Night of the Living Dead: 1990 -- A Look Back At A Modern Classic

One thing I love doing is introducing friends and family to some of my favorite Horror movies.  Often times, it's almost like watching the films again for the first time, as I'm always peering out of the corner of my eye at certain moments to see if they're as effective as they're supposed to be 20 or 30 (or 40+ depending on the movie) years later.  Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of introducing my oldest niece and her best friend to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre which, I'm happy to say, despite them being of the Youtube generation (15yr olds) who've seen the original trailer a few times over the years [thanks to the cool uncle - ED], it was still effective!  But, friends, that is a story for another time . . . immediately after that screening of Chainsaw, we introduced one of our good friends to Tom Savini's 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead.


These days, when it seems that every single classic Horror film that my generation grew up on is getting the remake treatment, we can't help but roll our eyes and sigh in despair.  Most are quick, studio cash grabs, designed to capitalize on an already established title, almost guaranteeing a successful opening weekend brand recognition.  Some have legs and generally surprising:  2003's Texas Chainsaw Massacre, 2004's Dawn of the Dead, and 2006's The Hills Have Eyes.  Others, more likely, are absolute misfires resulting in cinematic garbage:  2006's When A Stranger Calls, 2008's Prom Night, and 2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street, among many, many others unfortunately.  However, in the 80s and 90s, Horror remakes weren't churned out by studios on an almost monthly basis.


The genesis of the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead started with the best intentions:  to make some money off of the name for its original creators who infamously lost out on untold profits due to a copyright error.  Original director George Romero, along with co-writer/producer John A. Russo and producer Russ Streiner were again at the helm behind the scenes.  Having directed several episodes of Romero's Tales From The Darkside television series, it seemed like there would be a surefire hit with Tom Savini in the Director's chair (this was, after all, the beginning of special make-up effects gurus dipping their toes into the film-maker pool).  It seemed all the stars were aligning, so . . . what the hell happened?

Savini, Tom Towles, Patricia Tallman and a makeup artist on-set (from Savini.com)

Released theatrically in October of 1990, the film admittedly flew under even my own radar; for whatever reason, I wasn't reading Fangoria magazine all that much if Freddy Krueger wasn't on the cover, so I missed any word of this film during its production or original release.  Around the time it hit video though, I finally caught it on Cinemax and taped it (although, I missed the beginning, instead only knowing this remake from the point of Barbara showing up at the farmhouse!). 




Tony Todd as Ben and Tallman as Barbara

Savini has spoken at length over the years of what an absolute nightmare shoot the film was; production costs were cut during filming (thanks Menahem Golan!), leaving much of what Savini intended never getting beyond the storyboard stage and now legendary clashes with the MPAA over a potential X-rating literally gutted the picture for its theatrical release.  Speaking of the latter, however, by today's standards, the excised gore shots would be viewed as relatively tame. With hindsight being 20/20, the lack of gore sort of works in the film's favor actually...

"For the last time:  I don't want your damn pamphlets!  Get off my porch!"

Among Night 90's many strengths are Romero's script, which adheres to the basic plot of the original film -- people trapped in a farmhouse, surrounded by flesh-eating zombies; all the same characters that we know and love from the original -- but with a few twists and turns to keep diehard fans on their toes and constantly surprised.  The only real negative that I noticed has been Paul McCollough's painfully dated synth score that sounds like something from a cheap Sy-Fy Network original movie (although the piece that plays over the end credits is still just as creepy as it was the first time I saw the film!). 


