Quote:
Originally Posted by Despare
I liked Zombie's Halloween but I think the best thing about the film wasn't actually "in" the movie at all. Remakes are pouring out of Hollywood now and the biggest problem with them is the lack of creativity used in reshaping the original. Zombie reimagined the film and wasn't afraid to add a lot of material of his own to flesh out the story and make the film truly his. I'm not against remakes at all, if they interest me I'll watch them and if they're good I'll buy them... if they're bad I won't. I feel the same way about remakes as I do cover songs, if the artist makes the material their own and really embraces it then there's a chance the outcome will be decent. If not then they're just shoveling more crap down our open throats trying to make the most money with the least work. Now I'm not suggesting that simply changing the original as much as possible is the way to go but some imagination and willingness to contort the source material is a must. The same goes with Asian translations. To paraphrase Chan Woo Park, I hate when they make an American remake by simply changing the actors and locations to their American counterparts but some remakes can be good and maybe even great. Ummmm, so yeah, I liked the Halloween remake and even though the backstory was weak the story still played out well. I think he even did a good job holding back with his giant Michael, sure he used more brute force than the original did but he still stalked his prey and I liked that. I bet Zombie held back there and I really think he could have turned Michael into more of a beast and less of a monster. Also, I liked the theatrical release MUCH more than the workprint and before anybody judges the film they should have scene the theatrical release.
|
I think that that's a really good point... Remakes definitely interest me too. I think that I agree that the backstory was crap, but it was interesting to see how Rob Zombie made that crux of the film, the older Mike Myers part I found significantly more interesting than the backstory because I enjoyed RZ's take. I thought that the death scenes were pretty brutal and, honestly, there were a couple of slashes that really SHOCKED me.
Also - Those last 3 minutes or so... I thought were pretty damn amazing, and I would say that, if you were going to change the ending of a movie, that's the damn way to do it. I think that if he had ignored the concept of creating a past and just focused on JC's movie, the remake would have been pretty strong. But, MAN did the "past" suck. I thought that little Mikey Myers was just... laughable.
I woulda beat him up.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castlewood
Thanks for the welcome!
Well, I thought Rob Zombie's direction was very good. I HATED his first two movies, and well, I had very low expectations about his Halloween... but I was proven wrong.
I think what separates this film from its predecessor's is two things:
1. Michael's origin.. which is fresh and new.
2. The increase in horror.
When I say "increase", I simply mean that the level of intensity and suspense was raised quite a bit. I'm not dissing Carpenter's vision (since I believe Carpenter's film is still the best), but it feels like Rob Zombie tastefully brought the story into a modern world for an audience that craves more blood and guts.
I also think this generation of movie-goers has a lower attention span than back in the 70's.... so I think Rob Zombie's vision mirrored that. I personally don't mind "slower" films - in fact I prefer them - and I love the original Halloween films... but I think Zombie treated the material with great respect.
The original is always superior, though.
|
But did you actually
like the origin tale?
I definitely agree with the intensity... Zombie's films are definitely raw and bring a bit more to the slasher genre then some of his predecessors. And I thought that there were some aspects of the intensity that definitely added to the film...
But at least you agree about the far superior Original. :p
...
And back on topic... I finally saw
No Country For Old Men.
My take: A very pretty, artistic, action film. Definitely makes me want to read the book (has anyone read it)? I feel as though it examines three men with three different objectives, and attempts to examine and call into question their separate purpose and obsession on their objects of striving.
It was pretty, intense, a little slow, but ends REALLY well. Tommy Lee Jones is spectacular.
...
But I am NOT sure that I would necessarily put it on my BEST OF 2007 list.
Anyone want to discuss why it made theirs?