version of the original


a re telling may follow a few major plot points but if you saw the 2 movies back to back you'd say they were 2 completely different movies

For me, Dawn of the Dead would still be t's still a remake. Remember, most "remakes" aren't line for line versions of the other. In fact, that's the exception (like the remake of Psycho). I mean with this definition of remake, how many remakes are line for line compies of the other?

For instance, under your definition, the 2001 Ocean's Eleven would be a "retelling" of the 1960 version, but everyone calls it a remake. Same with the Italian Job. Both were took set-up and other ideas from previous films, but had materially different plot points.

When I think "re-telling" I think of a well known story, that's told in a completely different manner or from a different perspective. For instance, Wicked is a retelling of The Wizard of Oz. The Mists of Avalon is a retelling of the Arthurian Legend. Clueless could be a retelling of Emma. Batmans Begins is a retelling of Batman, the comic book character, but is not a remake of Batman the movie.

EDIT: You could also argue, and this may be closer, that if your "retelling" is in the same format as the original source material, it is both a retelling and a remake. For instance, the recent version of The Producers is both a retelling (because of the musical angle) and a remake of the original producers). If Dawn of the Dead, was originally a book, the recent movie would be a retelling of it, and thus, not a remake of the original movie. But since that's not the case, it's a remake, and maybe a retelling.


Anyway, obviously this is just my opinion.

[PapaBear]

[quote=PapaBear;1412704]I'll give it a chance. I'm just happy it's not another Cedric The Entertainer type remake.[/quote


you Mean Hizalloween

that joint iz due out in September Kiddd!!!!

:king:
Oh, no you di'int!

[MadMatt]

For me, Dawn of the Dead would still be t's still a remake. Remember, most "remakes" aren't line for line versions of the other. In fact, that's the exception (like the remake of Psycho). I mean with this definition of remake, how many remakes are line for line compies of the other?

For instance, under your definition, the 2001 Ocean's Eleven would be a "retelling" of the 1960 version, but everyone calls it a remake. Same with the Italian Job. Both were took set-up and other ideas from previous films, but had materially different plot points.

When I think "re-telling" I think of a well known story, that's told in a completely different manner or from a different perspective. For instance, Wicked is a retelling of The Wizard of Oz. The Mists of Avalon is a retelling of the Arthurian Legend. Clueless could be a retelling of Emma. Batmans Begins is a retelling of Batman, the comic book character, but is not a remake of Batman the movie.

EDIT: You could also argue, and this may be closer, that if your "retelling" is in the same format as the original source material, it is both a retelling and a remake. For instance, the recent version of The Producers is both a retelling (because of the musical angle) and a remake of the original producers).

Anyway, obviously this is just my opinion.

I have to disagree RE: Dawn of the Dead, although you make very valid points. I think there were several substantial breaks from the original storyline that take it beyond a remake. The characters involved, the way they meet, the path of the story are all very different from the 1978 version; of course the major difference is the Zombies can run and are much more agressive than in Romero's film.

And on your other points, I would consider Ocean's 11 and The Italian job retellings rather than remakes. However, a lot of movies could be considered retelling rather than remaking given the aforementioned criteria.

Screw this - just enjoy the movies! :lol:

[EliSnow]

I have to disagree RE: Dawn of the Dead, although you make very valid points. I think there were several substantial breaks from the original storyline that take it beyond a remake. The characters involved, the way they meet, the path of the story are all very different from the 1978 version; of course the major difference is the Zombies can run and are much more agressive than in Romero's film.

And on your other points, I would consider Ocean's 11 and The Italian job retellings rather than remakes. However, a lot of movies could be considered retelling rather than remaking given the aforementioned criteria.



I guess that's my point. Under this definition, most movies considered "remakes" would actually be "retellings." I think there may be different degrees to which a "remake" just copies of the original, but ultimately, the way the term "remake" is used means that most people would consider these movies "remakes."

[MadMatt]

End of summer (especially Labor Day weekend) is considered a dead time for movies and usually they toss out end of summer garbage that they don't expect to do well.

That was my point - they seem to be throwing the movie out there at an odd time when it doesn't seem very advantageous. Even if it is "hack," a realease of Hallowen on Halloween gaurantees a core audience of rabid fans. Even if the movie sucks, they would get that push of kitch viewers during that opening weekend who are simply going because it's Halloween on Halloween.

But to play devil's advocate, the studio could have enough faith in the movie that they figure it will kill in that timeslot. With no competition, a good movie could do gangbuster business with a lack of competition on the market.

Damn it! I don't know what to think! :annoyed:

[MadMatt]

I guess that's my point. Under this definition, most movies considered "remakes" would actually be "retellings." I think there may be different degrees to which a "remake" just copies of the original, but ultimately, the way the term "remake" is used means that most people would consider these movies "remakes."

Yeah, my arguments keep getting caught up in semantics. :annoyed:

However, I still think that Dawn of the Dead was substantially different enough from the "original" that it goes beyond the category of remake.

Of course, just my opinion too.

EDIT: Anybody else notice that I am waffling like crazy in this thread. I am starting to really bug myself!

