Posted by: gammabomb on June 2, 2008 at 04:03:02
yay halloween 2!
i hope it dosnt get messed up cause the rob zombies was good , violent and shocking.
hopfully they can get harris, mane , compton back.
still no blu ray relase do you yhink we will ever get one ?
Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 06:56:48
...Of course Zombie shows disinterest in another Halloween, because he screwed up his chances the first time. He didn't really plan it out and made it gory, sexual and just all around stupid.
I hope that Halloween 2 doesn't happen, because the ending of the first was too terrible to even serve as a launch point for a second one.
Posted by: JJ on June 2, 2008 at 07:57:12
I think that Zombies take on Halloween was everything that a remake should be. To make a second without his direction could prove to be a bad idea. I would love to see what Zombie would do with the second, rather then someone else's take on it.
Posted by: Hodder All The Way on June 2, 2008 at 08:04:53
Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 06:56:48
"He didn't really plan it out and made it gory, sexual...."
ummmm...you did realize that you were watching a slasher movie didn't you? Go back and watch the original and tell me it's not gory and sexual. That's what slasher flicks are all about. People have SEX and then get killed in some GORY fashion.
Anyway I hope they don't make a sequal to this. Zombie's version ended perfectly and was (purposefully) final. Any lame idea they have to resurrect Michael Myers would sully the whole idea that Zombie was going for in his version...which is why he doesn't want to make a sequal. not because "he screwed up his chances the first time." honestly...do your homework and actually WATCH the movie before you stick your foot in your mouth.
Posted by: MoonDog on June 2, 2008 at 08:17:25
Sorry to jump in here - but you're telling a guy to do his homework while in the same breath saying the original John Carpenter HALLOWEEN was gory?
The 1978 original is famous for NOT having ANY gore. That's what made it a classic, as well as critically respected compared to the slasher films that followed. There is no blood; there's not even a single shot of a knife entering someone's body. It was all done with editing and sound FX. It was very Hitch****, in the sense of using cinematic technique and NOT make-up to convince the audience that they've seen something violent.
So in that sense, I will call you on it. You're wrong. The original HALLOWEEN is NOT gory.
Okay... back to the discussion.
Posted by: Hodder All The Way on June 2, 2008 at 08:27:54
Yeah, I was kind of waiting for that after I wrote the comment and read it, my bad. But it just seems to me that this guy was criticizing Zombie's movie for being exactly what it is....a slasher flick. That's like criticizing a romantic comedy for being too romatic and funny, or an action movie for having too may explosions and action sequences. Did he not know it was a slasher flick going in? What did he expect?
Posted by: robg on June 2, 2008 at 08:54:54
All for it. Anything those sick French bastards behind INSIDE do, I'm ok with. Have you guys seen how freakin' bloody INSIDE was?!
Posted by: spencer on June 2, 2008 at 12:17:41
I just need to point out that when moondog was referring to the master of suspence Alfred Hitchc/ock it bleeped out the last part of his name.
LOL
Posted by: Bringbackswampthing on June 2, 2008 at 12:46:23
Moondog...
Although I agree that the original Halloween was not gory, your statement about there not being one shot with a knife entering someone's body is wrong. The scene just before Mike puts on the sheet had a knife entering the body of the boyfriend. He goes donwstairs to get a few beers and Mike pops out of the pantry and sticks the dude to the wall with a knife. You see the knife go throught the dude.
I agree about the gore, and Zombie blew it as fas as I am concerend. The original stands alone as the best scary movie of all time.
Lets leave it at that.
p.s.
I think there is more knife scenes in the movie as well. The scene in the car when he is in the back seat I am sure shows knife to skin. I think he slit her throat?
Posted by: Movie Man on June 2, 2008 at 13:12:46
I could maybe see another sequel to Halloween. Maybe focus on the survivors Laurie and Anne. Maybe something like this:
Laurie is put into a mental ward and doesn't want to turn out like her brother. Another copycat slasher is on the loose and triggers Laurie's past experiences. She must decide whether to help save her friend Annie or follow her brother's footsteps.
Something along the lines of that might work for a sequel, since Micheal DID die in the original.
And here's hoping Michael stays dead this time around.
Posted by: BoggyCreekBeast on June 2, 2008 at 14:15:57
Can't be any worse than Zombie's HalloWEAK!
Posted by: MoonDog on June 2, 2008 at 14:30:26
Actually, Bringbackswampthing, you are incorrect.
Watch the scene again. The knife is plunged OFFSCREEN with a sound effect THUNK! while in a low angle close up on The Shape. Cut to a low angle CU on Bob, as he stops struggling, and the Carpenter then cuts to a wide shot revealing the knife in Bob, pinning him to the wall.
The stabbing takes place offcamera.
I'll leave it at that.
Posted by: MoonDog on June 2, 2008 at 14:33:24
You can see the scene I'm talking about right here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=66hIOKDmLzE
Okay. I'll shut up now.
Posted by: MoonDog on June 2, 2008 at 14:42:07
All of this is just to illustrate the point that Carpenter is such a master of technique (especially back then, at the beginning of his prime), that even current modern-day moviegoers believe that they see something that they didn't - the illusion is created thru the careful shot choice, editing, and sound fx.
This is a tremendously difficult bar for Zombie to compete with... HALLOWEEN is a classic for a reason.
(Okay, so I DIDN'T leave it at that. Sue me.)
Posted by: Matt Mosley on June 2, 2008 at 15:01:46
Zombie did a great job on Halloween (I HATED The Devils Rejects).
If he's not writing the second I don't see it being any good.
