NOTE: This was originally going to be a straight review of John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN. Sitting at the keyboard, it just kinda turned into this.
I don’t mind that Rob Zombie‘s remaking Halloween. Really, I don’t. My reasons are simple. Take into account that in 1999, Irish author Seamus Heaney had a worldwide international bestseller that was a shock to everyone. Why was it so surprising this book sold an assload of copies?
Because it was a translation of Beowulf, the epic poem that we all had to read in High School English and is widely known to be the oldest story in the history of the English language. I say this to ask a question”¦
How many of us (of a certain age) knew WHO Michael Myers was before they saw their first Halloween movie? Knew what he did and how big a threat he was? It was true for me. I didn’t see Halloween until after I saw Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers in a theater back in 1995. I was twelve, and it was my first trip to Haddonfield. But I knew Myers had a white mask and slaughtered teenagers by the truckload.
When a character in a film seeps into the American subconscious like that, doesn’t it make it more than a movie? Doesn’t that make it Oral History? Like… Umm… Beowulf?
The stories of Michael Myers and Grendel do bear similarities, this is not anything new. Monster invades, a hero rises, the monster is vanquished. Variations on this story have been told around campfires, acted out on stages and projected onto screens as long as there has been art to facilitate it. Any subsequent retooling or reiteration is there to entertain us and/or test the mettle of the one telling it.
My point is this: When Seamus Heaney wrote that book, no one pitched a mighty and apoplectic bitch on how he may have deviated from the original scrolls Beowulf was printed on in the sixth century.
The same, however, could not be said about our Mr. Zombie.
We like to shit on people who take chances, don’t we? No one ever went to a Nascar event to see all the cars make it to the finish line in one piece. No one watches tightrope walkers to see them get to the other side without falling off. And when someone makes a lofty statement like “I’m gonna remake Halloween,” we would rather pass a lung through our ass than root for him.
I don’t know how he’s gonna do it (and those rooting for spoilers tell us he did a shit job), but boy am I curious. It’s like the cradle in Rosemary’s Baby. We wanna see what that ugly little motherfucker looks like. Even Zombie’s detractors can’t say they aren’t curious.
I’m of two minds on Rob Zombie as a filmmaker. I marvel at how he went from “Unremitting Turd Pinata” (House of 1000 Corpses) to “Scorching American Classic” (The Devil’s Rejects) in the span of two years on his filmography. But as much as I hated Corpses, I have to say”¦ It was not a meek film. This is not the work of a man who thought small and wanted to make an innocuous little floater like Dead Silence. This guy wanted to change the WORLD! Granted he failed, but he swung for the fences. People don’t do that anymore.
And that’s the kind of guy I want remaking Halloween (if, granted, remaking Halloween proved essential). I don’t want to see the same damn Halloween. I’ve seen that, and it’s great, and I don’t have to pay ten bucks to watch it again. I want The New Translation. I want someone to pull a Heaney.
If I wrote that on the Fangoria message boards, I’d be strung up and disemboweled. How DARE you touch that movie! They know they don’t want a Halloween remake, but they are unwilling to say what they want if confronted with one. If Halloween is too similar to the original? Horror fans will piss like whipped dogs that he’s cutting and pasting. If it’s different? They’ll complain Zombie “ruined Halloween.”
But how does one ruin a movie that was made thirty years ago? I just watched it last night and it’s as great as it ever was. It exists outside Slasher clichés because it maintains plausibility, keeps a riveting level of tension, and has technique and style to burn. Truth be told, I’m actually surprised it hasn’t gotten even MORE credit. It deserves a spot on the AFI top 100 more than Forrest Gump does, that’s for damn sure. There were shots and images in this movie that almost made me weep, they’re so beautiful. And that two-minute opening uncut shot had me at half stalk. How can Zombie ruin it?
1. He is going to work on the original master negative with a Sharpie and a pair of safety scissors.
2. He is going to come into your house, steal your DVD, and replace it with his version, then vanish like a dirty, dreadlocked thief in the night.
3. He is going to revamp the original and insert his own footage like that one asshole did with the Night of the Living Dead 30th Anniversary DVD (and there’s an extra roasty part of Hell for THAT guy).
Folks, none of these things are going to happen. Frosty mugs of “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” all around. They’re on me.
And so is the horror fan’s stubborn insistence on the same ol’ shit. Anything new literally WILL kill them. Seriously. Show them Open Water and they’ll froth at the mouth and suffer a myocardial infarction. Not too long ago I watched the DVD of Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon and I saw the trailer for this movie Hatchet everyone’s going on about and they billed it in this trailer as “Old-School Horror.”
