make sure to post your reviews about the new Halloween in this thread. Hopefully, it will be a great flick.

Hopefully alright, NOT! Like I said, I dont have high expectations of Rob Zombie, but he dissapointed me more than I thought he could. When the kid from school got his ass beat in the beginning, he could have let out a hit on the little sucker after the first hit with the stick. I'm sure he was in pain, but he didn't defend himself at all, he just took the asswhoopin, wait no the murder....... I thought that little kid was Dakota Fanning playing a boy too....my bad for that one....Dakota Fanning is a very good actress, I should have known it wasn't her.

It was......man, I just don't know. Just stupid. I mean, waht was the point of Lynda? She was in 5 scenes, spenmt three of them buck naked, and then died. I sat there saying "I know she's not about to die now....." and sure enough she did.

Was Lynda the cop's daughter, or the other whore?

Was Lynda the cop's daughter, or the other whore?

Annie, the other girl, was. She was the one the sheriff found alive.

RZ should not have just refilmed the entire original fim in 30 minutes. Bad, bad writing and storytelling. Way too much blood, no suspense.

When they went through the house and both fell to the ground, I thought that would have been the ending. I started to get up and leave because it was shitty, I thought it was over, and couldn't wait to leave, and then the [!@#$%^&*] continued.

When they went through the house and both fell to the ground, I thought that would have been the ending. I started to get up and leave because it was shitty, I thought it was over, and couldn't wait to leave, and then the [!@#$%^&*] continued.

Dude, I couldn't believe that. i said "I know this is NOT how this will end." The stupid ass scene in the pool, Michael tackling Laurie through the window, mis motherkilling herself, it all was just so bad.

I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, the beginning was a little rocky, but I liked that they delved more into the past and put Michael as the focal point, as they should have.

No matter what Rob would have done, people would have hated it. And that, in my opinion B.S.

The original is a classic. NOTHING can touch it, or even dream of coming close to it. Rob KNEW this, which is why he didn't want a straight out remake. He wanted his vision to be onscreen, and it was definitely his style: the brutal realism of a madman on the loose. No holds barred, violence from a man full of rage for two decades.

I went in knowing that it wasn't going to be the usual Halloween fare. I accepted it and I had an open mind, and upon completion, I felt satisifed. The ending made perfect sense. The last thread of humanity in him wanted it all to end, which is why he did what he did. He knew that he couldn't stop, he knew that he was a killing machine, and rather than have it continue, he chose that path.

Its just the same as when they remade Dawn of the Dead. The remake was a great movie in its own right, but its constantly under the shadow of the brilliant original, and its not fair to the filmmakers who put together a thrill ride movie.

Maybe Rob should have just used this concept and scripted a movie with another title. Maybe then he woudn't be called a talentless hack by fanboys of the original simply because he dared to have a different vision than Carpenter.

I've read some VERY hateful things about him written online in reviews of this movies. Its absolutely disgusting. If people would appreciate it for what it is, which is a fun movie (not classic, but good nonetheless), and stop trashing everything about it because it doesn't meet their Everest sized expectations of what "true horror" is, then I would take their opinions seriously. But they don't. They simply drive home the point that people need to get out of their glass houses before the stones they throw destroy it.

I never once compared it to the original. I wanted his OWN take n the film. The suspense was thrown out the window when so much of the second half was lifted from the original. I also have to say that some of these characters just were not needed, IMO. Lynda was there for no other reason than to be naked and get killed. Same with Annie. Most of the scenes were just refilmed from JC's version. Now, the most intense scene was when everyone was running through the house after Michael busted through the door, and there was palpable suspense there. THAT'S what i was looking for. But to ehar people grown because some of the ways the characters were acting just not making sense......

It was bad, IMO. Ther were some very good moments on their own that would have truly seperated the film from all the rest, but....alas, it was not to be. BUT, I won't dog him out. If that's what people are doing, for shame.

Even though I did say he needshis ass kicked for that.

Bad does not even begin to cover what this was. I've always been a huge fan of the Halloween series, and Michael Myers. I knew this was not going to be like the original, and I would have been fine with that (I loved THHE remake, and the TCM remake). I went into this movie really positive, really wanting to like it, and felt like I'd been shat on by the time it FINALLY ended.

As soon as "Halloween" blasted on screen ala Law & Order, I knew I was in trouble.

Then as soon as Michael started talking, and turned out to be a whinny b!tch, I knew I was in more trouble. The audience laughed when he told the principal to [!@#$%^&*] off. It was so [!@#$%^&*] bad. Though I did like seeing that kid from Spy Kids get his ass beat at the beginning as payback for being forced to see those horrible movies with my younger cousins.

I didn't mind the expanded stuff with the Myers house, but Michael was still too damn annoying during it and I'd have cut most of his scenes out. We didnt need Mrs. Zombie's ass importalized for eternity in the movie either, I'm sure Rob has his own tapes of his wife being a pole dancing whore. And I cant believe Love Hurts was used as a setup to him brutalizing his family. As well ... they ruined the scariness of that whole scene having Michael wear the white mask and come down the hallway like a little 4 ft tall bobblehead while killing his sister.

