Halloween (2007)

Movie Stills - View all?

User Lists:
The Worst Films Of All Time Worst Films of 2007 Top 10 Slashers

60%
Overall Rating

Ranked #1,179
...out of 14,051 movies

Genres / Traits: Horror Slasher Film Halloween

Connections: Halloween

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. --TMDb

Review by bluemeanie
Added: August 31, 2007

The mystery is over. For years, horror fans across the globe have sought an answer to that age old question - if Michael Myers had a theme song, what would it be? Evidently, according to director Rob Zombie - "Love Hurts" by Nazareth? To call "Halloween" a disaster of epic proportions would be the understatement of the year. It is, quite simply, awful. It's the worst remake I have ever seen, and that includes "Black Christmas" from last year. It's Rob Zombie taking an unintended piss all over everything that made the original film so memorable. It's utter garbage.

We all know the story, now here are the twists. The first half of the film deals with Michael Myers as a child, being raised by a stripper mother, a crippled stepfather and a bitch of a sister. He likes to torture animals and eventually massacres his entire family. He is placed under the care of Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) and stays locked away at Smith's Grove for years. Then, on Halloween night, he escapes and returns to Haddonfield to find the sister he left behind. But, this Michael is a bit different than the one we remember. He can catch anyone because he's eight feet tall and strides like a gazelle. He's like bigfoot in a Halloween mask. He also likes to kill people with his bare hands, as opposed to using weapons, though he does use some. This Michael Myers is played as more realistic, which makes him seem more oafish than frightening.

Everything about this film is wrong, so wrong. The first half of the film is pitiful, with Rob Zombie trying to establish this troubled background for Michael - it could have been done in half the time. What is it about Zombie, but he seems to have this fascination with trailer trash. He thinks there is nothing funnier than a woman in a bathrobe threatening her trucker husband with a skillet. The film opens with such a scene and it sets the tone for the rest of the film. Zombie's dialogue here is as bad as you can get, with very little actually coming from the original. And if you're going to have Michael Myers as a kid and you're going to make him so vocal, please try and find a child actor who is up to the task and doesn't look like Eric Stoltz from "Mask". That's all we ask. Sheri Moon, as Michael's stripper mother, is beyond dreadful and really needs to give up the acting. And, when Dr. Loomis enters for the first time, he seems to be walking out of "Welcome Back, Kotter".

When Michael reaches Haddonfield, it gets even worse. Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie, Danielle Harris as Annie and Kristina Klebe as Lynda are just plain bad. When they're walking down the street - I wanted them all dead right then and there. And Michael Myers just pops in and out like it's "Where's Waldo?" or something - why can no one see him? The three girls see this eight foot tall guy in a white mask and don't think anything's a little off? The Haddonfield segment seems to take about ten minutes, with choppy editing, a storyline that really lacks focus and some of the most ridiculous death scenes I have seen before. By trying to make him more realistic, Zombie has turned Michael Myers into a pedestrian. He's not scary anymore. He's imposing, but not scary. And who thought it was a good idea to kill all of these people who shouldn't have died? Was there nothing about John Carpenter's script that Zombie that was appropriate to respect?

The celebrity cameos are also more distracting than anything else - Clint Howard, Danny Trejo, Udo Kier, Sid Haig - just to name a few. Zombie likes to cast B-movie actors in his films, but most of them are B-movie actors for a reason. Here, his whole collection is on display. Brad Dourif gets a role worth noting as Sheriff Brackett, but he's really not that good in it. The same can be said for Malcolm McDowell as Loomis - he just looks plain lost, and he gets some really bad dialogue, compared to Donald Pleasence's dialogue from the original. When Zombie can make Malcolm McDowell look this lost, something is wrong with that picture. But, it's not just him. Tyler Mane makes a piss poor Michael Myers. He looks like Andre the Giant. He acts mentally retarded. The only thing scary about him is the fact that he might bump his head on the ceiling. And when he is about to kill Danny Trejo - "Mikey - I treated you good!" Wow. Nice set up there, Rob.

