My Bloody Valentine: 3D (2009)

Remakes are always a tricky proposition. On one hand, the original is usually hailed as a classic and deemed "perfect" with no need to be touched. On the other, there is always room to explore a particular angle left out of or not even thought of in the source material. Happily, My Bloody Valentine 3D (MBV3D) succeeds where few have.

The general plot remains the same as the 1981 slasher classic; after a terrible accident in the Hanniger Mine, Harry Warden snapped and took his bloody revenge. Years later, he returns and the killings begin once again.

MBV3D picks up where the original left off with, what it is pretty much a condensed version of the original's finale; workers at the mine are throwing a party and boozing it up . . . with Harry Warden on the loose, after a terrible accident there which left him in a coma for the last year.

The love triangle of Tom (aka T.J.), Sarah, and Axel is still prevalent. Here Supernatural's Jensen Ackles stars as Tom. Right from the start, there is tension between Tom and Kerr Smith's Axel -- and it's obviously over Sarah (played by Jamie King). After Harry Warden shows up and starts slaughtering people, Tom is left for dead in a mass confusion with Axel, his girlfriend Irene (played by Betsy Rue) and Sarah feeling for safety. Ten years later, Tom returns to town and finds things aren't exactly as they were when he left . . .

Axel is now the Sheriff (taking over from Tom Atkins' Burke) and is married to Sarah. Like the original, that love triangle still exists and it serves as a springboard for some intense moments between Tom and Axel. But, the one that remains the same is that a similar string of murders by someone in a miner's outfit (complete with the eerie combination of the gas mask and miner's headlamp). Is it Harry Warden?

The script by Todd Farmer and Zane Smith is fun and intelligent for what it is. Let's face it, MBV3D is not out to win any Oscars. If you go to see to be enlightened, you're at the wrong movie. If you go into it expect a fun time and a roller coaster ride into Hell (as the posters are saying), you will have a grand old time! Farmer's writing has happily improved since he wrote Jason X and with Smith at his side, he creates a world familiar to longtime fans of Harry Warden, while at the same time bringing them something new.

The acting is pretty solid all around, with Tom Atkins pretty much stealing the show everytime he's on-screen. He plays Burke as if he's in a B-movie and does his dialogue with the perfect delivery; seriously, some of his early scenes recall 70s drive-in double features. The major letdown though is Jamie King as Sarah. King plays the role by the Slasher genre rulebooks and, well, Sarah was never your standard throwaway Slasher character. Although that problem begins with the writing, King's performance dumbs down the character so much to the point that she falls into the standard Slasher cliches of moving too slow or just standing there when something bad is happening. Kerr Smith is also pretty intense, as well, playing nicely off of Jensen Ackles; the suspense of the Miner's true identity, coupled with the tension over Sarah gives these two actors a lot to work with.

Where the original MBV was heavily cut by MPAA censors, special Effects supervisor, Gary Tunnicliffe pours on the gore for Harry Warden's 3D debut! Victims are dispatched in a manner of colorful and grizzly ways enhanced by the amazing 3D effects! Like the Friday the 13th series, this is absolutely a bodycount movie and the kills are so cartoonish that you're bound to have a good time. Again, people come to see movies like this to see the effects and the gore; and in that regard, MBV3D delivers across the board.

Since this is, afterall, a remake of a classic movie loved by many -- including director Patrick Lussier -- you may be wondering if there are nods or homages to the original Canadian classic. Of course there are! Lussier updates a couple classic kills that are even more spectacular given the recent DVD release of the original in its uncut form. In fact, there are plot elements in MBV3D that make watching the original even more interesting considering what some of the newer versions of favorite characters do this time around....

And, speaking of familiar territory, Lussier has stocked his cast with some genre favorites to appease the hardcore Horror hounds in the audience. As I said before, Tom Atkins (The Fog, Escape From New York, Creepshow, Halloween III, Night of the Creeps, Lethal Weapon, Maniac Cop, etc.) is on-hand, chewing up scenery and stealing the show right out from under the younger actors. Then, there's John Harrison (composer for Creepshow, Day of the Dead, director of one of the Dune TV movies, and of course, the "Screwdriver Zombie" in Dawn of the Dead) as the foreman at Hanniger Mine. Harrison has a bit role, but any George Romero fan will recognize him and smile. And, speaking of Romero, there's one more alum creeping about . . . Bingo O'Malley ("Jordy's Father" in Creepshow and "Valdemar" in Two Evil Eyes) appears as Sherrif Burke's right hand man, Hinch. Sure, to the average moviegoer, these cameos are insificant, but to those "in the know" it's a nice way for Lussier to show he cares and respects the fanbase.

