Halloween Franchise (1978-?)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#51 Post by blindside8zao » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:31 pm

has anyone seen this yet?

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#52 Post by blindside8zao » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:45 pm

Does anyone know anything about the new Halloween DVD? It looks similar to an old one but Best Buy has a release date for one a few days ago. I'm wondering if this is the one with a voucher that gives you 10 dollars to go to the movie with.

broadwayrock
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:47 am

#53 Post by broadwayrock » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:58 pm

blindside8zao wrote:Does anyone know anything about the new Halloween DVD? It looks similar to an old one but Best Buy has a release date for one a few days ago. I'm wondering if this is the one with a voucher that gives you 10 dollars to go to the movie with.
I heard it was exactly the same as the previous edition but with a new cover.

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#54 Post by rs98762001 » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:55 pm

I'm assuming that Carpenter has nothing to do with this. Incidentally, what is the old master up to these days? Aside from the 2 Masters of Horror episodes, which were underconceived and underbudgeted, he's been awfully quiet. About time for a Carpenter revival and reappreciation, methinks.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#55 Post by Person » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:56 pm

Yeah, it even has the old, annoying pre-movie THX logo. Thank fuck that shit was phased out.

There's still the Blu-Ray edition in October, though. Rumour has it that the transfer's color timing will mirror the 1999 transfer.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

#56 Post by John Cope » Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:12 am

blindside8zao wrote:has anyone seen this yet?
Well, in a way. I watched this online today--or, I should say, I watched a version of it. The version which has leaked out apparently is the "workprint"; in this case, that means this is the cut as completed prior to the reshoots last spring.

Anyway, I have no way of knowing how different the final cut will be though I am willing to take a look at it to compare. Obviously I will reserve total judgement till then, however I will toss out a few thoughts that hopefully won't spoil anything.

I'm actually kind of glad that the cut I saw was the earlier version as it provides a unique insight into production. God knows there are things in there that would benefit from a change. Overall, as it stands it's no masterpiece but it's also impossible to completely dismiss, which is more than one can say for most of the sequels.

It's a hard movie to review properly (and what makes it so will continue in the final cut I'm sure) as there's a lot of mixed up stuff here and what we get is thus a very mixed bag. Zombie quotes direct shots and compositions from Carpenter which I really wasn't sure how to take. In a lot of respects his approach is so different it makes these bold references difficult to reconcile. The restaging of shots and framing from the original also brings the original to mind in a way that isn't to Zombie's benefit.

The main thing about this that stands out, however, is the imposition of a kind of psychological realism. It's actually quite daring that he plays out his set up sequence for the first 40 minutes or so. I'm pleasantly surprised by the patience on display there and the attention to detail. Still, all of this might simply be there because he's into pseudo psychological portraits of the criminally insane. In this, Zombie's Halloween mirrors the reductive reasoning of its time. In the original, what mattered was that Michael represented a force we can barely contain and can only understand as evil--but we don't understand it at all and that was the point: it exists just outside of our register, it doesn't compute. His actions and violence seem arbitrary but they're somehow also purposive; the force of the violence is what we truly don't understand and can't comprehend. And what ultimately emerges in the new film (perhaps not intentionally) is a fucked up Lifetime movie foregrounding all the graphic horror elements that are slightly less explicit and slightly more sublimated in that channel's endless litany of features on domestic abuse. It often feels like he wants to take the internal emotional aspect of family violence very seriously but then he drops the ball and seems to lose all interest when the narrative flashes ahead 15 years (maybe this will be one of the things corrected). And finally, I do know that the ending has been changed and that is good as what exists in this cut absolutely does not work. To put it simply, all force and energy dissipates before us in the final few minutes and our hand closes on air. This cannot be what was intended. The scenes of raw aggression on occasion hit with some force and anguish but much of this just feels sort of exhausted before it begins and, as I said, the direct lifts from Carpenter only remind us of what was once fresh. I never thought the B movie histrionics of Halloween 2 would compare favorably but they often do here. In other moments, Zombie actually hits some sublime or sonorous notes. Unfortunately, none linger.

Oh, and the girl who plays Laurie Strode, though adequate, barely registers. The role feels reconceived to reflect more of a standard teen age model but then that may just be a reflection on these particular times once again. Mcdowell is also only adequate (though there's nothing there to work with). Only Zombie vet William Forsyth stands out. He makes his presence felt. He's this Halloween's MVP.