Everything at the psychward was useless and boring. I dont even know why they tried because they failed at trying to get inside Michael's head. Maybe they could have explained what the mask signified to him, and what each different mask ment. They started, then got bored and broke him out.

We dont even get to see Laurie untill the 50 minute mark. By that point I'm so completely annoyed I had no chance of getting to like her as a character. It doesnt help either that there's no character development for any of the girls. Or that this is a slasher movie -- and the rampage/slashing/stalking shouldnt take 50 minutes to get to.

Every character is stupid, and there are so many plot holes to count. Like .... when Laurie calls the police at the Wallace residence because of Annie and Paul's attacks, and the sheriff is on the way to the Strode house to warn Laurie, why did a squad of police officers know to go to the Doyle house???!!! How is there a pool in the Myers backyard when those people were obviously poor? How is it when Loomis is trying to talk Michael into letting Laurie go after she's ripped from the car and on the lawn, she's magically inside and has stairs behind her to run up?

Loomis was a joke. Writing a tell-all book about Myers, and spouting over dramatic drivel. And by the end I wanted Michael to kill Laurie just to shut her the hell up!

So bad. So [!@#$%^&*] bad.

I'll be honest.....There were things in the movie that I didn't like, and there were things that I did.

I guess you all will toss tomatos at me for liking this movie somewhat.

When I went into the movie, I admit, I went in there thinking it was going to be a lot of the same concepts as the first movie, so I had to stop doing that right off the bat during the first few moments of the movie.

One of the things that I didn't really like was how they didn't get to the Laurie Strode portion of the movie till close to the end. In some sense it was more of Laurie being like a cameo character, rather than the main primary focus. Same with Linda and Annie. We didn't really get to see them much until we saw Michael killing them.

Another thing that kind of bothered me was this concept where Sherriff Brackett was kind of in the 'know' about Laurie. The scene where he admits to being at the scene of the suicide of Michael's mother, and also having a hand in taking Laurie to another place only to find out she was adopted by his friend Mason Strode was kind of strange for me...simply because it didn't really connect with the previous scene where he wasn't convinced by Dr. Loomis about Michael's being back in Haddonfield to begin with.

For me, I didn't see it as a horror movie.... I saw it more of like some psychological type movie that delves a lot more into Michael's rage. I didn't really have a problem with it...It was a mixture of likes and dislikes for me...

You can all go ahead and throw the tomatos now

I'll be honest.....There were things in the movie that I didn't like, and there were things that I did.

I guess you all will toss tomatos at me for liking this movie somewhat.

When I went into the movie, I admit, I went in there thinking it was going to be a lot of the same concepts as the first movie, so I had to stop doing that right off the bat during the first few moments of the movie.

One of the things that I didn't really like was how they didn't get to the Laurie Strode portion of the movie till close to the end. In some sense it was more of Laurie being like a cameo character, rather than the main primary focus. Same with Linda and Annie. We didn't really get to see them much until we saw Michael killing them.

Another thing that kind of bothered me was this concept where Sherriff Brackett was kind of in the 'know' about Laurie. The scene where he admits to being at the scene of the suicide of Michael's mother, and also having a hand in taking Laurie to another place only to find out she was adopted by his friend Mason Strode was kind of strange for me...simply because it didn't really connect with the previous scene where he wasn't convinced by Dr. Loomis about Michael's being back in Haddonfield to begin with.

For me, I didn't see it as a horror movie.... I saw it more of like some psychological type movie that delves a lot more into Michael's rage. I didn't really have a problem with it...It was a mixture of likes and dislikes for me...

You can all go ahead and throw the tomatos now

Be sure to wear old clothes like me. The tomato stains don't come out, but you don't care about the clothes as much, so its all good.

Be sure to wear old clothes like me. The tomato stains don't come out, but you don't care about the clothes as much, so its all good.

You always manage to go there with me.....Maybe you could help me shed those clothes after they're all stained?

You always manage to go there with me.....Maybe you could help me shed those clothes after they're all stained?

*cues porno music*

We better be good though, or Mikey Myers will get us.

The movie needed to decide what it was going to be, and not be the mixed bag it ended up being. If you're going to do a psychological thriller, or analysis of evil, then they should have made a prequel. If they wanted to violent fanfare of Halloween with the babysitters, then it should have been a remake. What they tried to do was make the prequel, and then combine Halloween 1 and 2 into the final 45 minutes of the movie and because of that it fails horribly.

But as is, they spend 50 minutes building Michael into a sympathetic & tragic character, and then 45 minutes undoing all that Michael character development and making him a (pathetic and unscary) stalker killer.

Edited September 3, 200718 yr by Drew

In it's 3-day weekend, Halloween broke the Labor Day record with $26 million at the B.O.