The 3D technology has drastically improved from what many from my generation remember in, say, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare or Friday the 13th Part 3D and Jaws 3D. Gone are the red and blue lenses in the cardboard glasses (at my screening, there was a metal detector outside the theater to ensure none of the state of the art 3D glasses walked). Also gone is the almost instant headache that feels like an icepick is being driven into one or both of your eyes! The 3D here really kicks off with the depth of field on-screen in terms of the actual mine itself. Of course, some of the effects are throw-backs to 3D fun of yesterday with objects either popping or, um, flying directly at you....yes, there were a few parts where I actually blinked and flinched. Some of the scenery looks breath-taking in three dimensions as well -- especially the wooded areas surrounding the mine.

However, MBV3D is not a perfect movie. As I said earlier, Jamie King's portrayal of Sarah was a letdown. Perhaps if she'd studied the original movie a little more and identified with the character, she could have made Sarah more believable. Granted, no one is asking for the opposite end of the stereotype -- ie: Lt. Ripley or Sarah Connor, but it just would've been nice for her to have some depth. Also, some of the guys out there my hoot and holler and drool over Betsy Rue in all her naked glory . . . but really, I think the nudity was a bit overdone (the same way Danielle Harris' was in Rob Zombie's Halloween). Another point of centention surrounds the believablity of the actors' ages; time shifts ten years and hardly any of the actors look different from the way they are in the beginning. Only Kerr Smith grows some facial hair and, from what I've read, Tom Atkins actually looked younger in the beginning.

Lastly, the movie could have been a minute or two shorter. The ending they went with is a bit redundant and it would have been more effective for that "one last scare" moment had things been trimmed just a bit.

Overall, MBV3D is a fun little movie that ushers in the next trend for Horror: the 3D movie. Yes, there is a plethora of 3D-based Horror movies coming out later this year or early next year (I'm looking forward to Final Destination 4 and Alexandre Aja's remake of Piranha). While it was also released in the standard 2D version (which I plan on seeing), I cannot recommend seeing the 3D version if it's playing near you! See it!

The Shining (1980)

How many "Scariest Movie of All Time" lists have been made since the beginning of the Horror picture? Quite a bit, no? Chances are more than a few titles on those lists are adaptations of Stephen King books and, I'm also willing to bet that The Shining is right up there.

By now, it's pretty well known that Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of Stephen King's 1977 novel about a haunted hotel taking its toll on a broken man differs greatly from its source material. Sure, it's not a page by page recreation of King's work, but Kubrick succeeds in making The Shining completely his own.

In case you're not familiar with the story, Jack Torrence (in a tailor-made performance by Jack Nicholson), a writer with an hopelss affinity for the bottle, is hired to be caretaker during the winter months at the Overlook Hotel. To keep him company, Jack brings along his mousey wife Wendy and their borderline autistic son, Danny. Almost immediately, strange things start to happen and it's quite apparent that the Overlook Hotel has some skeletons in its ballroom (the previous caretaker, Delbert Grady, killed his family and then himself).

The Shining is more than just a mere Horror movie; it's an exercise is fear and almost like watching a nightmare. Even if you've read King's novel, although you may see traces of its plot devices in Kubrick's film, it's still unclear what exactly is going on. In fact, the stedicam shots of Danny tearing through the Overlook on his big wheel are even terrifying!

Many could argue that Kubrick's film is a series of surreal images, strung together with the loose twine of Stephen King's novel. Kubrick uses static shots (or at least shots with very little to no movement) as he crafts some of the most memorable bits of The Shining: Jack, sporting an early beard and a black turtleneck as he stares at Wendy and Danny playing in the snow, the Grady twins in the hallway, and of course, the blood coming out of the elevator. It's as if Kubrick was trying to conjure up childhood nightmares as he made the picture!

