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!

Not for nothing but the new Halloween was the best one yet, and I have seen them all a lot, even part 3.

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.

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

@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.

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.

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???

I hope to see it soon. I have high hopes.