The cast is strong and believable too:  Tony Todd as Ben, Patricia Tallman as Barbara, the late Tom Towles as Cooper, McKee Anderson as Helen Cooper, William Butler as Tom, Katie Finneran as Judy Rose, Heather Mazur as Sarah Cooper, and of course, Bill Moseley as Johnny.  Romero's script makes some surprising changes by having Barbara transform into a sort of Sigourney Weaver-type of survivor in the film's second half, but it also alters other characters a bit; Helen is more of helpless housewife in a loveless, abusive marriage...Tom is more of a redneck, good ol' boy...and Judy Rose is a lot more annoying, as she's always screaming and frantic.   However, these character types work, just as the original did in the sense of "Which one of these characters would you yourself be in this exact situation?"  Plus, it goes without saying that Towles nearly steals the show every time Cooper is on-screen, with his performance nearly rivaling the Karl Hardman in the original!

William Butler, Katie Finneran, Todd, and Tallman

The make-up effects, handled by longtime Savini assistants Everett Burrell and the late John Vulich, are outstanding.  While I'm a big fan of Savini's work on Dawn of the Dead (as weak or incomplete the zombies may appear next to, say, his work in Day of the Dead or even next to the likes of Fulci's zombies, I've always felt the blue/grey skinned zombies were the creepiest), I'd be lying if I didn't praise Night 90's zombies!  Drawing inspiration from autopsy photos, Burrell and Vulich's works really strive for realism with a yellowed/pale skin tone and sunken in proportions.  Seeing so many zombies slowly advance on the farmhouse in the dark is genuinely creepy and, I think, has yet to be rivaled in any recent zombie film! 

Greg Funk as the remake's Cemetery Zombie

Another strong, almost unsettling point is the film's coda.  Where the original had a posse showing up to "save the day" in a sense, Night 90 has a similar clean-up crew of hunters and bikers show up, only this time, they're more like Dawn of the Dead's rednecks (in a virtual Iron City Beer commercial), simply having a good ol' time huntin', shootin' and hellraisin'.  The festivities are on a much bigger scale here, with lunch trucks and make-shift wrestling rings set up for drunk rednecks to match wits with the Living Dead.  In fact, one of the more recognizable motorcycle raiders from Dawn of the Dead shows up as well!  There's just an overbearing sense of brooding in these brief scenes, especially when hunters unload their rifles on zombies that have been strung up, lynch style. Veterans from Romero's original, the late "Chilly" Billy Cardille and Russ Streiner (as an eye-patched Sheriff McClelland) show up to recreate the "...yeah, they're dead.  They're all messed up" line.

Unfortunately, upon its release, critics didn't agree and many fans were left scratching their heads with a resounding "Why?"  Sure it's a little too close to the original's storyline, but then on the flipside, if a remake strays too far from the original storyline (like a certain 2004 remake of a zombie film set in a shopping mall), diehard fans complain and boil with outrage.  Here, at least the original creators were involved and, to that extent, the right hands and hearts were in place with their intentions of remaking a classic.  In fact, I remember back in the early 2000s, a friend and I went to a midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, billed as "the original classic" on the marquee outside...however, once inside, eyebrows were raised by the mylar clearly displaying the logo and rating for Night '90....as soon as the Columbia Pictures logo popped on-screen, many fans left in disgust and demanded refunds (we, of course, stayed and a had a great time!).

What?! They remade Night of the Living Dead? Those bastards!

Now, almost 30 (!) years after its release, it's safe to say that Night '90 has its share of fans and a level of appreciation found in other popular Horror remakes like John Carpenter's The Thing and David Cronenberg's The Fly.  The film has seen a decent DVD release with a fine behind-the-scenes documentary, showcasing some of the deleted gore gags as well as an informative, no holds barred commentary track from Savini.  The film also received a curiously color-timed limited -- and ridiculously expensive -- Blu-ray release a few years ago, angering long-time fans.  Each year though, the film attracts a wider fanbase as more and more discover it and allow its due chance.
  

Cooper:  You got a problem with this remake?  Ya buncha yo-yo's!

