HMRWS - Starring Michael Myers!

[Seil]

So I'm on a bit of a horror movie binge, and I've literally just come from watching the Halloween remake. The newer film was written by Rob Zombie based off of the original screenplay by John Carpenter. Rob also adds his own directing flare to the production as well. Now, in this review, I'm going to contrast with the two films - the original Halloween and the remade version - as well as add my opinion to the whole show.

In Halloween, you have Michael Myers. In the original, the introduction features a fantastic scene of looking through Michael's eyes, somewhat obstructed by his mask, as he walks up the stairs and murders his sister. He then walks downstairs and stands in the driveway with a bloody knife. His parents then come home and see him standing there, and the camera pans out, and the next shot comes from some of the best acting in the movie - Donald Pleasence as Samuel Loomis. Loomis is Michael Myers psychiatrist, and though the original flick never shows any of their sessions, Loomis states that "I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil."

A great introduction to a great character. You never understand Michael Myers. From John Carpenter's Halloween, you don't understand Michael. You don't know what drives him, why he does what he does. He's just what Loomis tells you he is: evil; and as you progress through the film, unstoppable. He's scary because you feel nothing that you can do can stop him from hurting you. You don't know why he's trying to hurt you. He's just coming, and coming and coming. He just stops being a character and starts becoming a... force - even being referred to in the credits as "The Shape."

In Rob Zombie's version, things begin a little differently; we get a view of Michael as a young boy. He comes from a troubled house, he's often verbally abused by his drunken father or his negligent older sister. His mother is the only person who really seems to care about him. Michael begins harboring hatred for nearly everything around him, torturing small animals, even seriously beating a bully from school with a tree branch. It comes to its crux on Halloween where Michael kills his father, his sister, and his sister's boyfriend.

Through a few sessions with Loomis - this time as Malcom McDowell - it's revealed that Michael uses masks in order to escape... reality, would be the best way to put it. They reveal a lot of information about Michael, which is where I think that they went wrong. In Carpenter's version, Myers is this... thing, this unstoppable shape.

In Zombie's version, it's played out. For lack of a better term, Rob Zombie's version of Halloween is worse than the original because it has a plot. Because we understand Michael, we know who he is, and what he comes from - even sympathizing to an extent, he ceases to be terrifying. Yes, he's big, yes he's powerful. But he's only human - and humans can be stopped. It doesn't matter that they show him as an unstoppable killing machine, because we know what he is and what's driving him, why he does what he does - because we understand him, he's immediately not as scary as he was in the original. Understanding the antagonist isn't all bad - it works for Freddy Krueger. But Freddy is scary for other reasons - and while his background is told in pieces from film to film, we're given Michael Myer's history all in one go.

The original John Carpenter's Halloween is dated, and thus loses some of its sheen. But it boasts some truly scary scenes, and it can still show why it was a staple horror movie back in the seventies. Both Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis' acting is great. Rob Zombie's Halloween is scary. It's not a terrible film - it does its job of making you scared, with good acting and great effects; it's just not as good as the original. It looks much better. It's a horror film for our generation - typical teenagers being modern day typical teenagers. It's pretty neat. But the fact that everything's spelled out from square one is a little bit of a let down.

Both are good films for a Halloween night. If you're a fan of the originals - Friday The 13th, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Omen, get the original Halloween. But if you're looking for something sort of modern-day, something relatable, get Rob Zombie's version. Both are scary, so both get thumbs up.

[walkertexasdruid]

That was a very good review of both films, and I may take a look at Rob Zombie's version in the near future.

Have you watched all of the sequels from 2 to Resurection? Some like 2 are pretty solid, while others are not so great, and 3 is just so completely horrible that I would recommend that first-time viewers skip it entirely.

You obiviously think about these types of movies pretty thoroughly, so what are your opinions of the other Halloween movies?

Peace and Out

[Pip Boy]

Know any good horror movies that are

1 (And this will be a bit crippling) Rated PG-13

2 Actually Scary

3 Not completely retarded/predictable?

[Seil]

Have you watched all of the sequels from 2 to Resurection? Some like 2 are pretty solid, while others are not so great, and 3 is just so completely horrible that I would recommend that first-time viewers skip it entirely.

I've just come from watching the second one. I took your advice and wiki'd Halloween 3. No Michael? It's evil masks that's the problem? Geez.

I have to say that I didn't much like Halloween 2 - it seemed to pale in comparison to the original, which is a common problem with most films, horror films in particular. We're treated to a recap of the original film, where we remember that Michael is still out there, after being repeatedly shot by Loomis - once again played by the talentd Donald Pleasance.

Well, maybe talented is too strong a word. Don't get me wrong, he's fantastic. He's done some really great work. In this flick, however, he seems a lot more subdued. He just sort of mutters his lines, and doesn't really seem like he's into it until close to the end. The same can be said for Jamie Curtis who returns as Laurie Strode - though she's drugged through most of the movie.

