|
|
Post by Tony Hates Everything on Sept 14, 2011 7:16:23 GMT -5
well soon or i should say eventually we wont have zombie making remakes anymore in an interview sheri did she says he is trying to get away from horror films and already has several scripts lined up
|
|
|
|
Post by gorepolice on Sept 14, 2011 8:55:33 GMT -5
With a name like Rob Zombie, one would think he'd live in the horror genre. I don't know how well other films he would try to do would be received. I can only imagine the utter confusion on everyone's face when they see a trailer for a western or drama and hear "Directed by Rob Zombie."
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Hates Everything on Sept 14, 2011 19:36:47 GMT -5
Yea he is stuck in his genre for a bit but I will be interested to see his first non horror film
|
|
|
|
Post by gorepolice on Feb 10, 2013 18:23:02 GMT -5
I had to switch up my vote. After watching them both again, I really don't care much for the remake. Wonder what I was smoking when I voted before?
|
|
|
|
Post by NDX on Feb 10, 2013 18:43:47 GMT -5
Original is definitely better. I'm fine with the remake, but it's not on the same level.
|
|
|
|
Post by leangreen76 on Oct 30, 2013 17:18:44 GMT -5
The original will always be my favorite, but I did like the 2007 remake - to a point.
I really liked the first half of the newer version and the setting of it in a modern day era was brilliant, exploring why he was like he was,. Great start. The second half of the film however I just felt was rushed and glossed over, mainly because there wasn't enough time to fit the rest of the film in. (Whereas the original had build up on the female characters, all the build up in the 2007 was with Michael himself and therefore "extra", there wasn't enough screen time for the rest of the film.) This resulted in was I felt was a gloss over of the rest of the film, the new versions of the teenage characters felt one dimensional as there was no build up or development of them because much of the film was taken up with "Micheal development". Whilst this was a good thing (Michael development) I feel it affected the rest of the film.
I have only seen it once though, so I will have to go back and give it a second go and see what I think. Maybe even give Zombie's sequel a go, despite what I heard about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by endo on Oct 30, 2013 19:40:46 GMT -5
I didn't dislike Zombie's movie, I just felt there was no comparison between it and the original. Carpenter made an almost perfect movie in the first one to me.
Zombie's version was good and I liked it, but the original blows it away in every aspect to me. Of course, my wife was just telling me this morning that a poll was taken with some younger folks who had never seen the original and after they did, most of them said it was cheesy and not scary at all.
So, different strokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by gorepolice on Oct 30, 2013 19:46:43 GMT -5
Some parts of it are cheesy, but still a classic film. I suppose by today's standards it's not scary, but back then it was something pretty new and terrifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by endo on Oct 30, 2013 19:59:04 GMT -5
The cheesiness that I love in it is probably what the new viewers of the movie didn't like, but it was a different time and movies, especially horror movies, had some great cheese in them lol.
But, even today, I think the movie is pretty scary. I've seen it a bunch of times, and Michael is still scary.
|
|
|
|
Post by listlessbliss on Jun 3, 2015 17:52:18 GMT -5
I love both of them, but I don't like where Zombie went with his second Halloween remake. I like the original a little more for the reason that he even became a killer was not exactly known at first, though. Still not voting, because I loved the two of them in different ways  |
|
|
|
Post by ajfoster16 on Jun 17, 2015 1:04:29 GMT -5
I hated the 2007 remake personally
|
|
|
|
Post by endo on Jun 17, 2015 12:10:32 GMT -5
A lot of folks do, so you aren't alone there.
|
|
|
|
Post by MacReadyOrNot on Jan 26, 2020 8:59:17 GMT -5
The original will always be my favorite, but I did like the 2007 remake - to a point. I really liked the first half of the newer version and the setting of it in a modern day era was brilliant, exploring why he was like he was,. Great start. The second half of the film however I just felt was rushed and glossed over, mainly because there wasn't enough time to fit the rest of the film in. (Whereas the original had build up on the female characters, all the build up in the 2007 was with Michael himself and therefore "extra", there wasn't enough screen time for the rest of the film.) This resulted in was I felt was a gloss over of the rest of the film, the new versions of the teenage characters felt one dimensional as there was no build up or development of them because much of the film was taken up with "Micheal development". Whilst this was a good thing (Michael development) I feel it affected the rest of the film. I have only seen it once though, so I will have to go back and give it a second go and see what I think. Maybe even give Zombie's sequel a go, despite what I heard about it.
What bogs the remake down is studio interference. We didn't really need another Laurie. We could have had a completely different movie if Rob Zombie got to overhaul the original completely to make it his own. I still don't mind the remake. I don't care for his director's cut as much though. I actually like his H2 better because that movie felt more like him than his original take on the Halloween franchise.
So, just to be clear, the original, for me. |
|
|
|
Post by peteyt on May 14, 2020 19:50:48 GMT -5
Well I'm late to this party. Will have to rematch the 2 remakes one day as only seen them once but the original is the first proper horror film I watched and will always hold a place.
The remake ruined Michael Myers for me. To me the idea with Michael is he appears to come from a decent well off family and seems to be normal. So the whole killing his sister is a shock to everyone. This to me is far scarier, the unknown. The idea that the seemingly sweet and inconcent neighbor could actually be a killer.
I just didn't like the redneck white trash treatment Rob Zombie likes to do. By making his dad a violent alcoholic and mother a prostitute it just ruined the mystery the original brought. I didn't like the way they changed loomis into basically a displicable scumbag just after money but get they where trying to put their own spin on the film. Also the whole white horse stuff in number 2 was odd.
The differences kind of makes me think about real life when horror films and other things get used as a scapegoat to try and explain why someone has done something. People often need a reason and need to understand and if they can't find one will manufacture one even if they don't realise they are doing so because it's easier to blame something then to admit they just did something because
|
|
|
|
Post by peteyt on May 15, 2020 12:33:40 GMT -5
You know what actually isn't bad, is Halloween 3, if you can get past the fact that it's not supposed to be a sequel. As a stand alone movie, it's pretty good. Forgot to add I 100 percent agree with this. The last few times I watched Halloween 3 season of the witch I was pleasantly surprised just how good it was. It is a great 80s horror that is fun and entertaining. I don't even mind the silver shamrock song ha I do wonder if the name both cursed it and also helped it e.g. it probably got saw more because of its name but then a lot watched it hoping for a Michael myers type film. If you watch it not expecting that you may actually enjoy it. I did hear a rumour that Prince of darkness was possibly supposed to be Halloween 4 but think it might be just a rumour |
|
