Halloween Remake Thread... - Part 1

[Thundarr]

The other day I listened to the commentary for Halloween Resurrection just for ****s and giggles. I think it made me hate that movie even more lol. When they came to the scene where Jamie Lee kisses Micheal one last time, they said that they included that scene so that they could get a nomination at the MTV movie awards for "Best Kiss."

You mean you actually spent money on the DVD?

 

[Thundarr]

First off, let me say I hate remakes, no matter how good they may turn out to be. I hate the concept and the very idea of them. Narrow-minded? Maybe. Do I give a s**t? Not at all. So, Zombie's Halloween being a remake is a detraction. Had he done something completely different with completely different characters (like marvelman2006 suggested) would've also been a detraction once they decided to slap the Halloween name on it. You want original? Do original titles and launch your own damn franchise. You wanna do the same? You lost me right there. It's a lose-lose situation for me.

Now this I agree with you on, at least for the most part. Like I've said before, there are a few exceptions to the rule (such as the 1970's remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and John Carpenter's The Thing), but for the most part remakes tend to just suck. And of all the remakes I've seen (especially of horror films, which seem to be remade more than any other movies) Rob Zombies Halloween ranks right up there with the worst of the worst. In the documentary, Masters Of Horror, hosted by Bruce Campbell, John Carpenter is quoted as saying "When you make a horror movie there's three things you want to do. Scare people, scare people, and scare people." What Rob Zombie does when he makes a horror film is gross people out, gross people out, and gross people out. And I'm sorry, but that's just not the same thing.

 

[bullets]

Like I said before, RZ should stick to music and leave film making to people who know what the f**k they're doing, like John Carpenter.

Carpenter seems to have lost his mind. I can't remember how long it's been since he made a good film. I love some of his work but nothing recent.


Zombie is a capable director. It's just that his style is not for everyone.

 

[Thundarr]

Carpenter seems to have lost his mind. I can't remember how long it's been since he made a good film. I love some of his work but nothing recent.


Zombie is a capable director. It's just that his style is not for everyone.

Zombie's style is a perfect fit for the Saw and Hostel franchises. Of course, those movies were all crap as well, which is what makes them a perfect fit.

As for Carpenter, it's true he hasn't done anything all that spectacular lately. In fact, I can't even think of the last movie he directed period. But his earlier work is beyond brilliant, and an overrated hack like RZ couldn't equal that kind of quality on his best day.

 

[bullets]

Zombie's style is a perfect fit for the Saw and Hostel franchises. Of course, those movies were all crap as well, which is what makes them a perfect fit.

As for Carpenter, it's true he hasn't done anything all that spectacular lately. In fact, I can't even think of the last movie he directed period. But his earlier work is beyond brilliant, and an overrated hack like RZ couldn't equal that kind of quality on his best day.

I take it your not a fan of gore. Say what you will about Hostel but I think Saw was a good movie.

Carpenter has some classics under his belt. I don't think Zombie will ever has that mass appeal or even has that type of ambition.

 

[Wolfwood]

You mean you actually spent money on the DVD?

Haha yeah, I picked it up in a 5 dollar bin. I only sort of regret the purchase.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Just an observation from scrolling through, I have no idea why people think the H6 cut fixes the movie...I think it's worse, and makes Michael look pathetic and inept.

I think the cut fixes the movie for a few reasons. One, I'm big on the movies having a decent score, and it restores the original score produced for the movie, before the weird rock soundtrack made the cut. Secondly, I think it does a better job of explaining the cult. Thirdly, I actually like that it tones down the gore, and gives some characters mroe to do. It expands the relationship between Loomis and Dr. Wynn a bit. And lastly, the ending , despite not being able to follow up with the death of Donald Pleasence, is a lot darker and I think fits a lot better (except the runes part. Seriously, they could have come up with a hundred reasons to stop him in that hallway, but they used the "rune stones." ugh.). (Actually though, i'm seeing alot of love for the T-cut these days, so I'm not saying your wrong. It's all just my opinion, and it is weird ebcause the PC is far more supernatural, something I'm not a fan of Myers being at all. )


Also, Thundarr, despite my hate of it, I too paid money for Resurrection. When Blockbuster still existed, got it on one of those 3 used movies for $5 tables.

 

[Thundarr]

Haha yeah, I picked it up in a 5 dollar bin. I only sort of regret the purchase.