This movie was just plain bad. There are no redeeming qualities to be found therein. It's as bad as I thought it would be, and worse. It's the worst remake I've ever seen. Rob Zombie has found a way to create the worst possible remake of "Halloween"...it couldn't be worse, I don't think. Everyone in the theatre was pissed off when this film ended because everyone in the theatre hated it as much as I did. We had people leave the theatre frequently to go home. I considered it. I am a huge fan of the original and think John Carpenter a genius. I want to hear his reaction to how this film turned out. I would love to have watched his reaction when he saw it the first time. How could it be anything other than horror and shock and awe and disgust at what Rob Zombie has done to his baby. "Halloween" is a disaster. It's garbage. It's worthless. It deserves to burn in hell.

0/10.

#1: ThunderStruck5a - added 08/31/2007, 12:44 PM
i havent seen it yet but its a shame to hear it was that bad. Rob Zombie's done some pretty awsome stuff in his lifetime.

#2: bluemeanie - added 08/31/2007, 12:59 PM
He sure has. I very much enjoyed "House of 1,000 Corpses" and thought "The Devil's Rejects" was brilliant. This one just misses the mark. Actually, it never even sees the mark. Too much public and studio pressure to make this film a hit probably messed with Zombie's head a little.

#3: ThunderStruck5a - added 08/31/2007, 01:05 PM
im sure it was just a market run fluke and once he starts doing his original stuff again itll all be good.

#4: bluemeanie - added 08/31/2007, 01:09 PM
I am hoping so, because there was nothing Rob Zombie about this movie other than the actors.

#5: QuietMan - added 08/31/2007, 10:41 PM
I loved it n I thought there was alot of zombie in it but i'm not a reviewer so i'll just keep it to myself i figure my comments are normally enjoyed

#6: Ginose - added 09/01/2007, 03:45 AM
This was the best use of a Friday night in years.
This is, first and foremost, a Rob Zombie movie.
I will not argue most points of your review, it's completely true for the most part.
I really don't want to bother trying to fit how much I loved this movie into here, I'll just do another review... I mean... wow...
8.5/10

#7: QuietMan - added 09/01/2007, 04:12 AM
i ment aren't*

#8: bluemeanie - added 09/01/2007, 02:56 PM
I am shocked ans awed by your statement that this is a Rob Zombie. It truly is not. It's like Rob Zombie trying too hard to make it seem like a Rob Zombie movie, but just couldn't pull it off. He needs to stick with his own material, because -- wow -- I still just can't believe you liked it. And the second half of the film was basically a shot by shot and line by line remake of the original, just with bad actors and terrible editing.

#9: Ginose - added 09/01/2007, 04:27 PM
as I said, I'll explain all my reasoning behind liking this film when i finish my review, just hold on 'til then, okay? I'll be explaining it plainly.

#10: Cryptorchild - added 09/01/2007, 05:40 PM
I just got back from watching this. I kind of have mixed feelings. I don't see how it could be as bad as the review says. It's not horrible...but it's not perfect either. When compared to the orginal...it doesn't stand a chance. But I do think it is one of the better horror movie to have came out in awhile. I will agree with the bad editing though. Shit, there were times when the camera work and editing made me dizzy. But all in all, I thought it was a decent movie. Will it stand the test of time like the orginal? Fuck no. I would just go in and watch it like any other movie....forget the hype, reviews, everything and come to your own decision.

#11: cky2kendall - added 09/01/2007, 08:17 PM
I went into this objectively. I knew without a shadow of a doubt that it couldn't stand against the original. Remakes never do. But even has a horror movie, it just feels flawed. The first half is decent enough. It's stereotypical trailer trash, but it could be worse. The transition of Michael growing up is a little out of nowhere too, but again, I can forgive that. The second half, in Haddonfield, is fucking horrible though. Everything moves too fast. Michael is everywhere. He kills 2 people, then a short cut, and he's back killing more people. It just feels very out of place and too fast. The actors make up for it I guess, since Dr Loomis and Laurie both have brilliant actors. The ghost scene was a nice throwback too. I dunno, I was just a little underwhelmed. Without comparing this to the previous Halloween films, it's still poor in terms of horror.

