Search - Halloween - Unrated Director's Cut (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition) on DVD

Chad B. (abrnt1) from CABERY, IL
Reviewed on 4/29/2011...

Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween is a decent film that adds a new element to the series. Whenever a film is remade there's a tendency to compare it to the original and in most cases this is valid. The fact that the majority of remakes fail to do anything new with the material is the main reason why, overall, remakes suck for the most part. For every decent remake (John Carpenter's The Thing, David Croenenbergs The Fly & Dawn of the Dead 2004) there's countless others that fail (The Fog,psycho,Funny Games).

Halloween is a series that's always had problems. John Carpenter has stated in numerous interviews that even though Halloween 2 is a flawed film, it's the only actual sequel. For those of you who don't remember at the end of Halloween 2 Michael Myers & Dr. Loomis die. Every sequel since has been almost a textbook example of bad filmmaking. Cheap attempts to make money is really all parts 3 on were (Part 3 is one of the weirdest sequels ever in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the series-the stupid arguement that the druid conspiracy is part of Michael's backstory is just lame).

Rob Zombie made the best out of a bad situation. Halloween was going to be remade. What Zombie did was add a real world element to the series. He transformed Michael into a serial killer. Some people had problems with this feeling that this change made Michael less of an iconic monster. Let's be real for a moment and really think about it. If Zombie made a film that kept Michael exactly the same it would have been a nightmare. Keep in mind no matter what a remake does the original still exists.

Is the remake a classic? I don't really think so. While it is an enjoyable film it just doesn't have the impact of the original. No remake would.

Nikki H. (Tinyavenger)
Reviewed on 5/27/2010...

Tried again to like a Rob Zombie film but just couldn't do it. Being a huge fan of John Carpenter and the original Halloween may skew my opinion a bit but I hated the re-invented version of Michael Myers. I really disliked the new backstory they gave Michael opposed to him being just born pure evil. It took way to long to get to the story. Plus, I wasn't thrilled with the way people were actually 'seeing' Michael before the killings started. The implied threat in the first one where he would be there and suddenly he wasn't or we the viewer saw him but the characters did not was much more scary. I tried but it is a huge thumbs down from me.

Amy R. from BIG STONE CTY, SD
Reviewed on 4/20/2010...

love it!

Anthony B. from MILWAUKEE, WI
Reviewed on 3/12/2010...

If it wasn't Michael Myers as a character, I would have loved this movie. Took Rob Zombie and hour and a half to lead into the story as opposed to John Carpenter who took a mere 15 minutes. Instead of "The Shape" figure from JC, RZ creates a mask obsessed psycho. Fun, but not in the same sense as the original.

1 of 1 member(s) found this review helpful.

Considering

Alexander Stephen Brown | Vicksburg, ms United States | 12/11/2007

(5 out of 5 stars)

"The original Halloween is a classic and will in my book always receive a five star rating. Recently there has been a great deal of remakes that were flops and catered to the teeny bopper crowd such as, The Fog, The Omen, Dark Water, etc. However there has been only two remakes that I thought were diserving of our attenion, one being the remake of The Hills Have Eyes, and Halloween.

What I liked about the remake was it gave us something fresh to work with. In the original Halloween we never really knew why Michael was bad, in this remake, the first thirty minutes or so expore the childhood of Michael Myers. People say that the dialog concerning Michael's family was wrong. Trust me, I have seen broken homes and Mr. Zombie gives us exactly what you would expect from a trashy family.

Besides satisfying my curiosity of Michael's childhood, I found this to be similar in many cases to the original, but at the same time the material was quite fresh with new chills and scares. Zombie took a masterpiece and reminded us why it is called a masterpiece. He accomplished a great job capturing a 70's look and theme, and did a great musical score as well. This is possibly the best horror remake that I've ever seen."

Halloween Remake...A Fresh Look...

