The Rob Zombie Halloween prequel was released yesterday. I am going to take my son to see it tomorrow for his 14th birthday. This was all his idea. He started out liking the Wolfman. Now he's into movies like this. I liked the first Halloween movie, but lost interest in it when I saw Halloween 2, The Season of the Witch. I'll give the new one a chance so I can understand how or why Michael becomes what he becomes. I'll post how it went after I see the movie.

I think it was #3 which was called 'The Season of the Witch', and was completely lacking in the masked killer Michael Myers. I liked the ones after #3, which went back to Michael Myers. They all sort of blended together for me after the first two Halloween movies, though. But I still enjoyed them all, except for #3.

Let me start by saying I'm not a fan of the Halloween franchise. I've seen Halloween and Halloween II, but none of the other sequels (except for a few minutes here and there).

I won't say Rob Zombie's Halloween is better than the original, but I will say I liked it better. Zombie's backstory in the first half of the film adds a gritty realism that I found lacking in Carpenter's version. The second half of the film (described by some as the "Cliff Notes" version of the original) doesn't work quite as well. For example, in Carpenter's version you're rooting for Laurie to prevail over Michael; in Zombie's version, Laurie and her friends are so annoyingly obnoxious that I couldn't wait for "the shape" to start slicing 'em to ribbons just to shut them up.

It's not a perfect film by any measure, but it held my interest far longer than the original.

I'll give Zombie's version a fair chance. After all, I liked The Devil's Rejects as an uber-black, nastily, angrily cynical vision of Americana and the nuclear family vs. the institutions of law, service industry, and entertainment/news. But I have to say, having read many reviews of the new Halloween, pro and con, Zombie seems determined to be the Jerry Springer of horror cinema: he's obsessed with white trash, freakshows, lurid and tasteless twists, and caricatures too studiously profane to be credible.

Halloween, the original, I loved. Halloween II (that was the one set in the hosspital, guys)...that one has exactly two things going for it: Donald Pleassance as Loomis (always worth watching) and the nostalgia factor. Otherwise, I'd have no reason to see it. Despite Carpenter's heavy involvement, there's not a jot of his style to it. He wrote the thing, and couldn;t find any inspiration in spite of the copious amounts of alcohol he consumed before during the quick pounding out of the script. The direction is bland, the setup is terrible, the presence of the intolerable "Bud" kills any enjoyment anyone could eke out of it...gah. Stupid, full of plot holes, bland, unscary, clumsy to the nth degree and unsubtle. A great locale is wasted. It also completely trrashes the entire concept of the original, that fate personified is inescapable, a force of nature, and is totally impersonal. He does not need and should not have a reason for going after Laurie Strode. That's what made the twist work, fercryin'outloud.

Halloween III is kinda silly, full of plot holes, even obnoxious at times with it's awful stereotypes (and that horrible family!). But it's also got an inspired notion behind it - c'mon, it's written by Nigel Kneale of Quatermass fame! It's also the only film bearing the Halloween name that recreates the Carpenter look and feel (and sound). That beats out any consideration of Michael Myers having to be in it. This is the one I like. It's just plain fun in spite of the flaws, and sometimes very scary as well. The less Michael after they blew it with II, the better.

Halloween 4 is surprisingly much better than any such perfunctory sequel has any right to be. Halloween 5 was every bit the meh you expected 4 to be. 6 is by all reports so bad as to approach comic proportions...never seen , and don't want to lest I find a bootleg of the famed longer cut.

H2O was Kevin Williamson's thing (co-exec producer). It's handsomely mounted, competently directed, has Jamie Lee Curtis, a decent budget, etc...and that KW touch to it. If you like his sort of thing, fine. I never bought it. Thoiugh Williamson presumably didn't write the script (he's not credited, but he may have done a Berman&Braga), the movie still has his "I'm too clever by half for this material" patina to it. (Shrug) It's okay, but not thrilling.

No intention to watch whatever came next.

The above offered for what little it's worth.

Well, I just got back from the new Halloween movie. The character development was alot better in this film than in the original. It was definitely worth seeing. There's also alot more sex and gore in it than in the original. These aspects could have toned down a little. But, that's what the younger generation prefers to see. In this version, Michael starts out as a young KISS fan growing up in a very dysfunctional family... Well I won't spoil it for people who haven't yet seen it.

"Kiss rocks? Why would anyone want to kiss... Oh wait, I see."
---Willow Rosenberg

Here's some photos and Mikey in his kitchen wearing his KISS Destroyer T-shirt...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/review/591

I'm surprised by the overall positive reviews from the MfM crowd. I enjoyed the original and like Rob Zombies work but this movie was so poorly put together I was dissapointed. The first 30 minutes or so I saw a good idea but then the whole thing sorta fell apart. The editing was horrible! The continuity from scene to scene was afull! Sloppy, sloppy! So a model sprues down from me. I mean, Skinwalkers was bad too, but it seemed to know it was a B movie and there weren't any technical mistakes. (I wouldn't recomend Skinwalkers either btw)

I just got done watching it.

I liked it a lot!
Sure, the editing and unevenness (especially with the volume) will keep this from ever being considered a technical masterpiece.
But it was a fun watch, and I can see me watching it several more times easily on DVD.
It kept true enough to the original that you could recognize things and have an idea of what is coming.
But there was enough different to keep you guessing on a few things also.

Considering the monumental task of redoing this classic. I think it was handled fairly well.

I only saw the movie once and will see it again when it's out on video. I didn't pay attention too the technical things. I still like the movie. It had more depth than the original.