User avatar
maxbelmont
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:35 pm

#57 Post by maxbelmont » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:09 am

John Cope, how can you dismiss Busta Rhymes's performance in Rick Rosenthal's Halloween Resurrection? Rhymes picks up where the late Donald Pleasence left off.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#58 Post by lord_clyde » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:32 am

I liked it. The backstory takes up a good portion of the film (a friend of mine joked that when the '15 Years Later' title card came up it had already run the length of the original Halloween) and since Michael Myers is severely humanized in this version his superpowers seem (more) ridiculous. The whole 'Devil's Rejects' cast shows up - and are promptly slaughtered. Particularly enjoyed seeing Ken Foree make his cameo.

And the girls are hot and spend lots of time without clothes on.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#59 Post by THX1378 » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:30 pm

Just saw it and really liked how they humanized Michael also. Zombie made a good point in showing that he's all human, not some supernatural being like latter on in the series made points of. And yes the backstory does feel like it takes a little too long, but I did like what Zombie was going for in humanizing Michael by given him this. Also, people thinking that this film is going to be about Laurie Strode for the most part are going to be disappointed. Laurie isn't even in the film for more than 20 to 30 minutes. This film is all about Michael and his story.

DrewReiber
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:27 am

#60 Post by DrewReiber » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:50 pm

maxbelmont wrote:John Cope, how can you dismiss Busta Rhymes's performance in Rick Rosenthal's Halloween Resurrection? Rhymes picks up where the late Donald Pleasence left off.
I'm making this my new away message. Thank you!
THX1378 wrote:Also, people thinking that this film is going to be about Laurie Strode for the most part are going to be disappointed.
I guess I'll have put my "Strode, represent!" sign back in the closet. Maybe I can show my loyal support for the character if they re-release Halloween II, H20 and Resurrection on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray discs!

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

#61 Post by John Cope » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:49 am

THX1378 wrote:Just saw it and really liked how they humanized Michael also. Zombie made a good point in showing that he's all human, not some supernatural being like latter on in the series made points of. And yes the backstory does feel like it takes a little too long, but I did like what Zombie was going for in humanizing Michael by given him this...This film is all about Michael and his story.
Right, but the question remains whether that's a worthwhile approach. Clearly, it's worthwhile enough as it worked for you. Nonetheless, I can't help but be pestered by the feeling of a very real missed opportunity.

The reason a movie like Resurrection doesn't work isn't sheerly due to its aesthetic ineptitude. Rather, it has more to do with losing the thread of purpose laid down by Carpenter and being unable (or, more likely, too disinterested) to locate it again. Michael still represents pure ontological violence but he's rendered harmless to us because of artistic mishandling. In other words, the directors of most of the sequels convey their symbolism with either laziness or outright flagrant indifference. Still, something endures no matter how poor the treatment. What has been permanently lost is the subtlety. Michael as embodiment of evil was personified in Carpenter, but only enough to make him real to us, to make his threat tangible. The immanence and imposition of Michael's will is toyed with in all the movies but generally to little effect because his symbolic value is not valued or understood. Everybody seems to get that he represents some kind of vague evil but in most of the sequels what that basically amounts to is turning him into some kind of abstraction. Commendably, even the worst ones (Curse for instance) don't attempt to "humanize" him, realizing perhaps that would only confuse their already shaky scenarios. But those films fail because they are only concerned with primitivistic fight or flight logic. There is no surplus of understanding. As such, the impact of the violence never gets beyond surface representations. The evil that threatens the characters is too removed from them, too much an "other" to have devastating personal meaning (in opposition to something like Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me). And it's the misconception that personal meaning demands spurious psychological "realism" which has rendered the sequels mainly inert for viewer involvement. Certainly any prospect of being transfixed by horror has completely drained away. It's no surprise that one of the few truly shocking moments in any of the sequels is the horrific perpetuation of violence implied at the end of Return. Naturally this entire prospect is quickly scuttled and swept under the rug at the start of the next film.

Zombie was wise enough to realize that this situation needed to be rectified somehow, and that perhaps a radical re-invention was called for. But emphasizing Michael's formative relationships proves more of a distraction than anything else. Perhaps distilling everything down to essences in ten minutes or so would have maintained a more consistent tone. I assume Zombie was trying to make the brutality more pronounced because we supposedly recognize Michael now as relatable. Well, that isn't entirely true, is it? And if he was shooting for some kind of complicated sympathetic reaction in us that too is ineffective (at least in the cut I saw) because there is so little weight behind the scenes set "15 Years Later". I realize he's not going for Gaspar Noe territory, though that would have been the right note to hit in the era of Saw.

