Rob wasn't the right person for the job no matter how you cut it:
1. Michael must never speak.
2. He should've made it so that we never saw Michael's face. Use shadows, a mask and dark scenery.
3. The trashy back story wasn't needed and we were fine without it. If he was going to do it that way them give us some great dialoug that doesn't make you laugh.
4. Make Laurie the girl next door and a true American girl who loves to Make her community a better place, babysit and responsible.
5. The decorations were nice, but it needs a true November feel.
I agree. I would prefer more of a Homecoming/Resurrection's original opening home movie feel of a disturbed boy in a relatively normal family. What I don't want is a Psycho/Omen treatment word for word, scene for scene just different actors/acresses. That's lazy and you can't outdo the originals there.
Vince Vaughn is no Anthony Perkins and Liev Schriber is definitely not Gregory Peck.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
In all fairness, Rob didn't even care to make this movie. He only did it because the studio was going to replace him as the director had he not returned, which he didn't want anyone touching his vision of his series. I really enjoyed his first film, and while this film is inferior to its predecessor, there are some good parts in it.
Then people would have complained it's just a boring exact replica of the original. I loved his H1, two I always felt was better in script and theory. But the movie didn't quite pan out.
So all in all, I can't disagree more. I'm tired of the same cookie cutter stuff.
It's a slippery slope. If you go cookie cutter like Psycho and Omen just with different actresses and actors, who are far less talented than Perkins, Leigh, Peck, etc. then you are lazy and it's just bad. Or if you go completely off script like the Fog remake, you are a laughing stock. Or even if you cram 4 films into one like Friday or go uncomfortable full pedo with Nightmare, it doesn't end well. But if you do enough, like Amityville or TCM even, but keep it grounded in the same vein, it's better.
The first one did great, classic lines, scenes while adding depth, despite the poor decision to go white trash and the over-swearing that's Zombie's trademark. Otherwise, it was decent. The second one faking the other Halloween II hospital stuff wasn't necessary. The poor excuse to cast his wife again didn't help. Going off script is okay, if you do it right, this didn't. Michael doesn't unmask, speak, growl or stomp people. He remains masked, silent and uses weapons. Do something like that fans aren't used to and you get culture shock. Which is exactly what happened.
Had Michael done this before, to extreme levels beyond cop massacres and doctor massacres in 4, 5 and 6, then yeah, it's okay, but it went way too far. It also felt like the entire film was Zombie spitting in the fans face. You don't make movies for yourself to enjoy, you make it for the fans. That's economics 101. If you enjoy it, great, but you better make sure it makes a profit. Just ask Josh Trank.
In any event, both Halloweens, all Halloweens, oould've been better, could've been worse. But seeing as how it's taking them this long to rebound, which it was only 6 years drought to this point, fault and blame have to be placed on the previous film.
"He came home." - Dr. Sam Loomis from the original HalloweeN
This is why Rob Zombie ORIGINALLY said remakes dont make sense and serve no artistic purpose period, bad or good.
He then went on to say why remake a movie if the original was perfect. Then he said why do the same thing. Of which he originally pretty much said the original movie was perfect.
Then he later one changed his tune saying remakes are good if the original is not good. Then he went onto picking out things he didnt like about the original, contradicting his previous statements. Then he said he would never do a sequel.
Too bad he went against his own philosophy making him seem like a hypocrite and a liar.