[thepaulo]

saw it but the studio rep said don't write about it untill after opening day...which I thought was pretty nice since usually they just don't show it....they didn't show Death Sentence untill 9:30 pm for tommorrows opening
but they PR people have nothing to worry about because anything the critics say can only improve Rob Zombie's rep.....

anyway I'll respect them...just postg them on my site which is ahrdly working yet then transfer them over tommorrow night

[PapaBear]

Tease!

[thepaulo]

What... ?
certainly not.

[thepaulo]

The original Halloween is a classic. Everyone knows this.The other seven were awful to insane to uninspired.
Rob Zombie is clearly a man possessed. He loves the raw, unvarnished horror sleaze of the seventies.
Most horror remakes of the last ten years have that corporate sheen. There is a blatant phoniness to them. They wink knowingly at us as they demean the primitive thrill of many of the early slasher films.
Rob Zombie is getting better as a director. Not only does he competently pay tribute to the original film but he fleshes it out convincingly. It is different than the original because it does explain the face of evil. Some might complain but not me. If I want to see the original, I'll see the original.
What I want is a fresh rush. a fresh grip of real fear that isn't centered around phony young actors and hack "professional" directors. I want a man of passion.
I want someone possessed trying to cram their demented obsession down my throat. I want someone who doesn't give a fuck about anything except spitting out his inner nightmare. I feel Rob Zombie is the man. 67 out of 100

[topless_mike]

i am dying to see this.
i hope they go more into the backstory, ala batman begins.

[AJDELAWARE]

So far I am hearing mixed reviews from people that went to the midnight screenings. Some say its great, other say that they've seen X-files episodes that were scarier.

[El Mudo]

Halloween is one of my favorite horror flicks, and i am really trepid about the remake. However, it looks like a deeper re-imagining of the Michael Myers character going deeper into his psychosis than other movies.

I agree with you guys though, it makes me nervous that they aren't releasing the movie on October 31. Why August 31? Do the execs not have any faith in it?



Because you want Christmas movies coming out at the end of October...By the time the holiday's already here, the time for making money off it is over. We have had our fall candy and fall halloween lineups out at my store since mid July as an example...and we get our valentine's stuff out right in the first week of January

[newport king]

i got a workprint copy of it, while i was very into the beginning when they showed young michael, i felt it dragged towards the middle. there were some parts of the movie i found absolutely absurd, such as how he escaped from the mental hospital (2 hillbillys decide to rape a woman in his room... meanwhile this monster who is 6ft8in has pretty much killed anyone who has come into contact with him, why the fuck would they decide to rape her in his room and antagonize him. Zombie did a terrible job connecting the dots 15 years after young michael goes away and after he escapes he looks for his sister...how the fuck does he know this girl is his sister? i dont know, it started off strong and ended ok, i give it 1 1/2 stars.

[thepaulo]

the rape scene was cut.....and replaced with a midnight transfer sequence....
my main defence of this movie is that it strikes the right tone as a remake while adding a new perspective....I'm not going to get tremendously wrapped up in the motivations of Michael Myers in any of the movies...The first movie is the best....without question...I feel that the current movie is the best of the other sequel/remakes....The first film made no attempt to explain and that is one of it's strenghts...still I feel the time has come to address the possibility that Michael Meyers is a flesh and blood human being and not just a faceless boogeyman...

[Fezticle98]

It looks like it will be "trick" instead of "treat" for Halloween on Oscar night! A ge ge ge

[TheMojoPin]

Diz-amn, this thing was a steaming pile of crap. It screws things up the same way those damn newer Star Wars movies did...claims to "explain" everything, but actually explains nothing, makes a huge mess and deprives you of all the cool stuff you liked in the older films. Right off the bat we find out there's zero point in an "origin story" because according to Rob Zombie, the little bastard was ALWAYS crazy. Whoopedee-doo! Borrrrrrrrrring.

[IamPixie]

Diz-amn, this thing was a steaming pile of crap. It screws things up the same way those damn newer Star Wars movies did...claims to "explain" everything, but actually explains nothing, makes a huge mess and deprives you of all the cool stuff you liked in the older films. Right off the bat we find out there's zero point in an "origin story" because according to Rob Zombie, the little bastard was ALWAYS crazy. Whoopedee-doo! Borrrrrrrrrring.

I dunno I really liked it...well the first part of it anyway. I think that little mikey did an amazing job. Those murder scenes as a child were fucking brutal! The whole movie was shot beautifully. I did think the last chase scene went on a little too long for my taste. Other than that I really enjoyed it.

http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/4126/2698/lo/p1.jpg

[Patient zer0]

just wondering what people thought of Robs new movie.
im going to check it out this week.

[IamPixie]

do a search. there's already a thread for this.

[AJDELAWARE]

From what people have told me, he has potentially ruined one of the best horror movies ever, by making it a gore fest and losing the suspense factor that made the original so scary. Also, from some reviews i've read, this has caused the character development to suffer and makes it so you don't care who gets killed because you have no idea who the person is.

But im sure people will ride this movies nuts cause it is Rob Zombie and has blood.