He can't seem to decide what he wants. I was initially excited by the casting of notorious ham McDowell because it suggested a tonal direction I was intrigued by. But he's amazingly never allowed to cut loose. Is Zombie really trying to tow some sort of line of realism even as he simultaneously unleashes Tyler Mane on Haddenfield? Please.

And yet despite all the ho-hum "humanizing" diminishments something still endures even here.

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

#62 Post by Morbii » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:59 am

I thought it was absolutely awful.

What was with the huge puddles of stagnant blood 2 seconds after Michael killed a person?

The humanizing (with the inclusion of an explanation) just serves to drop the levels of fear that the character is able to invoke. On one side, you have a kid who just one day kills his sister for no discernable reason. On the other side you have a kid with a REALLY fucked up family that probably had a hand in his choices. Which is more scary? The one that doesn't have a reason - because it could be ANYONE.
THX1378 wrote:Zombie made a good point in showing that he's all human, not some supernatural being like latter on in the series made points of.
So, getting stabbed down through the shoulder by an 8"+ blade, being shot 3 times in the back by a .357 magnum, then getting up, killing someone with your bare hands, etc, etc doesn't give you "supernatural being" status?

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#63 Post by THX1378 » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:48 am

I was initially excited by the casting of notorious ham McDowell because it suggested a tonal direction I was intrigued by. But he's amazingly never allowed to cut loose.
I thought that McDowell was great being his over the top self and playing the roll like it was written by Shakespeare himself.
Zombie was wise enough to realize that this situation needed to be rectified somehow, and that perhaps a radical re-invention was called for.
If Zombie wouldn't have done what he did and shown that Michael was human with real problems coming from a crazy family, unlike Halloween 78 where he just "is" evil, everyone would have been talking about Zombie not bring anything new to the table and that he's really is a hack director. Zombie knew to remake this film he had to go back and at least show why Michael did and does what he does. The one problem with that then is that yes it breaks the myth Carpenter set up that Michael is the boogyman in human form, and that evil can't be explained. Evil sometimes is just something that is in someones nature and we are born that way. Here Zombie states that Michael being picked on by his family and others, plus the addition that everyone seems to give up on him, makes him a killer.
So, getting stabbed down through the shoulder by an 8"+ blade, being shot 3 times in the back by a .357 magnum, then getting up, killing someone with your bare hands, etc, etc doesn't give you "supernatural being" status?
Yea my one beef would have to be that he does cross the line with what he set up. But then again he made Michael into a built giant that looks like he's worked out at least 3 times a week while being locked up in white room.[/quote]

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

#64 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:04 pm

John Cope wrote:Everybody seems to get that he represents some kind of vague evil but in most of the sequels what that basically amounts to is turning him into some kind of abstraction.
To be fair, the original Halloween intended for Michael to be an abstraction of pure evil. From Donald Pleasence's evil speeches, to the mask that de-humanizes a human face, to the lines about the "boogey-man," to Michael being credited as "the shape," to the ending where Michael dissapears and his breathing resounds about Haddonfield like an enveloping evil--it's all an attempt abstract Michael into representation of all our various fears. That the film also makes him a tangible threat (mostly by maintaining a spacial logic to his movements) is part of its success.
John Cope wrote:Commendably, even the worst ones (Curse for instance) don't attempt to "humanize" him, realizing perhaps that would only confuse their already shaky scenarios.
Halloween 5 had him cry.

User avatar
Grand Wazoo
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:23 pm

#65 Post by Grand Wazoo » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:47 pm

Many of my feelings have already been stated (humanizing making Michael far less frightening, etc.). I'd like to touch on a few things that havent been mentioned. First off, as much as I love many of the cult actors that appeared throughout, the film simply felt too aware of its casting. I mean we have a scene in a parking lot with Malcolm McDowell, Clint Howard, and Udo Kier and it's being played totally straight. Just seeing these three together will make any slightly knowledgable film fan smile and laugh, but I dont think thats what Rob Zombie wanted. Nearly every small speaking role was cast this way (Brad Dourif, Ken Foree, Sid Haig, Wlliam Forsythe, Danny Trejo...) like Zombie felt he was obligated to give any actor he previously worked with a part in the film. I understand that this wont upset the target audience of this picture, but it stood out like a soar thumb to me.

The other thing that bothered me immensley was the horrendous makeup throughout. This is the first time I have come out of a film with a makeup gripe, so thats how much it stood out for me. Facial hair had obvious application seam lines, wigs looked awful, and blood at times looked as if it was drawn on by a mother readying their kid for a costume party (the worst offender being the perfectly straight lines of blood on the bully young Michael attacks.)