I say Zombie for sequel or just go back to the old series part 9.
Posted by: Xaul on June 2, 2008 at 15:55:41
Zombie's Halloween was even worst and pointless than those direct-to-video sequels for the original movie.
I hope this duo make a good job.
Posted by: moviewizguy on June 2, 2008 at 16:08:11
Ugh, I hate this! There's a reason Michael was killed off at the end of the remake!!!! Stupid effing geedy people don't ever know when to stop.
Posted by: Dan on June 2, 2008 at 17:10:34
there is absolutly NO point of making a Halloween 2. How? The "remake" was one story of its own and lemmie tell you that Rob Zombie's Halloween was outstanding. How about continue after the events of Halloween Resurrection. That's left open. The "remake" story was closed after the climatic ending. This Halloween sequel better have the same remaining character, Harris, Compton, Dourif, and it better have a damn good story or else it's not gonna work.
Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 17:11:16
Nobody was raped in the original Halloween, Michael didn't go around killing little animals when he was a kid, nobody was covered in blood ALIVE crawling around on the floor, Michael's mother didn't commit suicide and so many other things. As I said before, Zombie made it gory and sexual just like he does with every other movie he does. The original Halloween might have shown P.J. Soles upper half naked and some blood, but you can't even compare the two.
I was all for the remake, then I saw the flick in theaters and it was terrible. I even bought the extended cut hoping it would be better. Zombie messed up the remake...I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Posted by: Crusherjoe on June 2, 2008 at 17:57:43
Rob Zombies Halloween "RE-Imagining" was pure crap. Just like the rest of these horror remakes. I'm a huge "Halloween" fan, but I wasn't looking forward to the remake. But I had to see it to get my own take on it, and I don't even think an "Unrated Directors Cut" would save this film. He should go back to doing films like The "Devils Rejects". Now there's a far better movie/sequel. If there going to do a new sequel to "Halloween", they should leave off after "Halloween: Ressurection". By the way "Xaul" there never was a "Direct to Video" sequels for "Halloween". They all had Theatrical runs.
Posted by: nekcuta on June 2, 2008 at 18:06:25
I say just leave well enough alone and start off with a fresh new horror/slasher flick and leave the old ones rest. I am an old school fan but am absolutely loving the new ones like Leslie Vernon, Victor Crowley and Gurdy!! Make new icons and stop re-hashing the old. Zombie did good with his take but I would much rather see another House of 1,000 Corpses or Devils Rejects movie!
Posted by: Hodder All The Way on June 2, 2008 at 18:57:28
"Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 17:11:16
Nobody was raped in the original Halloween, Michael didn't go around killing little animals when he was a kid, nobody was covered in blood ALIVE crawling around on the floor, Michael's mother didn't commit suicide and so many other things. As I said before, Zombie made it gory and sexual just like he does with every other movie he does. The original Halloween might have shown P.J. Soles upper half naked and some blood, but you can't even compare the two.
I was all for the remake, then I saw the flick in theaters and it was terrible. I even bought the extended cut hoping it would be better. Zombie messed up the remake...I'm not the only one who thinks that."
Jesus Jumped Up Christ On a Pony!! It's a horror movie!! Don't want blood and gore??!! Don't watch a horror movie! Seems pretty damn simple to me. And if you didn't like any other of Zombie's movies, what in god's name made you think you would like this one? To me that would have been a clear indication of what to expect. And stop whining that some things were different from the original, if he had shot it exactly like the original you would have been saying he ripped it off. There's just no pleasing some of you whining f_ckin maggots!
Now, really I could care less that you didn't like it, you don't like blood and gore? That's fine, horror movies are not for everyone, I respect that. But don't waste everyone's time by coming onto a site for HORROR movie fans and start bashing a HORROR movie for being.....well...a HORROR movie. That's like bashing Barny the Dinosaur or Sesame Street for being too infantile. Now if you come up with some VALID arguments, than that's fine.
But until then, go see sex and the city instead if you're so easily offended, no wait, that will most likely have sex, nudity and some offensive content, on second thought, maybe you better stick to Narnia and Harry Potter, at least those won't offend your virgin eyes and ears.
Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 19:09:40
I want blood and I want gore, but if it isn't done correct I don't. I don't want people raping mental patients and bloodied up naked girls writing in pain on the floor while their Dad comes in to see her like that. There is a fine line between being scary and being sick.
I love horror movies. I love the feeling of being scared, but when a horror movie makes me feel disgusted, I'm out. What is enjoyable about things like that? I just don't get why today's society feels like watching stuff like that. Even the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre for as bloody as it is, was done correctly.
Give me a classic movie anyday over that stuff.
Posted by: Marcus Bosman on June 2, 2008 at 22:09:14
Halloween sucked balls so will Halloween 2 long live the originals hopefully Friday The 13th wont!!
Posted by: Hodder All The Way on June 2, 2008 at 23:03:08
Posted by: Fox Mulder on June 2, 2008 at 17:11:16
"I was all for the remake, then I saw the flick in theaters and it was terrible. I even bought the extended cut hoping it would be better."
sooooo...let me get this straight, you didn't like the movie when you saw it in theatres because it was too violent and gory...but you bought the UNrated version on dvd??! Do you even know what UNrated means? If you didn't like it in theatres, what made you think you would like it any better on dvd?
I think maybe you actually did like this movie but think it's cooler to be a whiny b_itch for some reason. Tell me something...does that strategy actually get you laid? Or maybe your just afraid to be considered a degenerate?
« Previous Page | | | Page 1 of 2 | | | Total: 30 comments | | | Next Page » |