Well at least you didn't pay full price.

(*Shivers at the thought*)

 

[redhawk23]

Zombie's style is a perfect fit for the Saw and Hostel franchises. Of course, those movies were all crap as well, which is what makes them a perfect fit.

As for Carpenter, it's true he hasn't done anything all that spectacular lately. In fact, I can't even think of the last movie he directed period. But his earlier work is beyond brilliant, and an overrated hack like RZ couldn't equal that kind of quality on his best day.

He has his fans but I've never really seen people laud his directorial skills. How is he overrated?

 

[redhawk23]

I take it your not a fan of gore. Say what you will about Hostel but I think Saw was a good movie.

Carpenter has some classics under his belt. I don't think Zombie will ever has that mass appeal or even has that type of ambition.

Interestingly his next movie after Lords is about a 1970s hockey team.

 

[Wolfwood]

A crazy redneck hockey team? Or just a plain normal sports movie?

 

[TheDreamMaster]

A crazy redneck hockey team? Or just a plain normal sports movie?

That might be super entertaining actually.

 

[Thundarr]

He has his fans but I've never really seen people laud his directorial skills. How is he overrated?

You haven't, but I have. Trust me, he's overrated.

 

[Thundarr]

I take it your not a fan of gore. Say what you will about Hostel but I think Saw was a good movie.

Carpenter has some classics under his belt. I don't think Zombie will ever has that mass appeal or even has that type of ambition.

It's not that I don't like gore. But gore for gore's sake is meaningless and not scary. People like Rob Zombie and the people behind the Saw and Hostel franchises just don't understand that.

And I thought that Saw I was okay, but they should have stopped there. And if not there, then CERTAINLY once Jigsaw finally died. And Hostel was just Saw on crack.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Will get back to you on that after I've seen H2 (I was 10 minutes in yesternight). Suffice it to say, I wished that after Michael attacks Laurie after stabbing Annie, I wanted the story to go to completely different places. I hear H2 does just that, so perhaps I'll like it.

You have to watch the H2 director's cut. The theatrical is not very good, but the director's cut is a great (completely different ending and it's 20 minutes longer) It plays out more like a drama than a slasher.

The cinematography is fantastic too.

It's not that I don't like gore. But gore for gore's sake is meaningless and not scary. People like Rob Zombie and the people behind the Saw and Hostel franchises just don't understand that.

And I thought that Saw I was okay, but they should have stopped there. And if not there, then CERTAINLY once Jigsaw finally died. And Hostel was just Saw on crack.

Rob Zombie's movies aren't that gory, so I don't know what your talking about. When he shows the violence it's mostly quick-cuts and sound effects that amplify what is happening in the scene.

The Saw movies tell a pretty decent story if actually sit down and watch them. And the Hostel flicks aren't anything like Saw; now those are gore for the sake of gore.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

It's not that I don't like gore. But gore for gore's sake is meaningless and not scary. People like Rob Zombie and the people behind the Saw and Hostel franchises just don't understand that.

And I thought that Saw I was okay, but they should have stopped there. And if not there, then CERTAINLY once Jigsaw finally died. And Hostel was just Saw on crack.

The first SAW actually is quite light on the gore. The sequels of course deviate, but they set out to tell a decent story. I feel they should have wrapped it around Part 4 or 5 though, because the ending we did get simply didn't deliver. I wouldn't even compare Hostel to SAW, because Hostel really was that: gore for gore's sake with a thinly veiled story. SAW was at least trying.

 

[redhawk23]

You have to watch the H2 director's cut. The theatrical is not very good, but the director's cut is a great (completely different ending and it's 20 minutes longer) It plays out more like a drama than a slasher.

The cinematography is fantastic too.


Rob Zombie's movies aren't that gory, so I don't know what your talking about. When he shows the violence it's mostly quick-cuts and sound effects that amplify what is happening in the scene.

The Saw movies tell a pretty decent story if actually sit down and watch them. And the Hostel flicks aren't anything like Saw; now those are gore for the sake of gore.

Really the only of his movies that can really even be said to be gory for gores sake is maybe House of 1000 corpses, and even then, even when showing gunshots from point blank range he doesn't have that much blood or anything.

Corpses certainly has more of a deranged fun house vibe going which makes sense considering thats what it started out as, as a horror maze at Universal Studios.

In devils rejects pretty much all the gore, what relatively little there is, is very purpose driven.