4/10

#12: Crispy - added 09/03/2007, 11:57 AM
I think he should have taken the first half, changed the kids name, and just continued the original story. I was really enjoying it until it hit the remake stage. 5/10 for me.

#13: bluemeanie - added 09/03/2007, 05:34 PM
"Evil Has A Destiny" -- the $5.50 bin at Wal-Mart.

#14: Ginose - added 09/03/2007, 06:23 PM
Movies I've baught from the $5.50 bib:
"Escape from New York" 2-disc set
"Big Trouble in Little China" 2-disc set
"Kids"
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
"Haunte Tension"
"House of 1000 Corpses"
"Young Frankenstein"
"The Haunting" (Original)
"The Changling"
"The Hitcher"
"Enter the Dragon"

Bad joke, homie.

#15: Crispy - added 09/03/2007, 06:42 PM
You say 5.50 bin like its a bad thing

#16: Tristan - added 09/04/2007, 08:51 AM
Those are actually some pretty good finds for under $10

#17: bluemeanie - added 09/04/2007, 10:17 AM
But, there are just as many bad titles. 1/2 my DVD collection is from the $5.50 bin.

#18: bluemeanie - added 09/04/2007, 01:02 PM
And I stand by the joke proudly. "Soul Survivors" is bad enough to stink up the whole God damned bin.

#19: Crispy - added 09/04/2007, 01:13 PM
I recently found "War of the Roses" in the bargain bin, which is enough to overcome any stench.

#20: bluemeanie - added 09/04/2007, 01:17 PM
Until you dig around and find a piece of shit like "The Devil's Rain" starring Ernest Borgnine and William Shatner. Yeah.

#21: Crispy - added 09/04/2007, 01:19 PM
Ew, well if you're digging that far in the bin than I have no pity for you.

#22: bluemeanie - added 09/04/2007, 01:21 PM
Neither did Ernest Borgnine or William Shatner...oh, co-starring Tom Skerritt and John Travolta.

#23: Crispy - added 09/04/2007, 01:22 PM
ZING

#24: Crispy - added 09/05/2007, 03:27 PM
So, stumbled upon this little factoid. Danielle Harris, the chick who played Annie, played Jamie in 4 and 5. Who knew

#25: bluemeanie - added 09/06/2007, 03:59 PM
Everyone, I thought.

#26: Crispy - added 09/06/2007, 04:08 PM
Well....I caught up....yeah :)

#27: bluemeanie - added 09/06/2007, 04:52 PM
Just in the nick of time.

#28: Crispy - added 09/06/2007, 08:10 PM
Day late and a dollar short, the story of my life.

#29: Tristan - added 09/12/2007, 09:49 AM
0/10.
I've seen some bad movies in my day, but never have I wanted to walk out of the theater so badly. The second this movie ended, I was out of there. As far as the workprint everyone saw a few days before the movie's release...it's a different movie. My friend and I had an argument about it, and it turns out that the ending is completely different. But yeah, horrible horrible horrible movie. All bias aside (I hate Zombie's movies) this movie was just bad. I really can't think of a moment that was even like "Oh yeah, that part was kinda cool". I agree with Billy Ray 100% on this one.

#30: Nirrad - added 11/26/2007, 11:31 AM
Tristan, you say there wasn't a part that made you think "That part was kinda cool!", even though you said directly to me that the part when Micheal kills the father was kinda cool, and gave you a small jolt........and a 0/10??!?!?, worse than Resurrection, III and 5?.........you fucking fan boys......

