After being committed for 17 years, Michael Myers, now a grown man and still very dangerous, escapes from the mental institution (where he was committed as a 10 year old) and he immediately returns to Haddonfield, where he wants to find his baby sister, Laurie. Anyone who crosses his path is in mortal danger
You know how sometimes, hours after you had a very pleasant and delicious meal you burp and you can taste the faint aromas of that meal mixed with the unpleasantness of stomach gasses?
Yeah, you know what I'm getting at....
More great trash from Zombie. It's not nearly as good as Carpenter's original or even Zombie's own freak show Halloween 2. It really seems you either love or hate Zombie's films with very few people in between. I definitely fall in the love category. All his films are basically whitesploitation films and I really dig them all. Sue me!!
Does the exact opposite of everything that made the original so great.
Recipe for Zombie Stew:
Take one bona fide genre classic.
Strip all atmosphere.
Give your villain a misguided and reductive backstory.
Throw in lots of (unerotic) sex.
Splash gore everywhere.
Populate with truly hateful characters (especially where your lead is concerned.)
Mangle a peerless score.
Beat until sloppy and bitter.
Drag it out until two hours feels like two days.
Look at the mess you've made, and throw it in the bin.
A lot of people think that Rob Zombie is a terrible filmmaker and that his HALLOWEEN films, in particular, are abominations. I feel pretty much exactly the opposite.
If anything was a blight on John Carpenter's brilliant 1978 film, it was the glut of largely unimaginative and silly sequels in the original series. What Zombie did was to re-introduce the iconic character of Michael Myers to a new century, with a ferocity and scariness that had long been absent.
The most interesting stuff here is in the first half, dealing with the largely unexplored territory of Michael's childhood and adolescence. I never thought I'd be interested in a backstory for Michael Myers (or at least for the tantalizingly mysterious version…
like a lot of folks i'm not convinced Zombie does himself any favors by fleshing out Michael Myers' backstory. he typically falls back on his cartoon trailer-trash rotten-tooth fetish, and frankly it just feels like an act. but when his Myers attacks it is punishing and simple, so much so that even the camera panics, shivering and scrambling for the nearest exit. there's a great beat here as Myers enters the Strode house and shuts the door behind him and Zombie keeps us outside, across the street, in the quiet, just for an extra second. placid on the outside and frantic, unvarnished brutality on the inside.
It's amazing how wrong-minded this story is. It manages to misunderstand what made the original film interesting, and then remain slavishly faithful to the fiction in way that handicaps the storytelling (especially in the 2nd half, which just crams the first movie into 45 minutes). Also, the notion that Myers exists because he was raised in an abusive white trash home just deflates the character-- go back to the first scene of the original. The reveal of the kid with a dazed look is powerful, mysterious, and terrifying.
Having not seen the John Carpenter release I can't really review this as a comparison. However, as a standalone film, this is nothing special. The plot is pretty predictable and never at any point was I scared. The was young Mike turns into Psyco-Mike is totally understandable. This makes the film a lot less "scary." Honestly I didn't find this very enjoyable at all. I guess if you've seen Carpenter's version and want to give this a shot then go for it.
While I do admire Rob Zombie attempting a re-imagining of the character, this movie just misses the point of what made the original as scary as it was.
Remaking Halloween and surviving.
I´m very interested with the young Myers subject, it´s a pity that the return to Haddinfield part look a bit common and extended.
Not as good as the original but not bad at all. Rob Zombie sure knows how to shoot a movie.
It'd be more respectable as its own movie, but I can never really understand the people that defend this movie, let alone Rob Zombie as a filmmaker, especially fans of John Carpenter's original. As it is, "Halloween" (2007) just feels disgraceful.
This isn't the worst of the Halloween films but it just can't come close to touching the original, and because during the last 1/4 of the movie, it is trying to be a shot for shot type of imitator, it makes the good ideas drown in a mediocrity of comparison. I could see how RZ's Halloween would have been more likable if you weren't into the original version but basically, I think adding back story is lazy. It's the laziest form of writing there is - you take someone else's creation and think up why he became that way...and in this case not even in an imaginative way. He came from a broken home? WOW! OF COURSE he turned into a murderer! If anything, the lesson here is to be your own thing. I wish Zombie had just made his own film, with a wholly original character and not waste his time doing this.
I don't know if this really counts as a re-watch because the only scene I really remember from it is the scene where (it happens in the first 10 minutes, so not really a spoiler) a young Michael Myers beats a bully to death with a stick. That freaked me out a LOT back then.
Anyway, this is one of the messiest movies I've ever seen. There are some cool shots here and there and I still respect Rob Zombie's style, but this basically changes every detail about the original. That's not always a bad thing for a remake, but I sort of love everything about the original, which makes that a huge problem.
I have a lot of problems with it, but the most important thing is that there is absolutely no mystery to this movie. They explain things way too much, which is not very "Halloween"-y of them.
We did not need a fucking hour of back story.
what can i say, i love the retard