At the end of the day, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, though flawed in the eyes of many (including King himself, who wrote the 1997 Mick Garris-directed ABC mini-series remake), stands on its own as a seminal masterpiece. Twenty-seven years after the fact, it still holds up as one scary as hell motion picture! See it!

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

"From the heart comes a warning filled with bloody good cheer. Remember what happened as the 14th draws near."

My Bloody Valentine is truly one of the best slasher pictures to come out of the first wave in the early 1980s. From start to finish, it's got the perfect formula: it's set on a holiday, likable characters, a solid setting, a tragic backstory, and a flawless killer. So, why has MBV fallen under the radar for so many people? For starters, when it was released in '81, Horror movies were enduring a lot of criticism for their portrayal of graphic on-screen carnage and, well, the MPAA swung its old proverbial axe down. Paramount Pictures caved in and cut MBV and Friday the 13th Part II (also released that near) of nearly all the gore footage fans would come to see. Aside from that tragic flaw (which Lionsgate may be correcting with a brand new special edition DVD due January 13th...just before the 3D remake hits theaters on the 16th), My Bloody Valentine is a true classic that any self-respecting Horror fan should have at least seen, if not own.

The story revolves around the Canadian mining town of Valentine Bluffs, where a certain holiday is pretty much the focal point, with locals looking forward to it every year. But there's also a heavy curse weighing in over the town; twenty years before, as the townspeople celebrated Valentine's Day, five miners were trapped in a cave-in at the Hanniger Mine. It took six weeks to find the men and, by then, there was only one survivor who had gone mad. His name was Harry Warden. And exactly one year later, Harry took his revenge in a bloody rampage, warning that if the town ever celebrated Valentine's Day again, he would return. Now, with Harry in a sanitarium, the young people in town decide it's a great idea to celebrate the holiday of the town's namesake. And then the murders begin to happen . . . again. Caught in the middle of the nightmare is the desperate love triangle of T. J., Sarah, and Axel.

As I said before, everything is solid with this movie. I can remember seeing it for the first time many years ago either on a late night movie channel or the USA network (more likely the latter). Right from the opening scene of a couple in miner's gear embracing before the woman is brutally impaled on the spike from a pick-axe, I knew MBV was something worth checking out! The writing and directing is tight enough that it keeps the viewer guessing throughout -- yes, there are a few surprises to be found in the Hanniger Mine. The acting is pretty much on par with what was found in cheap Horror movies on this era, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; for all intents and purposes, it's got "Fink" from Meatballs in it.

If you've read any of this blog before, chances are you've seen me talk about how Horror movies from the 70s and early 80s had "the look" -- MBV has it as well! There's just something about it that demands the respect it deserves. Also, even though it's not the theatrical version, just look at that poster art, will you?!? They don't make 'em like that anymore folks. As I said earlier, with a remake (in 3D no less!) set for release in January, here's hoping that a whole new audience and...generation (yikes)...finds the original My Bloody Valentine. See it!

Diary of the Dead (2007)

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been a huge fan of George A. Romero. The original Dawn of the Dead is, and always will be, my favorite movie of all time . . . it’s as simple as that. The pictures Romero made from 1968’s Night of the Living Dead to 2000’s Bruiser may have their fair share of flaws and shortcomings, but I still like each and every one of them.

In 2005, Romero finally gave us his long-awaited fourth entry in The Dead Trilogy, Land of the Dead . . . and well, to say I was disappointed with it is a bit of an understatement. Even after Bruiser was released to pretty poor reviews in 2000, I defended Romero up and down, but with LOTD, I really do believe he lost some of the magic that made his earlier pictures so incredible.

The main thing that ruined LOTD (and George’s career) in my eyes was the blunt political commentary. Sure, the other Dead movies had some sort of social commentary, but maybe it’s just the fact that Romero finally had his own say about what’s going on today after every other bleeding heart liberal made their own movie, documentary, blog entry, or song. For the first time, I was truly seeing an innovator become a follower . . . it left an unforgivable negative impression on me.

