My City Buzz - What's YOUR Buzz??? - Review

Home

Movie Reviews

Review - Halloween (2007)

Written by Taryn Shick

Thursday, 06 September 2007

Starring: Daeg Faerch, Danielle Harris, Malcolm McDowell, Danny Trejo, Sheri Moon
Directed By: Rob Zombie
Produced By: John Carpenter, Harvey Weinstein, Bob Weinstein
Genre: Suspense/Horror, Remake and Sequel
Release Date: August 31st 2007 (wide)
MPAA Rating: R for strong brutal bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language.
Distributors: MGM Distribution Company

We all know the familiar face of Michael Myers from Halloween. The original film, released in 1978, sparked the horror sub-genre most often associated with horror films and referred to as ‘slasher flicks.’ Rob Zombie gives us a re-imagining of this original film that aims to explain more of why Michael did what he did.

First, let’s explore the difference between a remake and a re-imagining. A remake generally stays faithful to the original story and characters. The main difference between a remake and the original film is in the details. There are more current pop culture references and themes that reflect the times in which the film is made and it typically can boast of better effects and cinematography. Other than that, the story remains the same. A re-imagining takes the core of the story but then takes the film to another level. It will have the basic plot and main characters. But it could add in more back story, change key events and add in more peripheral characters. This version of Halloween is a great example of a re-imagining, rather than a mere remake. Settle down, I did not say that the film itself was great. I said it is a great example.

This re-imagining shows us how Michael Myers came to be the pure evil being we all know and love. It shows his tortured home life and the abuse he endures and how he reacts to it even before he ultimately becomes a monster. There is a lot more story of Michael as a child here than in the original. It should be noted, however, that Michael is six when he starts killing in the original. He is ten in this version.

After we see Michael’s transformation, we go back to the original story line with Michael going back for his baby sister, Laurie, fifteen years later. The plot stays true to the original from this point, with the exception of the standard remake upgrades in pop culture references and one major twist that I cannot say any more about lest I give it away.

As a die hard fan of the original, I see no reason why it had to be remade. I believe the original stands the test of time. I used to watch the original and want more explanation of why Michael was evil. In a way, I still do. But this explanation is too realistic.

Of course with a background as the one presented, this child could react the way that he did. One might ask why other siblings or abused children in general do not all become killers. They must be able to cope better or have other factors such as personalities that do not lend themselves to using killing as a reaction or have friends or teachers to turn to.

I like horror movies that carry a sort of supernatural element with them. If you look at the backstory for Jason (Friday the 13^th) or Freddy (Nightmare on Elm Street), that element is there. You have the realistic explanation: Jason was ignored by camp counselors because he was disfigured and he drowned because of their selfish negligence; Freddy was a child killer and victim of vigilante justice. Both sought revenge against those they felt had wronged them. But both have that extra factor that cannot be explained so easily. Jason is nigh unkillable. Freddy kills in dreams.

I would have liked to see a re-imagining more along those lines. I realize this would not be Rob Zombie’s style, as he is prone to show more realistic killers and disturbingly graphic images. I respect his ability to create that sort of story, but I personally do not enjoy it. His films delve into the mind of the killer and attempt to make sense of their actions. While I do desire to know the why of such things in real life, in a movie, I prefer to be a voyeur of the unexplainable.

In the original Halloween, Michael appears to have a quiet, privileged suburban life with a stable family situation. I think it would be more of a challenge to explain why a child in peaceful surroundings became a killer than it is to show why an abused child did. I don’t want to say, “Ah, yes. That makes sense.” I want to say, “Wow. That is shocking. You would never have expected that.”

I cannot say this about Rob Zombie’s Halloween. I did enjoy the cinematography, great cameos and bit parts by horror vets including Clint Howard, Danny Trejo, Brad Dourif and Dee Wallace and excellent performances by Daeg Faerch (Michael as a child) and Scout Taylor-Compton (playing Laurie Strode and who was also in Horrorfest 2006’s Wicked Little Things). But there are several other cameos I missed (Adrienne Barbeau, for one; The Monkees’ Micky Dolenz, for another) due to Mr. Zombie’s directorial style. I realize his penchant for not showing faces is a way of disorienting the audience to create more tension and ultimately aims to create more fear. But why have cameos if you don’t show the faces?

I may watch Rob Zombie’s Halloween again, simply to tear it down and rip it apart in comparison to the original or to try to spot those cameos. But all I can really say about it is, “Wow. That is not shocking. You should totally have expected that.”

Grade: C

Readers have left 2 comments.

1. Untitled
Jephro, Registered

Good review on this Taryn. I think that most people who are fans of the series will go see this to see Rob Zombie's interpretation, but I'm sure the original will stay the favorite.

Posted 2007-09-06 12:44:37

2. Untitled
Mitch Emerson, Registered

How could you miss Micky Dolenz? He was the gunshop owner that sold Loomis the gun.

Posted 2007-09-06 15:05:19

< Prev		Next >