|
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 7, 2008 at 10:22am
LOL...'psychological thriller'...LOL...
It's kind of hard to not compare it to the original when (01) it was a remake, not a re-imagining, as Zombie had stated, (02) Zombie went out of his way to fashion it, especially the last half, just like the original. There were lots of lines and sequences taken directly from the source material.
Now, tell me -- how do you not compare something like that to the original?
Not comparing it is ridiculous.
|
Shakes
|
Posted: July 7, 2008 at 2:08pm
The reason you shouldn't compare the two is because first off you shouldn't expect it to be like the original. It's meant to be viewed as a totally different film (because in fact, it is , for the most part). You can't beat Carpenter's Halloween,and comparing them is only setting yourself up for disappointment from the very beginning. It was a combination of a prequel and remake. Most of it is pretty far-fetched, but it's still entertaining. If they hadn't used the name Michael Myers it could've almost been about a completely different person. And for me, at least, I don't wanna see a remake that is exactly like the original only set in modern day times. This movie is not nearly as bad as some people play it out to be. How ridiculous.
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 7, 2008 at 2:25pm
Zombie kept saying how it was a 're-imagining'...it absolutely was NOT. The only thing re-imagined was Michael Myers origins, and that was absurd. The character of Michael Myers was so creepy because we knew so little about him. The mystery of his evil made him as frightening as he was. Turning him into just about abused trailer park kid does not make him scarier. It just doesn't. The rest of the film was a remake, hands down...and a bad one. You can't remake Carpenter...and Zombie proved that. How does turning Michael Myers into an abused hillbilly make him scary, please explain...???
|
bluemeanie
|
Posted: July 7, 2008 at 2:26pm
And all readers, please note: IT IS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS I MADE IT OUT TO BE.
|
Shakes
|
Posted: July 7, 2008 at 5:59pm
It's not an amazing film by any means, but it's got balls, and honestly..how did you not enjoy Michael ruthlessly slaying anybody that crossed his path? To each their own. I thought it was pretty cool, though. OneLove~
|
Ginose
|
Posted: September 27, 2008 at 5:59am
Let's be fair, the whole \"Micheal is just evil\" aspect turned around and shit itself around the time the sixth movie was made. I beleive that that officially crippled all of this wacky fucking \"mysticism\" with his immortality and whatnot. Look, to hold the back-story thing against him is just silly... first and foremost, the film never claims that it was Micheal's upbrining that left him terribly scarred... God knows how long he was killing those mice... but it did make for an interesting building point. Now, it may just be me, but I never found Mike to be so terrifying that a human being couldin't escape one of his rampages... now that I see a brooding 8-foot tall behemoth who can not only run but apparently knows how to fight now and STILL carries that nihilistic need for murder and carnage I can truly see a reason to be afraid of him... so, seis, yes I think the trailer-trash monster Mike worked great. As for the back-story, yes, it was weak, but not without reason. I liked seeing what happened to Micheal in the booby-hatch, and it was downright fun to watch him escape. The excess gore, paintedly sadistic killing methods and grainy camera-work are all token Zombie film tactics, so, yes, this did feel very Zombie-esque through and through.
Could I mark it down for addign th ham we didn't need? Sure. But I won't. This was a well-done, ballsy take on a movie that truly couldn' be remade... fuck... what kind of idiot would even try to mime an atmosphere like Carpenter's? Hell, once you've seen the classic then there's really nothing that can even hope to match it in terms of atmosphere... Zombie took the next logical step and just replaced atmosphere with action, tits and gore. Clever and very Zombie like, in practice.
Bring my orignal score of 8.5 to an 8 even, after my last viewing, but this movie is still good. Damned good.
|
The Red Clover
|
Posted: September 27, 2008 at 8:53pm
Behind all the shitty films there is actually a decent story behind the whole image of Michael and I wish I could have seen a take that explained that a little more. I liked the film because it dealt more with Michael's childhood but there's no way I can't agree with the statement, \"A studio pushed Zombie to release a hit.\"
They did, he failed and I hope Zombie will go back to his original stuff.
To be fair though, I doubt any remake of a horror film is going to going to be better then the original. I can't think of one really but I could be wrong.
|
Crispy
|
Posted: September 27, 2008 at 9:43pm
The Hills Have Eyes
|
Chad
|
Posted: September 27, 2008 at 9:59pm
The Thing
The Fly
|
Nirrad
|
Posted: September 28, 2008 at 2:55am
The Blob (IMO)
Amityville Horror (IMO)
|
Shakes
|
Posted: February 7, 2009 at 3:51am
the hills have eyes ???? that has always been CRAP
|
Rest Easy Soul
|
Posted: December 22, 2009 at 3:18pm
I will say I like the original so much better but I still enjoyed this one quite a bit. Sure it was raunchy and a lot of the cussing and sex could've been done without but it was gory, terrific storyline and very satisfying.
|
DillonBerserk
|
Posted: October 4, 2010 at 12:44am
I like that they gave Michael a better more strengthy look! 10/10! Although.. for the unrated version (easier to find in stores) was unnecessary to include the rape scene where Michael breaks out. The rated scene was much stronger to me.
|
|
