MovieChat Forums > Halloween (2007) Discussion > I think its a generation thing

I think its a generation thing

posted 12 years ago by DiceWest
109 replies | jump to latest

I'm 19, this came out while I was 14 or 15 I think. I've noticed that my generation seems to love this movie and prefer it to the original, and the generations in front of us seem to loathe this movie. I think part of it depends on how much you love the original.

I'm a huge horror fan, and I respect and appreciate the original for being such an important movie for the genre. But I find it kind of corny and boring.

and this one definitely isn't perfect, theres a few things I hate about it
-too many of the characters talk the same. too much cursing
-some of the violence is unnecessarily graphic
-I thought the rape scene was pointless, and it was just added to be shocking

but overall, I LOVE this one and actually prefer it to the original, just my opinion. But I definitely think its a generation thing.

[–] blades_of_chaos77 11 years ago

The only thing over the top is the number of sissies complaining about violence and language in an r rated horror movie,grow a pair or watch pg-13,damn.
fat pink mast!

[–] dave626 11 years ago

I don't think that's it at all. If Halloween had gone the route of Saw or Friday the 13th with the blood and gore before this, then there wouldn't be so much outcry over it now. This level of violence and swearing isn't what Halloween fans are used to. Not to mention the fact that doing so didn't make it a better movie.

"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jinx_malone 11 years ago

There is little to no gore in the The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Really. Go back and look. There are only three scenes in total that have an appreciable amount of blood in them.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] zmystico 11 years ago

As with most movies, time changes the initial impact of viewing it.

Take Psycho for instance, in 1963, nothing like it existed, it was a gamechanger...if you were to watch it for the first time NOW... its not going to be anywhere near as scary because the genre has evolved, and most likely, you'll know the big "twist."

With the Halloween films, Carpenter's was another gamechanger, almost 30 years later, Rob Zombie has the benefit of making something not seen before, he can have all the twists and turns to show his audience.

Why I like the original more than the remake... Michael Myers was explained too much by Zombie, he tried to rationalize why Michael was the way he was, the original didn't do that, you just had this kid change overnight and become this entity of destruction.

Also, it was way too hard to like Laurie, the original Laurie was endearing, the remake Laurie came off as just a smartass teen...smartass teens are who get killed, not the one you hope survives.

Wayne Enterprises buys and sells companies like Stark Industries

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kabenac 11 years ago

I thank God some of the younger posters prefer the original. It shows me there are some semi-intelligent people in the younger generation.

I found the Rob Zombie version to be pretty bad. As someone else mentioned, he played it safe. Yet the scenes where Zombie deviated weren't any good. The truck scene was just garbage. It had no purpose in the film. It wasn't even funny, minus the fact the guy had cool pork-chop sideburns.

This film had no heart. The original uses suspense and sums up the fun of Halloween as a holiday.

Rob Zombie goes for gore, shock-value and being cool and it fails.

[–] balthazar_bee 11 years ago

I agree with kabenac. Which makes it all the more curious how much I enjoy the sequel.

I do think Zombie is a talented film maker; unfortunately his instincts seem to, more often than not, steer him in questionable directions.

The director's cut of Halloween 2 is a nasty little gem, almost certainly superior to every sequel that followed the first four. It's unrelenting, grim, and it has a unique visual sensibility. And I love the gritty 16mm photography, which looks terrific on blu-ray.

This film, on the other hand, is a bit of a hot mess in either form. For starters, the director's cut (at two hours) feels like an eternity. It's unpleasant from almost the first frame, devoid of charm, and becomes an almost unbearable slog long before it ends. And, erm, it doesn't generate scares, let alone any of the priceless atmosphere of Carpenter's original.

Incidentally, I've got to say that the differences between the two versions are a bit baffling to me. Presumably, the director's cut is Zombie's preferred version, but unlike most other director's cuts, many of the changes feel almost random.

I mean, why film two completely different versions of Michael escaping? And does Zombie legitimately prefer the "rape escape" in the director's cut? There are other examples too (I'm not familiar enough with the film to be specific) that raise the question, "Why change this?" Different, yes. But is there a point?

[–] ElectricWarlock 10 years ago

I'm 20 and I like both versions of Halloween very much. They are both completely different types of horror movies, but each is good in it's own way. The original is the perfect slasher movie in my opinion. It has everything a horror fan could want. Suspense, a creepy atmosphere, a great musical score, interesting characters, and good acting. Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence's performances are considered legendary and I think it's for good reason. I've heard lots of people insult it for being predictable which I don't understand. It's only predictable because nearly every slasher movie since then has tried to copy it. These things weren't cliche when Halloween was first released, it invented the cliches. As for people who find it boring, I don't know how to respond to that. Just because there isn't a death scene and a jump scare in every scene doesn't make it boring.

As for the remake, it actually feels like a 1970s horror film too because it has the same feel of exploitation horror films like The Hills Have Eyes, The Last House on the Left, and I Spit on Your Grave. They both feel like '70s horror, just different kinds. I used to hate the remake because I wanted it to be exactly like the original, but after I gave it a chance I was able to appreciate it for it's own merits. Rob Zombie is my favorite horror filmmaker today no matter what people may say about him. His horror movies are the only new ones I really get excited for and consider must see movies I can't miss. If people were familiar with his style of filmmaking before Halloween with House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, then the sleazy, grimy atmosphere shouldn't be much of a surprise to them. It's just the kind of films he makes. If people don't like it, I suggest they watch somebody else's movies.

Death lives in the Vault of Horror!

[–] Broncho_Knight 10 years ago

I love both Zombie and Carpenter's versions of Halloween. I was 14 when Zombie's film came out, and I remember my high school friends and I really liked it. It is not the masterpiece that is the 1978 original, but Zombie's Halloween is way better than almost any horror film of the last 15 years.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]