Much better than it's reputation might say

Exactly. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you disrespect them or their opinion. It works both ways. This by far was not a great film, let alone a great Halloween film, but to be perfectly honest, I've seen much worse, like Battlefield Earth, for example, which had little to no redeeming qualities. To be fair, I only watched this in theaters once. The others, multiple times.

So that right there says something. I try to look at the glass half full and try to find some things I like about a movie in part, if not the whole. That way it isn't a waste of time or money.

As for crappy PG-13 movies, if they didn't make money and people didn't like them, since it answers to a wider audience than R, then they wouldn't get made. So that's how that works. Majority rules and money talks. Like it or not, if there's a profit, they are here to stay.


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

Exactly... With Halloween 4 and 5 (And 6 to a lesser extent), people weren't exactly looking for a "Retro" Film, so the whole aesthetic of Halloween 1-2 wasn't necessary for success, critically OR commercially (Which is obviously the End Game for any studio/producer)... But after 'Scream' came out, it was clear that a "Self-aware" version was due to be released. H2O did a pretty good job of that. It was too short and didn't have the feel of any of the earlier films BUT with JLC back and an accomplished Genre Director in Steve Miner, it was definitely a step in the right direction... Would've loved to see Carpenter take the offer for that but his frustration with Akkad was still high and I can't say I blame him, although I see both sides. $10mil was never gonna happen lol... Anyways, back to the point, I think the success of those "Retro" Horror Films that came in the Mid-2000's and with the disappointment 'Resurrection' was to most fans, Akkad and Co weren't gonna repeat that. So they grabbed one of the hottest Directors and gave him the Green Light. The results were good, not great but in the end, it was a Financial Win and pleased a great deal of the fans. People wanted Halloween-1978 again and while Zombie wasn't FULLY capable of getting that done, he did his best(Which was admirable) but as you noted, pulling off what Carpenter/Cundey did... Good Luck with that lol. After his problems with the 2.35, he went right back to what he does well and I think it was much better than it gets credit for. It feels more like a Rob Zombie film. It's not the World that Carpenter created and Rosenthal helped continue(Then destroy in 2002!) but it atleast knows what it wants to be... If that makes sense? It's 100% Zombie and that's ok. Better than trying and failing to be someone or something else.

Oh... And one last thing, after all I said, I still don't think it's anything other than an average film. Better than expected but so far from 'Halloween' that it's still a disappointment in that respect. I'd just rather Zombie do what he's comfortable with rather than do a rehash of a legend. He's not JC and that's just the truth of the matter. If one thing is clear in Cinema, it's that Directors are best when in full control and comfort zones. From Halloween 1-2, The Thing, The Fog, Escape From NY, They Live etc... Carpenter succeeded because he told different stories but made sure they shared that style he more or less created. All are beautifully filmed, whether the budget was small or large, you knew it was a JC picture. In that span from 1978-1988 or so, it's one of the best runs of any filmmaker I could name.