As you all know, last week, Blumhouse held a test screening for their upcoming Halloween reboot. However, reactions are very disheartening. It’s been brought up that the movie caters to the ‘average horror movie goer’ that enjoy movies of the likes of insidious, the purge, & sinister with typical horror music and jump scares. It’s also been stated that the movie does not aim towards the nuanced or complex tapestry Michael Myers aficionados are craving. What are your guys’ thoughts on this?
I would like to state that this doesn’t reflect my opinion and the excitement i’ve had for the past year remains the same, can’t wait!
Not sure what the point is of this thread. theres a discussion on the official h2018 thread where people have said they’re thoughts on these claims. but as far as your question goes, I’m not paying any attention to it, nor is it affecting the excitement I have, I’ll judge my own opinion when I see it in october.
How many times have we heard a critic say a movie is the best only to see it for yourself and it was terrible or vice versa. I agree with manner, I’m still going to see it and I’ll judge for myself. Would have been cool to have a test screening with some members from this forum ( true fans ) to review it.
Just one quick example and it was kind of funny to read. Gary Arnold of the Washington Post gave John carpenters Halloween 1978 a 37 out of 100. Wonder how many of us here consider him full of sh*t? Article Nov. 24, 1978
This is true actually. When H1 first came out, many people did not like it, and it got to the point where the whole crew thought it bombed. But after Roger Ebert wrote his review highly praising it, things changed, and the rest is history.
Actually, after the Village Voice reviewed it…critics re-reviewed it. Siskel and Ebert were still on PBS at that time…they did give it a good review and listed it in their best of 1978 too.
Of course I’ll reserve judgement until the film comes out but frankly just the premise alone makes me think it’s going to be difficult for this movie to be good.
I still laugh at comments like these where people somehow manage to pretend that almost half the films in the franchise weren’t so god-awful that the Rob Zombie films actually look good in comparison. People don’t like the idea of revisions and Rob’s movies were definitely somewhat over the top but they were by no means terrible films. I’ll stack them up against H5, H6 and Resurrection any day because they are far and away better movies. They’ve actually become two of my favorite in the franchise.
The impulsive and blind “purist” backlash against Rob Zombie’s take on Halloween is always amusing to me. The new movie could easily be worse. At least Rob’s films had style and some good filming techniques.
The one, and only thing that makes Rob Zombies H1 even remotely watchable for me, is the fact that it tries to mimic some scenes from Halloween 1978. Rob Zombies H2 on the other hand? Don’t even get me started. I don’t even consider that to be a Halloween movie, it’s so bad (in my opinion) was he on drugs when he made that? How anyone in the right mind can actually enjoy his H2 is beyond me. But I do understand that he has a very distinct film making style, as you mentioned. If people are into that, that’s great, more power to them, but I’m not one of them. And like you said, at least they were darker, more serious movies compared to H5 and Resurrection, which Halloween films should be. H6…I don’t know, it was pretty dark and messed up too. Anyway, please remember that is just my opinion, I’m not attacking you for liking Rob’s movies, that’s perfectly fine, but I just don’t see it, that’s all I’m saying.
I understand his style is not for everyone. But that doesn’t make it “bad.” There are some very good merits to both films. They are different, that does not inherently make them bad.
Let’s be honest, EVERY film on the franchise outside of the first is bad on some level, many are bad on most levels. At least RZ’s films have some style, artistry, good direction and some originality. H2 was not bad, it was just loud. It wasn’t a Halloween movie? Why, because it actually did something different and not completely boring and monotonous? That’s a STRENGTH. His H1 went in a different direction that worked just as well as the 1978’s version’s direction worked for it.
Again, I get that it’s not for everyone, but a lot of people entirely condemn the movies simply because they weren’t exactly like at least 6 of the previous 8 films and it’s ridiculous.
Yeah, I see what you’re saying. What makes something “bad”, is not the style, it’s people’s perception of it that makes it bad, I guess if that makes sense. Rob Zombie does deserve some credit for trying something new and different with the movies, but I just don’t feel like it works for this series. But like you said, it isn’t for everyone. The reason I don’t consider his H2 to get a “Halloween” movie, is because it completely abandons everything this series is about. It’s like a completely different movie. Michael Myers is not Michael Myers in that movie. Hes walking around with a hooded coat and no mask, I believe? Or was it ripped mostly off? I did think the scene of him eating the dog was an interesting nod to Halloween 1978, when Dr Loomis and the sheriff found the dog in the Myers house. And the fact that Michael actually talked? At the end of the movie? Why? That’s just not Michael, at all, I’m sorry. No, most of the sequels were not good, but I think they are better received than the zombie movies is because they are more in tune with the original, at least somewhat. The zombie movies just seem so disconnected from what this series started out as, and, well there you go. Regardless, I completely respect your opinion on Robs movies.