While I went in knowing it would be pretty terrible, I at least expected to have fun with it. But I ended up embarrassed to be watching it.

mogwai
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:50 am
Location: California

#66 Post by mogwai » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:45 am

Jesus, was this ever terrible! I really was hoping to take something positive away from this unnecessary remake, but there's absolutely nothing. The back story was completely pointless and went on for way too long. And if I never have to see Zombie's wife "act" again I'll be much better for it. I didn't need to see Myer's humanized. It brought nothing substantial to the character and I agree with everyone who believes he's far scarier not knowing the reason why he's evil.

I also disliked the frenetic pace of the movie once Myer's began his killing spree. It just turned into another generic slasher. There was nothing suspenseful about it. Even today, I can throw on the original, turn the lights down, and immerse myself in the world Carpenter created -- and still be scared. That's the brilliance of his film. It's a timeless masterpiece.
THX1378 wrote:If Zombie wouldn't have done what he did and shown that Michael was human with real problems coming from a crazy family, unlike Halloween 78 where he just "is" evil, everyone would have been talking about Zombie not bring anything new to the table and that he's really is a hack director.
If Zombie had brought anything to this movie other than the stupid back story, I would've at least appreciated the attempt. The history of Michael Myer's life was too obvious. So, even with this back story he created, he's still a hack.
Grand Wazoo wrote:While I went in knowing it would be pretty terrible, I at least expected to have fun with it. But I ended up embarrassed to be watching it.
I've never walked out of a movie, but I seriously considered doing it for this one.

User avatar
Morbii
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:38 am

#67 Post by Morbii » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:54 am

mogwai wrote:If Zombie had brought anything to this movie other than the stupid back story, I would've at least appreciated the attempt. The history of Michael Myer's life was too obvious. So, even with this back story he created, he's still a hack.
lol! I already said it, but yeah, this movie was ass.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#68 Post by lord_clyde » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:20 am

Anybody else thinks it was strange that
SpoilerShow
they never found the bully in the woods? didn't his parents report him missing, wasn't his friend able to point out the direction he walks home? You would think it would be mentioned whenever they discuss Halloween night, especially since because of the incident at school it would be obvious who did it.

PsychoAU
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:51 pm

#69 Post by PsychoAU » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:42 am

For all the complaining about the "oh so horrible" remake we have here, it could have been a lot worse... It could have been "Eli Roth's Halloween"

I for one welcome a "generic slasher". I miss the slashers from back in the day and am glad that Zombie stuck to the formula instead of trying to make the characters too smart. Give me crap all you want, but thankfully, the sarcastic awareness of the characters in Scream didn't carry over too far into this decade.

I think of this more as a Rob Zombie movie instead of a Halloween movie. But if he was going to do one for a licensed character, I would have loved for him to do a re-imagining of Friday the 13th. Granted, one where Jason is actually in it would help.

User avatar
Mr. Jones
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 6:27 pm
Location: Here, There, Everywhere

#70 Post by Mr. Jones » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:32 pm

Being a devoted fan of the original, something just didn't sit right with this one. I'll try and throw a few possibilities out there.

For one, it didn't add anything new to the "franchise" or the horror genre in general. Sure, there is the humanization of Michael, but how many people actually want that?? We throw him in some unsympathetic dysfunctional family and we end up with seemingly "logical" conclusion for a boy of this age. He grows up to be a giant with the same irrational rage that was built from childhood on up. I personally like the unnerving feeling that Carpenter's Michael Myers emits. We have a typical suburban family that unfortunately brings evil into the world. The mystery of how this happened is not explained nor should it be. The audience's imagination is, of course, neccessary.

Next comes the characters. To put it bluntly, I'm glad those characters died. It was like watching one of the later Friday the 13th films where Jason is the hero and you watched him piss away an hours time killing teenagers that needed some killing.

Malcolm McDowell did a good job as Loomis as you can other than Pleasance. But it was still missing that authenticity the original Loomis brought to the movie. I spend half my time laughing at the original Loomis (in a good way) because Pleasance plays that character sooo serious even though, at the time, it was just some low budget, independent horror film that probably wasn't going to be seen by a thousand people, let alone millions as it later turned out.

Finally we have the style. I do admire Zombie's approach to filmmaking. I'm hesitant to use the term auteur but someone watching five minutes of any of his films can noticeably see that same recurring style in each and every frame. My biggest problem was the setting of this film. It takes place on Halloween day and night yet we would eventually forget this aside from the masks and the naming of the film. I hate to keep bringing up the original but that movie captured the allure and underlying wickedness of the holiday and the season of fall. We, as the audience, feel the crisp cool air and smell that unmistakable scent of leaves decomposing on the ground.

