I believe there was no sign of him in the 3rd movie. Shows what a fan you are.

Alright, I have to admit I liked this one. Maybe I was just looking at it from a different angle than you V. What I saw was almost what boiled down to two very different parts of the same movie. The first part was a forgettable prequel that didn't really leave a bad taste in my mouth but didn't thrill me either. After the first part is over (which could have just been a Rob Zombie movie about some little boy serial killer) we get the second helping which turns out to be a pretty decent remake of Halloween. I was actually surprised that Zombie could build suspense (there was SOME even if it didn't come close to the original's), I thought Mike would be faster and crazier in this one. The ending was good too and I was surprised once again as I thought Zombie would leave nothing in this movie to the imagination. Anyway, I thought Zombie did a good job... even if he did use too many tits.

I watched the theatrical one earlier this week and compared to the workprint, the last minute changes do add a certain amount of credibility to the finished product. The ending was better IMO (compared to the workprint at least) and some of the subtle changes are an improvement. They didnt need the added deaths though...all it did was add more Devil's Rejects-dash into the Halloween flavor.

But it still doesnt deter from the fact that the "prequel" of the first 30-odd minutes makes Michael a sympathetic character and gives an "explanation" of his behaviourial pattern. This was one of the biggest drawbacks of Zombie's remake IMO. You know what, if Zombie had pursued that part and made an entire movie devoted to the "prequel", it would have actually worked (and would have been a better movie)...but what we are left with is an empty tale of half-prequel/half-remake involving a sympathetic 8 foot tall Michael Myers who isnt remotely scary and resembles Michael Clarke Duncan's character of The Green Mile.

I ll be gracious and grant it a 05/10, just for Zombie's improvement on the workprint. As for being a part of the franchise, it stands behind pt. IV and VI for me.

It certainly beats Resurrection by a mile. I ll give it that much credit.

I think the prequel showed that he only cared for one person.


SPOILERS


Look at Trejo's character, if Michael was sympathetic he wouldn't have killed him. Michael was taken over by the evil that was inside him and destroyed every man and woman that was in his path. It was fun, I'd put it in the top 4 Halloween movies.


Anyway, it was better than I expected with some good gore and fun scenes ruined by some poor plot choices and sketchy dialogue (especially from the girls at some points, holy crap was that bad).

***SPOILER ALERT***

Trejo's death was added later (it isnt there in the workprint). Maybe when Zombie decided the final version needed a bit more gore and Michael was to look scary (and do a bit more justice to the original), he added it. In the workprint we can see him actually control Michael...

And another part which didnt make sense. If young Michael loved his baby sister even a wee bit so as to spare her life...why grow up and go after her? In the workprint its shown that he merely wanted to meet her, and wouldnt have stalked and attacked her unless provoked first. In the final version, he has murderous intent because he is evil (according to Loomis in the briefing of his book), and then proceeds to Haddonfield to kill her?

What happened in-between...he "outgrew" his love for Laurie? Huge plothole, indeed.

He did sit down and offer her the picture. It seemed like he really thought she was his sister and he wanted to have her... as his. When she stabbed him and said she didn't know who the people in the picture were (remember, as far as Michael knew his mom had told her about him and the family was fine) Michael decided that it wasn't her and tried to kill her. After all, he carried her to their old house after having not afforded two other girls the luxury of a chance.

If he offered her the picture and wanted her to remember, he was pretty convinced Laurie was his sister, right? And after she stabs him and says she doesnt remember, he thought it wasnt her? From one extreme to another in an instant, IMO.

Zombie needed to handle that scene very delicately. It was one of the centerpoints of his movie. Somehow it doesnt fit into the overall picture and leaves a question mark.

Yeah, I forgot to hit the quote button, but anyway I'm referring to the last 2 or 3 posts. About Michael asking if everyone at home was OK, I'm sure he just said that for a chance at going home. He found out it was his sister either when A) Tommy and Laurie went by the Myers house and Tommy called her "Laurie" or B) While he was following Laurie, Lynda, and Annie.

My take on the trying to kill Laurie thing. He spared her when she was a baby so I'd reckon after she stabbed him he saw that she wasn't the person he loved as a baby, just another random person. Maybe I'm overanalyzing, Maybe I'm stupid, Maybe I'm both. Oh well.


Question: Did he wear the orange mask in the workprint?

It was just snap judgement but Michael IS a psychopatch that was taken over by pure evil when he stopped talking. Loomis couldn't even slow down Mike at the end. I don't know, there were some problems, but it exceeded my expectations.

Massacre, I doubt Laurie was her original name. The cop just dropped the baby off at an emergency room so when she was adopted the Strode's most likely named her.

For awhile, yeah.

Exactly.

And about the name...I think the Strodes named her Laurie, like Des said.

I am sure she was born (something) Myers. Michael calls the baby "Boo"...I am unsure what the Myers' called her then.

And about Michael figuring Laurie out, I think it was when he heard Laurie outside, bringing a key to the front door of his old home. No one else would have a key, would they?