Halloween

2007

Action / Fantasy / Horror

106
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 26%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 59%
IMDb Rating 6.1 10 106317

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
September 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Director

Cast

Skyler Gisondo as Tommy Doyal
Danny Trejo as Ismael Cruz
Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Samuel Loomis
Danielle Harris as Annie Brackett
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
798.54 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
R
23.976 fps
1 hr 49 min
P/S 1 / 24
1.80 GB
1920*1080
English 2.0
R
23.976 fps
1 hr 49 min
P/S 5 / 25

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by MovieAddict2016 4 / 10

Rob Zombie tries to give a monster a soul.

On paper, a "Halloween" remake looked interesting. Zombie tries to go back to the character's origin and reinvent him - it's a recent trend in Hollywood ("Batman Begins," "Casino Royale," the upcoming "Incredible Hulk," etc.), so it's not quite surprising that Hollywood greenlit the project and it got the push it received.

But the problem that arises while doing this with "Halloween" is that it comes into conflict with the concept of Michael being purely evil. Although I can understand what Zombie was trying to do by exploring Michael's background, it contradicts the whole point of the original. By providing a reason and displaying a human character on screen, you give the character a soul - and despite what Zombie may claim, this does NOT make Michael scarier. It makes him an average movie serial killer: a guy with a messed up life as a kid who snaps one day and goes on a killing rampage.

Is it scary? No. Gory? Yes. Realistic? At first. And if it were a movie about a serial killer, it would work. But it's not. This is a movie about a monster, a soulless creature; a boogeyman, as per the original film. Monsters aren't scary when we know they're flesh and blood.

Carpenter had a way of framing the action in the original movie. Michael stalks Laurie in her hometown, but we never see any real flesh behind the mask, we never really see him moving around like a normal human being. But we do here. He stands in the middle of an open road, in front of three teenage girls walking home from school, and they all see him. He stands there for a few moments, then trudges away off-screen. We actually see him walk away, instead of just appearing and disappearing as he did in the original film. Which method is scarier? The answer is clear.

Zombie spends 40 minutes or so building up Michael's character before he escapes from the ward. We see him killing animals as a child (and torturing them, too), a stupid subplot with his mom as a stripper and a typical school bully, and a promiscuous sister. The sexual talk is frank and disgusting - the mom's boyfriend (husband?) is talking about how cute her daughter's butt is, and at this point in the film we're not sure whether he might even be the father. It's just shock for shock value. Zombie has a tendency of this - blunt violence and blunt dialogue combined - and in a film like this, it seems cheap and fake and unnecessary. The heavy emphasis placed on the swearing - and I mean this literally (as in, the actors place a noticeable emphasis on the profanity they use) is almost unintentionally funny. Zombie cast his wife in the role of Michael's mother, and she can't act at all.

Donald Pleasence got stuck with the most unfortunate lines from the original film, but we were willing to forgive bad dialogue because of how well-made the film was otherwise. Here, Malcolm McDowell gets the worst of two worlds: he gets to handle an under-characterization with bad, bad, BAD dialogue AND a generally weak film to boot. The sequences with McDowell's version of Loomis are all completely clichéd - Zombie clearly writes his dialogue based on other films' dialogue. The "intimate" scenes at the mental ward between Loomis and Michael are awful. McDowell struggles with typicalities of the genre, such as the Dr. Who Wasted His Own Life By Devoting It To Someone Else's (he explains to Michael that his wife left him and he has no friends because of how involved he became with the case - and the dialogue itself is straight from any cop-vs.-killer flick). The recent film "Zodiac" had a similar theme of men losing their personal lives due to obsession over a murderer, but it was handled better. The whole Loomis character should have been dropped from the remake if all Zombie wanted to do with him was use him as a deus ex machina, by the way.

Overall, this feels like a redneck version of "Halloween," which is going to offend some people, but I can't think of any better way to describe it. It's trashy, vulgar, and silly - and hey, that's fine, if that's Rob Zombie's motif and he wants to make movies pandering towards that sort of audience. I have nothing against it, and I think it may work with some films - I can imagine him making a good re-do of "Natural Born Killers" (although I hope it never, never happens!).

However, when you're remaking an iconic, legendary, incredibly influential horror film - don't cheapen it by "reimagining" it with horror movie clichés and shock-value material. The very worst aspect of this remake is that it simply isn't scary at all - it's a typical slasher flick, a homicidal-man-on-a-rampage flick, which ironically is exactly what Zombie said he wanted to avoid.

The first film was eerie, spooky, and unnerving because Michael's motivations were cloudy and we weren't sure whether Laurie was right or wrong when she said he was the boogeyman. We only knew one thing: he wasn't entirely human.

But ever since that original movie, the filmmakers have attempted to keep expanding upon Michael's history: the second film developed a motivation for his killings (Laurie was his sister), the fourth offered more clues at his background, and now we come full circle with a complete remake of the original film.

Michael's true demonic core - the natural horror element of the series - is stripped bare and all that is left is a disturbed, abnormally tall redneck with greasy hair who hasn't showered in years wearing a silly mask going around killing people because he had an abusive family life as a child. Some things are better left unexplored.

Reviewed by alucard617 3 / 10

Pure evil turns into anti-hero

First of all, as a movie in general I though was less than average. As a remake, it was *beep* horrible. People will always say, "Oh this is a different movie, not the original, don't compare." It's a remake, how could you not *beep* compare First, I always had a problem with a back-story, Michael was pure evil without one. Michael was so evil because he had no reason to kill, he just did. He was pure evil in human form, there was no rhyme or reason for what he did. Okay, a back-story doesn't have to be terrible, but it answers nothing.