Yes, they are literally trying to sell Hatchet as “The Movie You Already Saw.” Thank you, snooty horror fans, for making my life as a critic so much Goddamn easier”¦
In any event, we’re all going to see Halloween on Friday whether we want to or not. We as Americans like to bitch and that will give anyone ample cause. But if you honestly want to have a good time, do what I’m gonna do”¦
Watch the movie in front of you.
i turn 30 in october. your halloween 6 was my halloween 4. the more time goes by, the less ‘old’ things seem. movies i consider somewhat new are already 5-10 years old- perspective changes over time.
nevertheless, you bring up an interesting point about re-telling classic stories. (although i must admit Beowulf (1010) vs. Halloween (1978) is a stretch of an analogy). still, i see your point- it makes sense for the creative talent of today to revisit and tell classic stories for the young to enjoy and appreciate all over again. at least, that’s my initial, impartial reaction.
i’m not really one to make impartial statements: i’m a fan. my initial reaction as such was “No!! Why?!?” – it’s not to say re-makes are bad for introducing new audiences, and of course i’m going to see because i’m curious, and enjoyed the rest of the franchise to varying degrees.
still i wonder, why do people need new, accessible entry points to classic franchises? can’t they just go get Halloween on DVD? i didn’t need a remake discover and enjoy Halloween, even though it was a good 10-15 years after Halloween was made before i was even old enough to start enjoying it. do we live in such an uncultured society that people can’t sit down and watch a 30-year-old movie? That’s really what urks me the most.
my comfort zone is my dvd collection of favorites, like Halloween. of course no one can take the original from me, (but i did laugh at your remarking about someone sneaking into my house and swapping it out)- so i don’t really care if the remake works or not. I have the original. I also know in 20 or so years, they’re going to re-make all the movies that are popular now anyway. Remakes are nothing new to Hollywood, even though they seem to happen over shorter durations of time. again, that might just be my age and perspective talking, but I’m still a little shell-shocked from remakes like Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (not to pick on Tim Burton, mind you), but it’s easy to be pessimistic about remakes these days if you’re old enough to remember the original nostalgically.
i think Zombie is a decent choice for this project, and i suppose true ‘fans’ could simply see this as a testament to the strength of the original. re-telling classic stories is indeed the sign of a cultural, cinematic icon. i still think it’s trivial to re-make an established, successful idea that holds up, but to each his own. Anyways, this is nothing- just wait a few more decades- someone will go and try to re-make Star Wars. The internets will crash and people will spontaneously combust!
Comment by mikull — August 30, 2007 @ 12:06 am
as a rule i try not to watch previews of movies I’m genuinely excited about seeing.
I watched one of the Halloween previews, and I have to say it looks like it’s going to be pretty good.
I’m relieved that he isn’t doing a strict re-shooting like that version of Psycho which came out a few years ago. I honestly think tastefully remaking a classic of this age for a new generation is great, but I hope that the current generation takes the effort to see the original as well.
Comment by mo — August 30, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Not for nothing but the new Halloween was the best one yet, and I have seen them all a lot, even part 3.
Comment by mota — August 30, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
The ending sucked.
Comment by EddieDamonster — August 30, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I saw this the other night at an advanced screening. I admit that the trailer looked very good and seemed like it was going to stay true to the original, not way out in left field and completely ruining the movie. After seeing it I though it was OK, I was a little let down with it to be honest. Now if I had never seen the original one then it would have been really really good. I think with alot of the story at the beginning with Mike as a kid, made him not as scary in the latter part of the movie for some reason. It seemed to jump around at times. Having seen the original I was able to keep up and know what was going on, but I’m not sure if someone who has never seen the original would not seem lost at times.
Comment by Jimmy Beam — August 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
This is not a retelling of a classic, nor is it a cohesive story at all. While the director may have his own signature style, the camera work is amateurish and violates many of the rules of filmmaking, making it difficult to watch. Add to this a story with more holes than any film I have seen in recent memory, questionable editing, and a rehash of NUMEROUS shots from his other films, and several other atrocities that I won’t get into, and you have one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. For the record, I am a huge fan of horror, and have no problem with someone reinventing a classic, as long as it is a reasonable attempt. This is nothing of the sort.
Comment by Manuel Hung — August 30, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Let’s set some things straight:
1. Yes, this is a much better movie as a straight Halloween movie than any of the other ones, with the exception of the first.
2. The ending DID suck, but hopefully they’ll use the alternate ending in the theatres that was RE-shot.
3. Halloween III: Season of the Witch was NOT a true Halloween movie. It merely put a CAMEO of the original in there to be able to brand it a Halloween movie based on the success of the original (and of the other slashers at the time, i.e. this movie could have easily been branded a Friday the 13th movie…actually about the same way that F13 Pt. 5 was.)
Just my two cents…
BigH
Comment by BigH — August 30, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
@Manuel Hung:
I bet you liked the remake of The Fog didn’t you?
Comment by BigH — August 30, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
@Manuel Hung:
I hate when people like you try to review a new movie. Get over yourself. If this was 1978, you’d be saying the exact same thing about the original Halloween; especially since it’s true.
Comment by Cotter — August 30, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Remaking movies for a modern audience has it’s place if done for the right reasons, such as trying to communicate the same message as the original in a way that engages and stimulates new viewers.
A good example of why this is often needed is the rerelease of the original Exorcist. I grew up on the film and loved every minute of it; the rerelease, while good, didn’t have quite the same impact as the original. When I saw the film in the theatres, I was hoping for a communal experience; instead, the younger audience, used to a faster pace, CGI work, and slightly higher quality of makeup effects felt no fear or even interest in the film. Instead of shrieks of fear the audience was laughing almost the entire time.