When Diary of the Dead was announced, I really simply did not care about it in the least bit. Again, there was talk about how Universal and the big money people were at fault for LOTD’s dismal box office intake, so when Diary of the Dead was marketed as a return to Romero’s indie roots, I still didn’t even get excited about it. And, when it was given a limited theatrical release (only playing near me in NYC), I swore that there was no way in hell I’d travel out of my way to see it. Of course, it was released to pretty solid reviews from the Horror community and critics alike, praising its commentary on our society’s obsession with video-taping things and uploading them to Youtube or MySpace. Maybe it was worth checking out after all?

I finally saw it the other night . . .

Diary of the Dead tells the story of a group of college film students who are out to make a mummy movie for a senior thesis. As they run into production problems out in the middle of the Pennsylvania wilderness, they overhear some disturbing news on the radio about the dead returning to life and attacking the living. From there, they decide to flee and make their way “home” to see their friends and families . . . or at least see if they’re still alive.

Right from the get-go, Romero is already a mere follower – the much better Cloverfield was released shortly before Diary (this is the story of Romero’s life; Day of the Dead bombed because Return of the Living Dead was released about a month prior to its own release, effectively satiating moviegoers’ hunger for zombie carnage). Where Cloverfield succeeds – ie: making the film actually feel like one long hand-held video that was shot as all hell was breaking loose – Diary effectively cripples itself with some unneeded voice-over narration from Debra (played by Michelle Morgan). Many critics and reviewers who didn’t worship this movie simply because it had Romero’s name attached to it complained about how the narration immediately pulled them out of the film and distracted the experience. I agree. Morgan sounded more like a fifth-rate Sarah Connor impersonator here than anything else.

None of the characters are really likable (which is funny because that’s what almost every review of Day of the Dead claims is a low-point of that film…I, for one, love that movie) aside from Ridley (played by Phillip Riccio), Eliot (played by Joe Dinicol), and an Amish farmer played by R. D. Reid (of the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead remake). All of the other main characters are terrible clichés or they act out clichés: Josh Close plays Jason Creed, the stereotypical film student obsessed with becoming the next Spielberg (or in this case, the next Romero) and Scott Wentworth’s portrayal of film professor Andrew Maxwell, the drunkard who talks down to the kids about death feels like something we've seen dozens of times before.

A couple positive things worth noting here lie in the fact that Diary of the Dead isn’t merely a new sequel, but more or less an reinvention (sort of like Batman Begins maybe?) of the world Romero created in 1968. The initial outbreak and societal breakdown that was only alluded to in Romero’s earlier Dead series is finally given a glimpse here. As we see through the eyes of a television news crew covering a double homicide at an apartment building, there is still something refreshing about zombies with Romero at the helm! This scene definitely harkens back to Romero's glory days and easily could have been an outtake from the original Dawn of the Dead!

One really cool bit that I thought tied into the notion that Diary is essentially happening at the same time as the original Night of the Living Dead (aside from fashion, time and a correct year are never given in any of the original Dead pictures) was the inclusion of audio from one of the TV broadcasts the farmhouse survivors are watching – presumably coming from the same, live TV broadcast here in the new film.

As with any Romero movie, there’s always a sense of family among the cast and crew and, true to form, several familiar faces (or, in some cases, voices) pop up throughout the movie; F/X man Greg Nicotero, composer and “Screwdriver Zombie” John Harrison, “Butcher Zombie” Boyd Banks, Simon Pegg, Quentin Tarantino, as well as Romero himself.

While it’s impossible to really reinvent the wheel with a zombie movie, Romero does manage to come up with some new and interesting way to kill zombies; I’ll never look at a defibrillator in quite the same way again. And the way a character “buries” several zombies later in the film, is a welcome addition to the Dead mythos.

In the end, while Diary of the Dead has its moments, it’s still just a painful reminder of how great Romero’s past work is and that his continued mining of territory he’s excelled in before cannot repeat those previous successes. And with the announcement that Romero has made yet another Dead movie (sporting the original title of "George A. Romero's ...of the Dead), this movie hurts even more. Skip it!