The true horror of the film came from its presentation at a local drive-in theater. The film was projected so dark that the day time scenes were hard to take in, let alone the last 20 odd minutes.

This is my first post on the forum but spent a number of years reading the insights and rantings of many a different members with his or her own unique personality. I'm grateful for the amount of entertainment given to me by the forum members and I hopefully plan to post more.

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#71 Post by blindside8zao » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:40 am

eh. I had hoped that the big jump that took place between House of 1000 Corpses to Devil's Rejects would take place again but found that this movie was only a small step up from all the other generic horror films that've been coming out. I was optimistic about the film, too.

The acting just kind of let the fun out of the bag.

The sound was enjoyable though.

User avatar
Barmy
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 3:59 pm

#72 Post by Barmy » Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:52 pm

The humanizing of Myers was lame. I would much rather he go postal over getting a B on his statistics exam than from a generic white trash family. The film was totally lacking in suspense. The individual playing Laurie Strode was so bland that at times I mistook her for a bottle of Dasani.

Nevertheless, Zombie is a true auteur--more so than most other horror directors currently in vogue. Sheri Moon Zombie rocks and I would like to see a vehicle for her. I liked the kid Myers too and would have preferred seeing a whole movie about him.
Last edited by Barmy on Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

THX1378
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:35 am
Location: Fresno, CA

#73 Post by THX1378 » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:42 am

I read over at DVDtalk, and it isn't confermed, but were looking at December 18th release date for the dvd. I would hope that there will be a directors cut of the film like I've been hearing rumors about, or at least a two disc set with one of the discs being the workprint version.

User avatar
blindside8zao
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

#74 Post by blindside8zao » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:15 pm

I actually agree that a whole movie with the kid would have been far better than what came after. That really seems to be fruitful territory for Rob Zombie.

User avatar
toiletduck!
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 pm
Location: The 'Go
Contact:

#75 Post by toiletduck! » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:09 pm

Well, I loved it -- I'll be the one to go there.

And of course there's spoilers.

I understand the complaints about humanizing Michael, but I think it's an over-simplification to take it that way. To assume that Michael's psychopathic state was created solely by his dysfunctional family is to assume that Zombie is in essence agreeing with the stance that this sort of behavior is a case of nurture, rather than nature. I can't believe that Zombie would for a second buy into that. In the short scene with Loomis on his book tour, he says something along the lines of Michael being the perfect combination of interior and exterior influences. That line seems to be the key to the first half.
Morbii wrote:On one side, you have a kid who just one day kills his sister for no discernable reason. On the other side you have a kid with a REALLY fucked up family that probably had a hand in his choices. Which is more scary? The one that doesn't have a reason - because it could be ANYONE.
See, here's where I disagree, and where the only sense of 'humanizing' comes into play for me. The Myers of the original (and this isn't a complaint at all) has a strong sense of the supernatural about him, making him scary not because he can be anyone, but because there's no good reason for anyone to be like him. The Zombie version is the one that benefits from the fact that anyone could be like Myers. Take a look to your left and your right in your morning commute. Do you know their mental state or their upbringing and whether they might be riding that line?

Is it a scarier Michael? No, not necessarily. It's a revisionist Michael, and like the rest of the movie, it's playing by the same basic guidelines, but it's playing them fast and loose.

The second half was just a damn good slasher flick, a return to form for the genre. For an audience going in blind, there probably wasn't anything extraordinary about it (although it got a few audible reactions from my meager Tuesday night crowd); but what really makes it a cut above is how Zombie has created a new sense of tension for those already familiar with the original. The fact that he was willing to keep certain scenes and shots essentially the same and completely recontextualize others took a lot of balls and saved the film. The closet scene equivalent shot within a stone's throw of Loomis' dead body? Are you serious? That wasn't intense for any of you? Zombie's escape from that situation may have been a little uninspired (hey, I didn't say it was perfect), but he's remaking one of the most important horror movies ever made: major points for effectively subverting fans. Even something so small as the ghost costume fakeout was a delight.

Had this film been made without the existence of the original Halloween, reviews would be more positive by tenfold. I shuddered just as much as everyone else at the term "reimagining" (still do a little), but Zombie's right. This isn't a remake, this is a different Halloween. Whether it's better than the original or not is irrelevant -- the question is whether it's good or not. And I'll proudly give it a resounding yes.

-Toilet Dcuk

Post Reply