 

[Gianakin_]

You have to watch the H2 director's cut. The theatrical is not very good, but the director's cut is a great (completely different ending and it's 20 minutes longer) It plays out more like a drama than a slasher.

The cinematography is fantastic too.

Is the DC the one where Michael [BLACKOUT]says "Die" to Loomis in the end and they all die, closing the movie with Laurie in a white psychiatric ward room seeing her mom and a white horse[/BLACKOUT]? If so, that's what I watched.

And it was crap. Crappity crap crap crap. He took a great vision that was H1 and turned it to utter crap. Shame. Loomis had nothing to do but be a *****e, Laurie was too much of a b**ch (I liked where he intended to take her character, mind you, but it was too much), and for a person who bashed the hell out of H5 and 6 in the 25 year anniversary documentary, he sure as hell copied a lot of the former to give us Michael's point of view parts.

I started watching and I thought it was straight to video porn. I check IMDb and sure enough, he's changed DP for the sequel. Gone's the beautiful look of H1.

The story just goes nowhere and there wasn't any story to begin with. Whatever he built in H1 he completely destroyed in H2. Ironic, since he agreed to do the sequel when he found out the producers were going to do one, so he hopped onboard to prevent his vision from getting ruined by other. Well... he ruined it himself. Shame.

 

[Gianakin_]

Gianakin, might I try to convince you to give the Producer's Cut a shot, especially if it is on youtube? I know you didn't care for H5 or the original 6, but at least give it a shot and see if it doesn't make 6 a little better. I think it gives Donald Pleasence a much better send off to the series, and although they couldn't run with the idea at the end, had they chosen to continue the supernatural storyline, it may have been a nice idea.

In case you decide to watch it, I'll spoiler this, but here's a few reasons to give it a shot:

Spoiler

1) Much better character development. I actually felt like Loomis and the other Doctor were good friends, and it makes the things later in the movie a lot more tragic.
2) At least they run with the cult idea. It does more than give a half-assed explanation and cut straight to Michael killing everyone.
3) Actually tones down the gore a bit. Makes it much scarier.
4) Has an original soundtrack, and not the "MTV-sounding" soundtrack the theatrical cut got.
5)Jamie gets an offscreen death, but it is actually much more effective than in the original cut, and she lives longer.
6) Jamie's baby gets an explanation...a really, really disturbing one.

There's more but it really does all factor into a better film. I would almost suggest watching the original cut before watching this just to see all differences, but its not requried and frankly probably isn't worth giving the theatrical anymore of your time.

So I watched it. I agree, it was better than the TC, but only because there was more Pleasance screentime. No other reason. The story still went to crappy hell and I still didn't get half of what was going on. Oh well, at least they gave Jamie a proper end, with Loomis crying over her instead of going out like a punk like in the TC. But the druid story? No matter how well they explained it, it was a baaaaaaaaaad idea.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Is the DC the one where Michael [BLACKOUT]says "Die" to Loomis in the end and they all die, closing the movie with Laurie in a white psychiatric ward room seeing her mom and a white horse[/BLACKOUT]? If so, that's what I watched.

And it was crap. Crappity crap crap crap. He took a great vision that was H1 and turned it to utter crap. Shame. Loomis had nothing to do but be a *****e, Laurie was too much of a b**ch (I liked where he intended to take her character, mind you, but it was too much), and for a person who bashed the hell out of H5 and 6 in the 25 year anniversary documentary, he sure as hell copied a lot of the former to give us Michael's point of view parts.

I started watching and I thought it was straight to video porn. I check IMDb and sure enough, he's changed DP for the sequel. Gone's the beautiful look of H1.

The story just goes nowhere and there wasn't any story to begin with. Whatever he built in H1 he completely destroyed in H2. Ironic, since he agreed to do the sequel when he found out the producers were going to do one, so he hopped onboard to prevent his vision from getting ruined by other. Well... he ruined it himself. Shame.

Huh. That's strange. I thought his remake was sloppy, like really sloppy (RZ's worst movie). The H2 DC was 100% Rob Zombie even tho the Weinsteins interfered like crazy. The character are more interesting too. Laurie losing it, Annie a recluse, Loomis in denial, Sheriff Brackett trying keep it all together. Just so much more going on.

I guess you just don't like the grainy look of 16mm. It added so much to the atmosphere. Brandon Trost is a way better DP than the one he used for H1.