The Strangers (2008)

One thing that has always been disturbing about older Horror movies (say, from the 70s or early 80s) is that, save for a "star" who may be past his/her prime and they're trying to pay the rent with a quick paycheck, most of the cast is made up of unknowns. When an unfamiliar face is being terrorized on-screen, it's much easier to get lost in the movie and become engrossed in the tension that a skilled director can create from a really good screenplay. It also helps when the setting could be Your Town, USA.

The Strangers has been on my "To See" list for at least a year/year and a half since I first read about it in Fangoria magazine. After seeing Fango's stamp of approval on the article, my reaction to the masked characters was "Whoa. That's intense."

First time writer/director, Bryan Bertino, starts things off with an ominous voice-over about how the story is based on true events . . . as a fan of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, this is a fine way to begin things as far as I'm concerned. If you're willing to actually get inside the movie and pay attention, it easily adds to the experience when you've got "this actually happened" in the back of your mind.

The story centers around James Hoyt and Kristen McKay (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler, respectively), a couple who look as though they haven't been having such a wonderful night. They're barely speaking to eachother and one can't help but be interested as to what's going on with them and why they're in the state we find them in. Almost immediately, someone is pounding on the front door -- it's 4am, by the way -- and things quickly begin to spiral out of control.

For the most part, Bertino keeps things interesting despite the fact that only Speedman and Tyler are on-screen for the duration of the picture. And, people can say what they want about Liv Tyler, but she more than holds her own and easily plays against type in a role like this. Seeing a high-profile actress like Liv Tyler in a movie like this can always go either way, but I'd say things went more in the right direction for sure.

The violence is pretty intense, yet not overly gory. Honestly, if it can be compared to anything else, Wes Craven's Last House on the Left comes to mind. The level of on-screen violence here is in no way of the cartoonish variety found in a Friday the 13th or any other Slasher movie; in a sense, the audience is not cheering, applauding, or laughing at the setpieces. When things go down in The Strangers, it's not pretty and it's not a roller coaster ride. In fact, it's derivative of when Phyllis is killed in front of her best friend Mari while she watches helplessly in Craven's 1972 shocker. There's an overbearing sense of dread that hangs over the entire movie and it only continues to unsettle right to its grim and startling (albeit a bit cliched) conclusion.

As for the titular Strangers . . . wow. These characters are easily some of the most disturbing the Horror genre has ever seen. Their strength lies in their mystery and simple nature of their motive -- "because you were home." They will definitely make anyone think twice about locking every door in the house and checking tenfold.

Some may say that there's nothing we haven't seen before in The Strangers and, sure, that's true to an extent. However, it's really refreshing to see a Horror picture that at least strives to be suspenseful and work its way under the audience's collective skin. In a time of flashy, sporadically edited, cookie cutter movies, I welcome anything that breaks that mold.

All in all, if you're a serious Horror fan, this is just what the doctor ordered. See it!

Just a quick update....

As you can see, I've been steadily adding some reviews here. I'm also going to be pulling older reviews from my archives either that I've posted on MySpace or on various message boards. So, those posts -- like Rob Zombie's Halloween, 30 Days of Night, and The Mist -- might feel a little dated as they were written right after seeing them in the theater. So, have a heart, and don't be too hard on them if there are any errors I may have missed in them.

Also, I'm going to be adding some short reviews that I've done based on the movies in my collection. Now when I say short, I mean, well they're shorter than the average review you might see on here or have come to expect from me. I usually write the short ones in one shot from memory and give the basics of the plot, what I thought of it, and whether or not you should see it.

Until next time . . . keep reading.

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007)

I'm really, really glad that I didn't read any reviews or see any clips or see the final trailer before hand. It made it so much better. Without giving anything away of course, I thought Rob Zombie brought a fresh approach to a franchise that has frankly worn itself out. Come to think of it, regarding the original series' sequels, I don't think any of the directors ever really brought their own vision -- ie: something fresh -- to the formula. I guess what I mean, initially you had "John Carpenter's Halloween", but none of the sequels had a clear, identifiable signature on them from their given director in my opinion. Rob Zombie's Halloween, on the other hand, definitely accomplishes that.

I was also pleasantly surprised to see Rob's creative growth with this picture . . . granted, it's still not Oscar™ caliber stuff (hey, it's the Horror genre, folks), but much like the differences between House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, Zombie's added a few more notches to his belt as a writer/director. Yes, there are definitely some bits of dialog that "typical Rob Zombie", but in its defense I'll say it's perfect for the particular characters.