While I’m not necessarily saying all films need to be remade to communicate their messages (the message of the Exorcist appears in plenty of movies, it just happens to be one of the best), there are cases where doing so has a purpose. I think Zombie’s intentions with his remake of Halloween were correct and I look forward to finding out if the execution followed suit.
Comment by Neiman — August 30, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
I’m all for quelling fanboy yelping in any context, so as fars as I’m concerned, your analogy to Beowulf is a little bit inspired (if a somewhat hackneyed example). However, two things:
– The idea of an oral tradition is an analogy that doesn’t quite stand up in media-saturated times: if a particular storyteller, in our archetypal campfire scenario, were to start fudging the details, he would be yelled down for not telling it “right”. Oral tradition wasn’t simply the bards recounting tales to audiences: that’s the ready image for us nowadays, because as audiences/consumers we’re conditioned to treat the storyteller/audience relationship as somewhat one-way (well, for the purposes of this discussion we are anyway). But the storytelling ritual, back when it was the dominant means of narrative transmission, was very much a communal thing, and audiences knew the tales just as well as the storyteller and wouldn’t hesitate to kick up the dark-ages equivalent of Nerd Rage if he started, say, changing the ending.
– You use the example of Seamus Heaney to argue the idea that the Beowulf story is a tale that can withstand a little “spinning”. I’d use it to argue just the opposite. Heaney’s translation, it’s generally agreed, is a lyrical retelling of a classic story to which it’s reverently faithful. However, the Christopher Lambert movie takes enormous liberties with the plot and the Gerard Butler movie attempts such a drastic shift in tone as to render both fairly categorical failures in attempts to re-inject the tale into their chosen segment of the zeitgeist. Doesn’t this rather prove that the afore-mentioned urge to shout down an unfaithful storyteller is actually still present, though the ritual itself may be barely recognisable?
Perhaps the best-recieved recent retelling of the Beowulf myth (apart from Heaney’s) would be Michael Chrichton’s Eaters Of The Dead, or John McTiernan’s film adaptation, The 13th Warrior. That movie wasn’t box-office gold by any stretch, but I’d argue it continues to have more life than either of the pictures mentioned above.
And the thing that’s wrongest with The 13th Warrior may well be that it’s kind of like Predator but not as good. And if you’re arguing for a fuzzy-logic kind of interpretation of these myths, why don’t we just say that the best cinematic adaptation of Beowulf is probably Predator? Which, I mean, it may well be.
…Which means that if Mr. Zombie wanted to remake Halloween, hell, let’s face it, he could just make a movie about a serial killer who wears a mask and had a troubled childhood. The trailer makes it pretty clear: we’re using Michael Myers as a lurking-in-the-dark boogeyman. (Which is, of course, insultingly obvious). The reason the nerds are raging isn’t because the abstract of the “serial killer as boogeyman” story is being retold, it’s because it is being given the name and characters of a movie that they have already seen and whose author, for goodness’ sake, is still alive and well and making terrible movies.
I doubt I’ll see Halloween because it doesn’t really look like my kind of horror. But kudos for sparking such an interesting discussion.
Comment by Tom — August 30, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Listen guys, say what you will about it but allow me this, I enjoy a lot of movies that are more flawed than not. Sometimes, like in music, a film just appeals to you and I am all for that. If you like it great, but seriously if you think that this isn’t a poorly written and directed, and highly derivative (from Zombie’s own movies no less), then you are simply a poor judge of a film. It’s not that I am a fanboy or that I think the original Halloween was perfect, rather it was far from it. But some solid performances, great editing and atmosphere allow you to look past the flaws. RZ’s film looked like it was filmed by different people, written by different people and edited by yet another group. There is no cohesion, no tension, sloppy editing and stilted performances.
Before you say it, I watched a screening first, and the workprint second, so Rob’s earlier (and I would assume his personal take on the film) was bad, and the reshoots just added more confusion with a bit of gore.
Agree or not, this movie is going to have a strong Friday, and congratulations to Rob and Dimension, but piggybacking a shit story on the name halloween is a perfect example of what’s ruining Hollywood and the horror genre. It nearly died after the slashers of the 80’s, and we got a brief return to decent regular horror films, but movies like this will take all that away from us again. Enjoy it kids.
Comment by Manuel Hung — August 31, 2007 @ 1:32 am
It was a horrible movie. Zombie is a shit director and needs to stop making movies. I mean, how do you get a bad performance from Malcolm McDowell???
Comment by Jason — August 31, 2007 @ 4:51 am
The Devils Rejects is an American classic? Wow. Just wow. I just found it less shitty than his first disaster.
Comment by kaizo — August 31, 2007 @ 5:57 am
I hope to see it soon. I have high hopes.
Comment by Jerry — August 31, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Zombies can’t make movies! nuff said.
Comment by Miller — September 7, 2007 @ 3:43 pm