[TheMojoPin]

It's a piece of crap. The first one was great because the killer was like the freakin' shark in Jaws...unstoppable, mysterious, seemingly everywhere. OK, he had the connection to Jamie Lee Curtis' character, but that was about it. That's all we needed to know. After that it was all about when and where he would show up. This new one, shocker, makes him the product of a terrible white trash family. Starting to see the pattern with Zombie's movies?

[The Silencer]

very excited

[MadMatt]

I stopped watching within the first 10 minutes. Piece of crap is right.

I'll "spoiler" this part in case others are still interested in seeing it.

Part of the "magic" of the first movie was you didn't really know why Michael Myers was evil, he just WAS. Despite having a loving, caring family he was a dead-eyed murderer - the incarnation of evil. Now he is the product of an abusive, sick, white trash family. There is no wonder why he is a f@#$ed up murderer. Truly disappointing.

[Ay Kay Forty2]

I stopped watching within the first 10 minutes. Piece of crap is right.

I'll "spoiler" this part in case others are still interested in seeing it.

Part of the "magic" of the first movie was you didn't really know why Michael Myers was evil, he just WAS. Despite having a loving, caring family he was a dead-eyed murderer - the incarnation of evil. Now he is the product of an abusive, sick, white trash family. There is no wonder why he is a f@#$ed up murderer. Truly disappointing.

I agree, man. I mean, in the original you actually thought he was the Boogeyman. He was just soo menacing and mysterious. I can't remember which Halloween movie they found out that Laurie and Michael were related. But, it just seemed weird.

I didn't hate it like a lot of other people, I just thought it was kinda average.

[JimBeam]

OK so I bought this 2 weeks ago and finally got to watch it.

Firstly I will say that I've been a big fan so far of Zombie's movies because they remind me of the slashers I grew up watching.
He doesn't go for the pretentiousness of putting " stars " in his moves ( a la those shitty movies that supposedly revived horror in th mid-90's like Scream and IKWYDLS ) and avoids the corporate bullshit.
I also love his use of cameos.

Now on to my thoughts of the movie itself.

I was sceptical about a remake of this film much more so than TCM or Dawn because I always thought this was the true horror movie of it's time.
TCM had the great atmosphere to it but there were no characters to relate to ( unlike the remake which did a good job of adding that factor ).
But since I personally thought both of those remakes were great movies and Zombie knows his horror I had a good feeling going into it.

There were many things I liked about the new one.
I liked the background fn the young Michael Meyers as he truly was a sympathetic character. I felt bad for him when he was getting shit on by everybody ( I will disagree w/ a previous poster who thought MM became the killer because he was a abused by a white trash family. I think while he wasn't raised in a middle class household, although they did have a pool, his mom truly did love him and from the brief statement the sister makes about their real dad I think the dad was probably a good person. The sister was just a selfish whore and of course the mom's b/f was a jerkoff. I think the point was just to show that he had been born evil and none of the things around him made a difference because he was soulless and lacked a conscience through no fault of hos own ).
I especially felt bad when he had no idea what he had done and he kept asking when he could go home.

I thought that Zombie did a good job of mimicing the original at certain parts almost to a tee. You could play a few of these scenes side by side and see how similar they were.

I also liked Malcom MacDowell's portrayal of Loomis. He was a little goofier but brought his own take to the character.

There are a lot of other things I liked but I'm drawing a blank.

The easiest things to come up w/ were the things I didnt enjoy :

I think there were too many killings to be honest. While I love the scenes themselves I think it took away from the films mystique.
There was absolutely no reason for Mr and Mrs Strode to have to be killed.

The final chase scene, as somebody else had pointed out, was way too long and to be very honest anti-climactic except for the way she blows his head off at the end. I knew there were bullets left because Loomis only fired a few times but I was wondering why the cylinder of the revolver would've gotten out of order after Loomis had fired it earlier. That seems to be technical but were weren't talking about a long drawn out gun battle where you can lose track of bullets.

I also did not like the fact that Loomis gets killed. Again very anti-climactic although I hear there's an alternate cut where he doesn't die.

I thought they tried to make MM too much like Leatherface in his size and stature. I think it's much more menacing when an average size man has this incredible strength that MM had.

I'll give it an A for its homage to the original and that it didn't in any way take away from the legend the original had created.

I'm not sure where to rank it amongst the other 2 remakes I enjoyed because they each had something very cool about them but I wouldn't say it was the best of the 3.

[JimBeam]

I bought the DVD at Circuit City and they included an additional disc ( it was a 2 disc version and they added a 3rd ).

It was a 20 minute Q&A at a comic convention with Zombie, his wife, the girl that played Laurie and the guy that played MM.

I will say that they seemed like they didn't wanna be there.

Got some interesting tidbits from it though :

Malcom MacDowell has never seen the original movie so he knew nothing about Donald Pleasance's portrayal.

While Zombie didn't need John Carpenter's approval to make the film he did call him out of respect to let him know he was doing it. Carpernter was gracious and gave his blessing saying " make it your own thing ".

I don't believe that Zombie will be making another horror movie anytime soon.