Funny thing is, somebody decided to crop H1 to 2:35:1 before it was released and it looks terrible. You can really noticed during Loomis' "These are the eyes of psychopath" speech.

 

[Gianakin_]

Huh. That's strange. I thought his remake was sloppy, like really sloppy (RZ's worst movie). The H2 DC was 100% Rob Zombie even tho the Weinsteins interfered like crazy. The character are more interesting too. Laurie losing it, Annie a recluse, Loomis in denial, Sheriff Brackett trying keep it all together. Just so much more going on.

Lots more going on, but not really connected. It was... nothing.

I guess you just don't like the grainy look of 16mm. It added so much to the atmosphere. Brandon Trost is a way better DP than the one he used for H1.

I don't know who's considered to be better, I know that when Laurie's hallucination in the hospital hit, I thought "Uh-oh, the guys on the hype are gonna be proven right about H2".

Funny thing is, somebody decided to crop H1 to 2:35:1 before it was released and it looks terrible. You can really noticed during Loomis' "These are the eyes of psychopath" speech.

Don't know, I really liked it.

 

[bullets]

Whatever he built in H1 he completely destroyed in H2. Ironic, since he agreed to do the sequel when he found out the producers were going to do one, so he hopped onboard to prevent his vision from getting ruined by other. Well... he ruined it himself. Shame.

He knew it was going to be his last Halloween film and tried to be different. Although I've noticed small references to numerous other horror films. I thought he had some interesting ideas but turning Michael into a crazy redneck and Dr Loomis into a dbag was never going to please anybody. I like H2 because I'm a fan of Rob's imagery and the actors do a good job.

The Saw movies tell a pretty decent story if actually sit down and watch them. And the Hostel flicks aren't anything like Saw; now those are gore for the sake of gore.

The first SAW actually is quite light on the gore. The sequels of course deviate, but they set out to tell a decent story. I feel they should have wrapped it around Part 4 or 5 though, because the ending we did get simply didn't deliver. I wouldn't even compare Hostel to SAW, because Hostel really was that: gore for gore's sake with a thinly veiled story. SAW was at least trying.

I liked the Saw franchise but they shouldn't of rushed one into theaters every year. I think the sequels are a notch above most other horror franchise's because it does try to tell a story. The gore took over because they had to up their game each time. Once you see someone saw off a foot it can only get crazier. However if they spent more time on the scripts the quality might not of suffered. Tobin Bell is great as Jigsaw though. I think he's earned a spot amongst Freddy , Jason , and the others as an icon.
Also it got kind of boring once they started killing off every cop that tried to stop him. If they ended on Saw 3 it might be held in higher regard.

 

[Gianakin_]

He knew it was going to be his last Halloween film and tried to be different. Although I've noticed small references to numerous other horror films. I thought he had some interesting ideas but turning Michael into a crazy redneck and Dr Loomis into a dbag was never going to please anybody. I like H2 because I'm a fan of Rob's imagery and the actors do a good job.

I agree with all this. Apart from liking H2, of course. But I do beleive Scout acter her ass off in this one. So did Danielle Harris.

 

[66 Face]

A crazy redneck hockey team? Or just a plain normal sports movie?

The 70's Flyers... that has to be them and he must be taking a lot from one of the best sports movies ever.... Slap Shot.

I'm a Zombie fan and even as a fan I wish he would stay with in his relm a little more. For example I wouldn't want to see him tackle a gothic icon like Dracula but I would love to see his take on the bikers from Dawn of the Dead before hitting the mall.

I wish he would have handled Friday the 13th instead of Halloween. I did like his take on Halloween mostly because it was different than JC's. I actually think he used a lot of his TRex material making those movies and if those movies weren't about Meyers and not called Halloween, they would be a hit. Kind of like Halloween 3 being a great idea but it gets into trouble when you call it Halloween 3.

Lords is supposed to be really different from anything he's done before so I can't wait to see that.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

So I watched it. I agree, it was better than the TC, but only because there was more Pleasance screentime. No other reason. The story still went to crappy hell and I still didn't get half of what was going on. Oh well, at least they gave Jamie a proper end, with Loomis crying over her instead of going out like a punk like in the TC. But the druid story? No matter how well they explained it, it was a baaaaaaaaaad idea.

Fair enough good sir. Glad you gave it a chance at least. Won't push any further than that.

Had a chance to see H2 yet?