One thing that always seems to crop up within a successful Horror franchise is the inevitable and oft-dreaded backstory. The studio heads love it because it gives writers another angle to work and play with -- and make more movies based on -- and fans usually groan at it because it sheds too much light on their favorite masked men. Some of the early fears I heard regarding this movie and its prequel storyline were over giving Michael a reason why he kills. Right from the get-go though, I wasn't worried because Zombie's not the type of artist to say "Michael Myers kills his sister because his mom wouldn't buy him a candy bar." Yes, while we get maybe a clearer vision of young Michael's thought process behind his early deeds, there still is no clearcut reason why; and that's a great thing.

I'll admit, when I saw Daeg Faerch's first photo as Michael, age 10, I was skeptical as hell. But, I was really genuinely surprised by his performance. There were some truly terrifying and unsettling moments with him in the film . . . and, as intense as they were, I'll admit that I had a devilish grin. Another aspect I've heard some people were weary about -- specifically my hardcore Halloween fan of a cousin -- was some of the real life serial killer elements that Zombie added to the character. Trust me, you'll know what I'm talking about if you've read anything about Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer. From the moment I heard about this stuff, I wouldn't say I was necessarily thrilled, but I was definitely up for the angle of reality Zombie was going for. In the end, I thought it was a fine patch of character for young Michael.

Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Samuel Loomis . . . a fine choice of an actor to step into a role literally immortalized by the late Donald Pleasence. One thing I did know about the movie was that McDowell hadn't seen any of the original movies, so he had no idea how Pleasence played the character. I thought that was a great move on his part and brought a fresh, yet somewhat familiar, breath to the character.

Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie Strode . . . listen, one thing about Slasher movies that I've always found a bit distracting is that they cast someone who obviously isn't 17 years old to play a 17 year old. That's always bugged the shit out of me and one major eye-roller is Peter Barton as "Doug" in Friday the 13th part IV: The Final Chapter -- the dude was 28 (!) when that movie was made and he's playing a "teen". Scout Taylor-Compton, though, actually is 18, so I noticed a particular teen element to her performance. Whether it was blatant or subtle, it's hard for me to pinpoint -- but I believed her character.

As anyone who knows anything about Horror movies or has seen either of Zombie's other two movies, you'd know he's got a thing for throwing in cameos from character actors of the 70s and 80s. He did it with The Devil's Rejects big time and here, he brings most of that cast back for brief cameo bits. Seriously, it's like a Who's Who of Genre Actors . . . and while I thought it'd be distracting as I'd heard a new name and face announced every week, surprisingly it wasn't. As corny as it sounds, it was kind of like seeing a bunch of old friends on-screen! There are so many times throughout the movie where I'm just sitting there nodding and smiling as one familiar face after another pops up on-screen in a memorable bit. One of those faces that stretches far beyond a cameo though, is Danielle Harris....

Danielle is the only actor in this movie to be an original Halloween series alum; she played Laurie Strode's daughter, Jamie Lloyd, in Halloween 4 and again in Halloween 5. Regardless of what any fans think of those two movies (I'd say 4 is better than 5 myself), one thing everyone agrees on is Danielle Harris. She's great in the role and brought something special to the later sequels. I've met her at a show a few years ago and she's such a cute little sweetheart -- she's literally 5' tall -- and seems like she's got a good head on her shoulders. She's of course been in other movies since her Halloween days, so it's been cool to see her move on, but always seem to keep showing some love for the series and the name . . . much like Jamie Lee Curtis has continued to do. And, going back to what I said about older actors playing younger characters, Danielle actually breaks that mold -- she just turned 30, but you wouldn't be able to tell! So yeah, I was thrilled when I'd heard she'd been cast as Annie Brackett for this movie. In the original, I thought Annie was incredibly annoying and boring, so I was kinda glad when she got killed off. Here, though, there's something likable about the character and I really did feel bad for her being thrust into Michael Myers' path....which brings me to another point.