Even Michael is different. He's less of what he was in the first film - simple and direct. In the first film Michael killed only those associated with Laurie. He also used his trusty kitchen knife to do it. Freddy has his bladed glove, Jason has his machete and Michael has his knife. It's simple and direct, which suits Michael. It's not like you imagine him laying out some clever trap, flushing his victims straight to him, no - he just walks off after them and stabs them. In Halloween 2, however, Michael is much more creative - even so far as trading in his kitchen knife for a scalpel.

He also kills everyone. Whether they're in his way or not. In the beginning of the movie, when we see Michael leaving the scene of the crime, he walks into a house while a woman is distracted with the news - what happened in the first film, which is about an hour ago in the second film - where they state that Michael Meyers is back in Haddonfield. Stealing the womans knife while she's distracted, Michael then walks outside, goes into a different house, and kills a teenager while she's on the phone. ...Just because. It wasn't relevant to the story, it wasn't necessary - it was a throwaway kill. I guess it was meant as his introduction to people watching the second film without seeing the first, but it's just weird. Why kill the girl and not the woman he stole the knife from?

One thing I'll note - that never really happens in horror films - is Loomis. Our friendly asylum doctor is talking with the Sheriff of Haddonfield, and this is after the murders, to find Michael. This is I think the first time where I've watched a horror film where a main character goes to the police and says "Hey, shit's about to go down." And they believe him and begin a manhunt. It's just a nice touch of realism - such as Michael hearing where Laurie is being kept via the news. However, that touch is ruined when we see Michael walk to the Hospital. ...Really, he just hoofs it - which is off-putting when you think about it, even for Halloween night. Everyone knows who he is and what he looks like, they know from police bulletins and the media that he's killed already, but no one looks twice at him when he walks through town bleeding.

Laurie is transported to the Haddonfield hospital, which is apparently empty save for about seven people - a security guard, a few nurses, two ambulance personnel and a doctor. They do have a few children in the maternity ward, (One of Michael's first appearances is in the Maternity Ward, a strangely anxious scene) but aside from the aforementioned people, the hospital is quiet. In order to treat her injuries, the doctor has sedated Laurie, who doesn't actually have a role in the film at all. She's still Michael's primary intended victim, and he's slowly working his way to her, but she's out cold for half the film, and in hiding in the next half.

Like I said, Halloween 2's Michael is different from the original - instead of just being simple and direct, he uses a wide array of medical tools and equipment to do kill the hospital employees, which just seems totally unlike him. The same with killing everyone. In Halloween, he kills those associated with Laurie before making his way to her. In Halloween 2, they just have him start with one person, and move on to the next - with remarkable special effects for the seventies. It wasn't too horrifying, but at the same time there's just parts thrown in for the sake of seeing some gore, or a particular horrific scene involving a bathtub which I won't get into.

The movie is scary, there are parts that make you jump, but like Rob Zombies version of Halloween, Halloween comes close but ultimately fall short of the original. There is a bit of brush up on dated visuals and the fright factor, but that's mostly done when you see Michael coming up to his next victim - it's less about the psychological horror seen in the first film and more about what's he gonna do next? Well, I guess the answer is that he's going to star in a bunch of sloppily written sequels, that's what.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Megaman FTW

Know any good horror movies that are

1 (And this will be a bit crippling) Rated PG-13

2 Actually Scary

3 Not completely retarded/predictable?

It is science fiction/horror and looks quite clunky ( it was made in early 60s) but X, the man with X-ray eyes fit this bill. Though the real scariness lies in the alternate ending which is rumoured but unfortunately no footage has ever appeared.

[walkertexasdruid]

Now that I think about it, you are probably right about Haloween 2. I do not think I have actually watched it since I was a a young teenager, when I thought it was pretty scary.

Here are some brief impressions for the remaining sequels, should you be interested:

Halloween 4 is pretty good and scary. 4 through 6 involve Micheal going after Laurie's daughter, and Loomis doing what he can to save her. 4 is in my opinion the best in this cycle of the sequels. It has a pretty twisted ending to boot.

Haloween 5 is definately on the cheesy side. Some parts are MST 3K quality, if you know what I mean.

The Curse of Micheal Myers is OK, but is hard to follow at some points. I am still not sure what to make of the ending (except that I believe that Plesence passed away in the middle of shooting the film).

H20 tries to follow on the success of late 90's slashers such as Scream and I Know What you did Last Summer, except that you already know who the killer is.

Resurection tries to combine previous Halloweens with the Blair Witch Project, with mixed results.

So I guess the only one that gets a solid recommendation from yours truly is Halloween 4. Its kind of sad since ealier in my life I had made it a goal to watch all of the Halloweens. You live and learn I guess.