ThatsMrGrinch2U | 11/14/2007

(4 out of 5 stars)

"I don't know why everyone is bashing this film, but I am a die-hard fan of the Halloween movies and the horror genre, and I thought this movie was a nice remake to the best and original Carpenter film. It's certainly more entertaining than the crappy sequels that previously came out, and this film sets a more serious and modern harsh reality of what it could be like if this happened today. Carpenter's original film took place in 1978, so I found it to be a nice homage for Zombie to begin the origins of young Michael Myers in 1978. For the first time, we actually get to see what kind of family and childhood that Michael grew up in, which explains so much to his psychotic condition. As a child, Michael's facsination with torturing and killing innocent animals presents an accurate profile for such a future serial killer. This film actually has some explanations behind it, which is vacant in all other Halloween films. Zombie's direction is rough and gritty, but certainly adds to the atmosphere and chilling story -- my heart was pounding when young Michael was slaying his sister and her boyfriend. As for Zombie using the same cast as his other films, it's really no different than what Carpenter did either (How many Carpenter films was Jamie Lee Curtis, Tom Atkins, Charles Cyphers, Donald Pleasence, Nancy Loomis, and Adrienne Barbeau were in? I can count at least 3). I've seen the original film about a thousand times, and Zombie's remake can never replace Carpenter's classic, but this film is worth the effort and respect. I'm looking forward to the Unrated DVD version, which will have a lot of scenes restored that was cut from the theatrical release."

In defense of "Halloween"

man_invisible | Dork, PA | 10/13/2007

(4 out of 5 stars)

"If you check history, you will find that John Carpenter's "Halloween" did not come out the gate a critics' darling or a financial success; according to late producer/cowriter Debra Hill, the initial reactions "were brutal." Ironic, then, how it has since developed a revered following (though I'm honestly not a big fan) that most people today think was always the case.

I bring this up because Rob Zombie's remake--in addition to being the shot in the arm the franchise desperately needs--will likely have the same fate; years down the road, I think it will be valued on the same level as the "Dawn of the Dead" and "Hills Have Eyes" remakes. While Zombie's film is jagged in spots, with narrative jumps (where did Loomis get the cop car? how does Michael get to Haddonfield from the middle-of-nowhere truck stop?) and plain-view continuity errors (some of which were probably inspired by the ill-advised Weinstein Bros. reshoots), the filmmaker has brought a pathos to this human monster that is more rich and fulfilling than any of the films prior (yes, I'm including the original).

What seems to offend "Halloween" purists most is the mere principle of Zombie's undertaking--how DARE he remake a CLASSIC--instead of looking at the film in the broader scope of things: would you rather see Michael Myers going head-to-head with Busta Rhymes? How about a continuation of that desperate Celtic mumbo-jumbo? Zombie's position was inarguably unglamorous, no doubt realizing as many people would embrace his film as decry it. For my tastes, he has brought an angle that fuses popular serial killer lore with the sense of tragedy that marked the classic Universal Monsters--it's a tricky feat, but by introducing us to pint-size Michael (Daeg Faerch) and spending time with him, his adult counterpart--while a ruthless machine of brutality--possesses the faint traces of humanity that marked Frankenstein's Monster, or the Wolf Man. In many ways, his ultimate downfall is as tragic as the atrocities he commits. And THAT is what ultimately transcends all in "Halloween"--putting a face and motive to what was once a mere in-the-shadows specter of "evil."

The first half of the film provides a satisfying, creatively-filmed backstory (I'm anxiously awaiting the additional scenes being restored for the upcoming DVD), wherein we get an overview of young Michael, his fatal deeds, and his time in Smith's Grove, under the watch of Dr. Sam Loomis (a well-cast Malcolm McDowell). Only in the second half does "Halloween" kick into full-blown remake mode, with gritty renderings of scenes from Carpenter's film; despite this, Zombie manages to put his own spin on traditional scares, adding a visceral edge and urgency to death. I actually appreciated the truncated characterizations of Laurie (the immensely likable Scout Taylor-Compton), Lynda (Kristina Klebe), and Annie ("Halloween 4/5" vet Danielle Harris), since their interactions in the original are what ultimately dulled it down for me; here, Zombie gives us a quick introduction (just enough time to get a feel for the characters) before getting down to business. And while the "sex=death" equation here is hardly inspired, it certainly beats the torture-device-laden-labyrinth of another "Saw" film.

Zombie treats the material with a great deal of reverence and respect, and utilizes a reality-focused style to establish a proper tone (imagine the dustbowl squalor of "The Devil's Rejects" brought to suburbia); the death scenes are filmed with unflinching brutality, yet seldom feel exaggerated. Time will tell, but to me, "Halloween" is a more than worthy addition to the pantheon of great remakes (and horror films in general)."