When most people think of Slasher movies, they instantly talk about brainless teenagers lining up to be slaughtered by a masked killer. That's certainly true for the majority of the pictures that came out after the original Halloween; often times characters were introduced with a handful of lines, just so they could be added to the bodycount (I'm looking at you, Friday the 13th part V!!). Again, as I said Rob Zombie's Halloween sure ain't Academy Award-worthy Drama, but I'll be damned if he didn't try to infuse some sort of sympathy for the majority of the characters. Sure, this movie has characters who are introduced just to be killed, but the main characters are who I'm talking about. One thing that's so great about the original Halloween is how Haddonfield, IL is a "small, American town" that could be anyone's town. The babysitter characters seemed pretty genuine in that film and, maybe that's why it struck such a nerve with audiences in 1978. Here, the residents of Zombie's Haddonfield appear to be living in a peaceful world, relatively free of any real danger, with only schoolyard whispers of "the Boogeyman". I personally felt bad for a few of the characters as they had this monster break into their world and shake things up.

Speaking of the monster, let's talk about Tyler Mane in the lead role. This is another role I was pretty skeptical about when I heard he'd been cast. Tyler is famous for playing Sabretooth in the original X-Men movie, so naturally, he's a pretty massive dude to begin with. One of the great things about the original movie and Nick Castle's portrayal of the character was that he seemed like a normal guy. He was a regular build and, aside from the mask, didn't really have any imposing qualities the way Kane Hodder had when he played Jason Voorhees. But again, I was impressed with Tyler's performance as Michael here. I thought he brought his own take to the character, while bringing some qualities that nodded to Nick Castle's original version, too -- specifically in the way he walked and moved sometimes. And, wow, this Michael Myers is one baaaad dude!! He literally is a monster and, I think, truly terrifying. There are a few stalk scenes where he's doing stuff that, to me anyway, is right up there with The Shape stalking Laurie while she's hiding in the closet in Carpenter's movie.

Yet another hot topic of debate for any Halloween movie is always the mask. Lots of folks wonder why directors don't just use the original William Shatner mask in the sequels. The only one in my opinion to get it close was Halloween II. But, Wayne Toth certainly hit it pretty damned close with his version of the famous mask. I thought it brought back that eerie feeling most people get when they see that "blank, pale, emotionless face".

The original Halloween is relatively light on the red stuff, although it does have its share of what some fans pay to see -- blood and gore and T & A. Here, Zombie amps things up quite a bit (predictably too much in one department for some people...) and delivers. I thought the violence was pretty intense and realistically brutal; only serving the story and adding to the Michael Myers character.

There are also some interesting left turns Zombie takes with some of the characters, who, for long-time fans have become so familiar and dear. I thought this, too, was pretty cool. Specifically in Loomis, there's a different element to him that I think reflects what some doctors might do if they had a high-profile patient like Michael Myers.

In terms of Zombie's directorial style . . . I thought there were some pretty cool shots. Yeah, there is a bunch of hand-held, shaky camera-work that I'm sure will have a sector of people complaining, but what can you do? There were some interesting shots that, to me, recalled Kubrick's work on A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, and Full Metal Jacket, too. And, this has got to be intentional, but I swear there are a couple shots of the houses that seemed eerily similar to Carpenter's set-ups in his movie. Cool, nonetheless!

Overall, like I said . . . I'm incredibly pleased with the movie. I really loved it and plan on seeing it again tonight. Just at a quick glance, I popped over to my old stomping grounds at Fangoria.com and, sure enough, the movie is still a major hot topic (with 117 pages devoted to it, as of this original writing!) and it's largely spotted with negative criticism. One poster over there in particular makes me pretty gaggy with his pretentious and self-righteous takes on how "most horror fans are wising up to this kind've crap" (that's an intentional grammatical error). And, ya know, I gotta be honest -- I really don't understand what people can hate so much about this movie. Just in the few pages of that thread alone, I've seen people say how they felt dumber after watching this. Whatever. I think if you go into it wanting to hate it, you're most likely going to hate it. And, of course, on the flipside, if you go in wanting to love it, you probably will. I thought it was a great time at the movies personally and, sure, while it's got some flaws here and there, I still enjoyed myself and feel that Rob Zombie did a wonderful job. See it!

"Trick or treat, baby!"