MovieChat Forums > Halloween (2007) Discussion > It wasn't THAT bad

It wasn't THAT bad

posted 5 years ago by hurricane (1967)
11 replies | jump to latest

Watched it for the first time over the weekend. After years of hearing how awful it was online, I actually quite enjoyed it.

I get that the second half of the movie felt like the majority of the scenes were almost carbon copies of the original ones, but I actually thought the first part with the origins of Michael Myers was actually quite interesting. And I thought Malcolm McDowell played a decent version of Dr. Loomis.

I didn't feel I loved the 2007 version of Laurie Stroud that much. But the film was less about her, and more about Michael anyway. (I'll have to watch the second one to see if I warm to new Laurie.)

I get that the 1978 movie was more about atmosphere, and seeing Michael Myers from afar. This was more about Michael Myers origins, and had more bloody action. But you have to change some stuff, or it would be the exact same movie as the 1978 one.

Why the hate for this one? I've seen far worse remakes. The 2006 Black Christmas comes to mind.

[–] Kowalski (79078) 5 years ago

DANIELLE HARRIS....MMM.

[–] vegan_voorhees (383) 5 years ago

It's 5/10 movie; the 'new' material was all fine, but the re-worked Haddonfield stuff was abysmal. I really didn't like Laurie in it, she was so whiny and annoying and didn't seem to care about the kids much, making her difficult to root for. She seemed too streetwise and aware, not a total innocent wallflower like Laurie 1.0.

McDowell was interesting as Loomis though.

[–] hurricane (1967) 5 years ago

I agree with you to the extent that the original stuff was the more interesting part.

Liked Loomis. Liked the kid who played the young Michael Myers. Thought Sherri Moon did well as Michael's mother. Once Michael escaped and relocated to Haddonfield, then it got slightly less interesting. It just felt for the most part like a bit of a copy of the original. Not bad, but there wasn't anything that felt new there.

I also agree with you about new Laurie though. Nothing against Scout Taylor-Compton, but I somehow thought her character wasn't that interesting. And they introduced her in a weird way, by having her make sex jokes with bagels. I didn't mind her interaction with the kids, but I didn't feel the character as a whole was anything special. Maybe because they'd spent so much time building up Michael, I didn't feel any attachment to Laurie.

Saying that, and this is a controversial opinion, but I think just based on the original 1978 Halloween, Laurie wasn't that interesting a character either. She became more interesting/bad-ass in some of the sequels. And again, I mean no diss to Jamie Lee Curtis. But I feel Laurie in the original Halloween wasn't the most interesting of characters.

In short, I guess, taking Halloween 2007 as a whole, I think it was fairly enjoyable for the most part. I liked the good bits, and didn't hate the less good bits.

[–] PF4Eva (294) 5 years ago

It's a very hit-and-miss movie. Some things work (Zombie or Carpenter), some don't (Zombie).

I could do without the redneck stuff and the overuse of "fuck" and "shit" every other word. The dialogue, even the more G-rated variety, could have been written way better. Laurie didn't work for me. I wanted to like her; she's cute, but she was much better in The Runaways, albeit that was a smaller role (rock legend Lita Ford).

Sid Haig and Ken Foree were funny. Danielle Harris was likable, as were Kristina Klebe and Tommy and Lindsey. The cinematography and music work. Daeg Faerch and Malcolm McDowell are probably the best things about the movie. Brad Dourif was quite good. So was Tyler Mane. But the actors are only as good as the material. The Mask was one of the better ones, probably the best since Halloween 6, if not the original... at least until the 2018 mask.

Sheri Moon Zombie (forgot her first name) wasn't as cringe-worthy as she could have been, other than the opening kitchen scene, which is just awful all around. Not even Peter Frampton can save it, a song that seems to only be there to set the time period (which isn't a bad thing in and of itself), but it seems awkwardly placed, as is "Love Hurts."

The alternate ending is arguably better than the official one. A lot of the deleted scenes are better than what actually made the final cut. I find the theatrical escape scene better than the Director's Cut rape scene, but it's been years since I've seen the theatrical version.

I actually like the Michael Lives documentary better than the actual movie.

I used to like the film better than I do now, but Rob Zombie's Halloween II highlighted the flaws in Rob's first stab. Today, I rate it as 5.5 out of 10.

[–] hurricane (1967) 5 years ago

To be clear, what I watched was The Directors Cut.

[–] PF4Eva (294) 5 years ago

I assumed so, since the Director's Cut is more widely available.
Also 666 posts. Nice.

[–] hurricane (1967) 5 years ago

Oh no, I've ruined it by posting again.

[–] elmacho (1028) 5 years ago

agreed. I think what happened was that the Halloween II was so bad that it affected people's opinion on this one.

[–] PF4Eva (294) 5 years ago

I think the same thing happened to Batman Forever. Not as good as Tim Burton, but still better than Arnold's ice puns and that Bat Credit Card.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I actually thought RZ's Halloween II was better. I know I'm in the minority there, haha.

I hated RZ Halloween 2007 when I first saw it in '07. Just re-watched it over the weekend and being a bigger RZ fan at this time and accepting it as a totally new re-telling of the story I quite enjoyed it. It's clearly not a patch on the original, but I'd say it compares pretty well as a horror movie to H 2018.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It was pretty bad. Not as bad as the sequel, though.