People say that this answers the question that had lurked in everyone's mind since the first 10 minutes of the original "Why is Michael the way he is." No it doesn't, at least not under the circumstances presented in the original. In that one, Michael has a nice and clean home with two well kept and fitting looking parents and a sister that seemed horny, but not a slut. In this one, the father is mysteriously dead and a filthy white trash piece of *beep* who has no respect for women, especially two very attractive ones, takes his place. The house is a decrepit place, the mother is a stripper, and it seems to be a white trash haven. Anyone can give a reason for Michael's rage in this way, just throw everything that was presented to the table in the original and put unoriginal stuff on it. The back-story itself is unoriginal and stupid.

The first 5 minutes already answer the question to Michael's rage, it's not drawing us in. Imagine the back-story starts with two clean and nice parents who are loving and in a nice home. That would be better because the audience will be engrossed with all these questions; "Whoa, what the hell, his life seems pretty nice. I wonder what will happen to make him evil." That is original and gets the audience interested right away because Myer's life seems perfect, but then an event happens and so on. In the remake, it looks like someone watched a documentary on serial killers and threw it in the movie. It's not original or new; it's used and boring. I wanted something that really surprises the audience about Michael and answers the question on his rage under the same circumstances as in the original, but in an unsuspecting and surprising manner.

All right, now for my biggest complaint in character development; Loomis. I remember in the original Loomis was a take charge type of guy who showed no mercy when he tried to find Michael. He never hesitated or gave up a chance to kill Michael because he knew he was pure evil. Loomis in this one calls Michael his best friend and is sympathetic to him. Then the next scene he is calling him pure evil and the anti-Christ. WTF. If Loomis thinks Michael is pure evil, why does he try to negotiate with him, hesitates to shoot him, and is remorseful towards him. The original had Loomis never resting till he found his evil patient. This one, he wastes time talking about his book and other crap. Especially in this one, Loomis should be more eager than ever since Michael kills 5 people as opposed to 1 as a child. People will say this Loomis is so much more caring and polite. Lets think for a second.; Loomis has spent 15 years of his life trying to get through Michael. He soon realizes Michael is pure evil and tries to get him transferred; People think he's an idiot and what happens? Myers escapes and they blame the whole thing on him. Would you be *beep* polite after all that and now you have a murderer on the loose and only you know how he works? I sure hell as wouldn't. Loomis in the original was more realistic, knew what he was dealing with, and took every chance he had to kill Myers before he kills anyone else.

Now let's look at the slasher himself; Michael Myers. They took a true and pure evil villain who tortured and murdered his whole family and made him into a sympathetic anti-hero who only wants to be with his sister Laurie. Michael never tries to kill Laurie in this one, at least not in general circumstances. Instead, he tries to be with her. Michael used to be a villain who stabbed and tried to strangle his sister, but now he's just a loving, but murderous, brother. The only times where he appears to want to kill her are times when he's reacting in anger, not evil. Michael used to be the villain everyone was rooting for to be killed: I still love the scene where Loomis shoots the hell out of Michael in the original. This one, Michael is not evil at all, just some misguided fool. I can't watch this feeling sorry for the villain.

The movie itself is used and boring; the stuff used from the original is rushed and a cheap knockoff in this one. The murders are rushed and someone gets killed every 2 seconds. My favorite kill in the first one was when Michael strangled to girl with the phone line because it looked so painful when she was gasping for air. This one, he just grabs and her and 2 seconds later she's dead. The murders and stabbing sounds are fake looking and sounding and the gore is way too exaggerated. One person gets stabbed one and then there are oceans of blood.

This movie was not scary in any shape or form and it ruined the image of Myers. No longer is he pure evil, but a misguided and sympathetic fool who just wants love. By the end of the movie, I had to watch the original to chafe the bad taste in my stomach from this one.

Reviewed by BruddanChrist 7 / 10

I really enjoyed it

When Rob Zombie was offered the chance to remake Halloween, he went to John Carpenter to gain his blessing. Carpenter's response was, "Make it your own." Zombie has achieved something few filmmakers do in remaking a classic. He has taken the original version and added more meat to it.

Meyers's character development is very interesting. We first see him as a subdued boy who (allegedly) kills small animals to feel superior, then follow him as he progresses into a repressed, zombie-like murderer who kills everybody he comes across. When comparing the 1978 Meyers with the 2007 Meyers, the latter version is much more frightening (though, Tyler Mane deserves much credit for that). Carpenter's Meyers is a robot; Zombie's Meyers is a monster.

Zombie's ensemble of supporting actors is one of the film's strongest aspects. Most of the Devil's Rejects cast returns, all portraying much different characters. Danny Trejo and William Forsythe give particularly memorable performances.

In light of today's Hostel/Saw horror violence, Halloween is rather tame. While it certainly surpasses Carpenter's version in both content and intensity, Zombie practices some restraint in how much violence is shown, leaving much of the horror to sound effects and imagination.

I honestly don't understand why people are so hard on this movie. The ending drags on for a bit, but otherwise it's a pretty solid film. Remakes have become regular ventures. You can either resist them and be unhappy with half of the movies released, or welcome them and hope for a good ride every now and then. Halloween is a great popcorn flick! Just sit back and enjoy yourself.

Read more IMDb reviews

4 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment