I think the reason most people have a problem with the movie is because they are expecting some nostalgic return to John Carpenter's 1978 movie. Like Zombie said throughout the entire process of making the movie, "this isn't a remake, it's a re-visioning." The 2007 Halloween is a more in depth modern interpretation of the old story. Instead of focusing on Laurie Strode like the 1978 version, the 2007 version is almost entirely about Michael Myers. So obviously, the movie isn't a cookie cutter horror film or remake of John Carpenter's movie. Michael Myers is both the protagonist and antagonist of the film, and it seems to spin people in the wrong direction because you aren't sitting through what you come to expect from a Halloween or horror movie. Since we are following Myers 95% of the movie, the dense tension of the 1978 film isn't there. But in turn, the movie is actually tells a new and entirely separate story than the original film. People can argue all day on whether the movie needed to be made or not, but did anyone honestly pay $7-$10 expecting to re-watch John Carpenter's Halloween?
I am probably one of the biggest horror fans here, and I can admit the 2007 version wasn't scary or intense or thrilling. But what it did is masterfully fill plot gaps that other Hollywood writers would have made spoofy and campy. I applaud Zombie for taking the story and characters seriously and giving his interpretation of Michael Myer's story. If you want to see a true spoofy and campy "remake" P.O.S., wait for the Michael Bay produced 'Friday the 13th' remake to come out. I hang my head in shame at the thought of yet another classic slasher going under Platinum Dunes' proverbial knife.
|