#31: bluemeanie - added 11/26/2007, 03:09 PM
Fan boys has nothing to do with it. The film is garbage. The WORST of the entire franchise, from top to bottom. I thought there was one cool part too, where Michael is slamming the 2x4 into the ceiling, but it wasn't enough to give it higher than a 0/10. It was fucking worthless, fan boy or not.

#32: grain of sand - added 12/21/2007, 06:30 AM
eh, I just rented this.. save for a brutal death or 2, this was horrible.

1/10
for the nudity and the 1 or 2 brutal deaths, and I think that's just me being drunk and way too generous

#33: Chad - added 12/22/2007, 01:53 AM
So yeah, finally saw this. In no way did it top the original, but as far as remakes go... I've seen much, much worse. This one was decent enough, certainly worth far more than a 0/10. My opinion? 7/10 sounds about right.

#34: Tristan - added 12/27/2007, 05:25 PM
I'm with Robbie on this one. I only bought it to see Danielle Harris' rack again. And maybe the unrated material will be interesting, but basically just for that 20 seconds of flesh.

#35: Nirrad - added 01/07/2008, 10:28 PM
Holy shit a 7? Finally someone else who likes it. I really did enjoy this movie. I've never seen the theatrical cut, but the work-print and directors cut were great in my opinion. Still, I wish they kept some stuff from the work print into the final film.

#36: duck - added 04/02/2008, 02:53 PM
the fuck is wrong with people, rob zombie a good director? house of 1000 corpses was absolutely pathetic. the fuck kind of name is dr. satan for a villian? devil's rejects belongs in the bargain bin at your neighborhood dallar store it was so ridicilious.

#37: C L - added 04/20/2008, 08:26 PM
It was much better than the reviews here led me to believe. I'm a Rob Zombie fan, so I wanted to see if it was really that bad. I disagree with all of the hate for this movie. I thought it was a respectful homage to the original. 7/10

#38: bluemeanie - added 04/24/2008, 12:44 PM
A RESPECTFUL HOMAGE...???!!! Wow. That makes me giggle.

#39: Shakes - added 07/06/2008, 07:12 PM
OK. Wow. Allow me to clear a few things up. If you went into this movie expecting too much, or worse--to compare it to the original, then you went about it the absolute wrong way! To compare it to the original is retarded. John Carpenter told Zombie to do what he wanted with it. He didn't give a fuck. I like all of Zombie's movies, I think they're great and he's got his own style going on. I'm also a fan of Carpenter, I grew up on horror films. Anyhoo, I remember I guess back in August I went to see HALLOWEEN and I left actually liking it FOR WHAT IT WAS and it wasn't nearly as bad as so many fans whined. It was a psychological thriller (the first half) and the rest was a fine slasher flick. Take it for what it is. If you didn't like it, then the good news is you'll never have to sit through it ever again, and I'm sure that idea comforts you. I've seen it a few times and I enjoy it! 7.5/10

#40: bluemeanie - added 07/07/2008, 10:22 AM
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.

#41: Shakes - added 07/07/2008, 02:08 PM
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.

#42: bluemeanie - added 07/07/2008, 02:25 PM
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...???

#43: bluemeanie - added 07/07/2008, 02:26 PM
And all readers, please note: IT IS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS I MADE IT OUT TO BE.

#44: Shakes - added 07/07/2008, 05:59 PM
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~

#45: Ginose - added 09/27/2008, 05:59 AM
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.

#46: The Red Clover - added 09/27/2008, 08:53 PM
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.

#47: Crispy - added 09/27/2008, 09:43 PM
The Hills Have Eyes

#48: Chad - added 09/27/2008, 09:59 PM
The Thing
The Fly

#49: Nirrad - added 09/28/2008, 02:55 AM
The Blob (IMO)
Amityville Horror (IMO)

#50: Shakes - added 02/07/2009, 03:51 AM
the hills have eyes ???? that has always been CRAP

#51: Rest Easy Soul - added 12/22/2009, 03:18 PM
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.

#52: DillonBerserk - added 10/04/2010, 12:44 AM
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.

Recommended Movies	Show More?