Now, imagine a world where, instead of Zack Snyder's athletic zombies hopped up on Red Bull Dawn of the Dead remake and Steve Miner's 2008 WTF remake of Day of the Dead (or the second Day of the Dead remake due next year), but instead got remakes of these classics in the vein of Night '90.  I'd actually be okay with this . . . seeing remakes grounded in some sort of reality that closely follow the original storylines/screenplays, but with just enough differences to make 'em worthwhile for longtime fans.  Of course, touching either of these Romero classics -- let alone following them almost note for note -- would be viewed as heresy by many Horror fans, but hey, they couldn't be any worse than what has already been remade, could they? 

Do I have any food on my face?

Ultimately, Tom Savini's remake may have been doomed from the get-go -- because, really, how can one remake a true classic -- but he and his production team gave it the old college try, giving the world a favorable re-imagining that still holds up relatively well.  Considering the dirge of other unauthorized Night of the Living Dead remakes/sequels (thanks in no small part to that pesky copyright hiccup), Savini's film stands out as severed head and shoulders above the rest.  If you haven't yet seen it yourself, first go check out the 1968 original (again or for the first time!) and then give this one a spin.  You likely won't be disappointed!

Sequels and Reboots In Our Genres

In case you've been living off the grid for the last couple years, you may be aware of a reboot/sequel/threequel that is scheduled for release next month . . . it's related to a 1984 comedy classic that many people in my age group hold near and dear.  Yes, I'm talking about the Paul Feig-directed Ghostbusters starring Kristin Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. Pretty much since its announcement, there's been a split decision amongst the interwebs and, since the release of its first teaser trailer, Neckbeards and basement dwellers have been putting on their wrinkled NO MA'AM t-shirts in misogynistic protest.

For the record, this is not one of those pieces. 

Hear me out . . . when it comes to Horror sequels and remakes/reboots, why has there always been a problem with casting?  No one could play Freddy Krueger except Robert Englund -- this was proven when New Line and Platinum Dunes tried to remake A Nightmare on Elm Street in 2010.  Poor Jackie Earl Haley, while fine in the fedora and famous sweater, was up against impossibly stacked odds (not to mention a terrible screenplay) of trying to please a nearly thirty year old fan base that had been unequivocally used to only seeing one man portray the character.  Outside of the Horror genre, of course, there's Harrison Ford and the characters of Indiana Jones and Han Solo.  No one else could play either of those characters -- hell, even I was set to belly-ache when Chris Pratt was rumored to be in the running for an Indiana Jones reboot. 

Ultimately, what has both contributed to and, in some cases hindered (like the original Ghostbusters, its sequel and the never-ending stalling of a proper Ghostbusters III) film franchises of almost any genre?  Continuity.  Granted, with Halloween and Friday the 13th, there have mostly always been different guys playing those masked killers, so it's a bit of a no-brainer.  However, with Freddy Krueger, Indiana Jones, Han Solo, and even say, Rocky Balboa, it'd be pretty difficult to re-cast those iconic characters -- but why didn't it happen?  

As much as I love the storyline continuity throughout the eight Friday the 13th movies, why couldn't there have just been sequels picking up in the middle of one of Jason's killing sprees instead of following groundwork already laid out in previous installments?  One could argue that this occurred with Jason Goes To Hell:  The Final Friday and, with that being said, maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

My whole point is this:  why didn't our most beloved franchises -- Horror or otherwise -- follow the James Bond template and either A.) Have the leading character in simply a new adventure for each film instead of painting everything into a proverbial corner or B.) Recast whenever possible?  Imagine the wealth of Indiana Jones adventures that we could've had in the nineteen years between Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  This could have easily solved the seemingly endless delays to get a proper Ghostbusters III made.  Of course recasting doesn't always necessarily work out so well as was the case with 2011's dreadful Hellraiser:  Revelations where Pinhead was infamously recast and, well, viewers decided to ultimately pass . . . though the character has again been recast for next year's Hellraiser:  Judgment, so we'll have to reserve our, er, judgment a little longer.

Of course, as I speak of recasting and reboots, I can't ignore the hugely successful Mad Max:  Fury Road, which seamlessly cast Tom Hardy in its title role or the never-ending superhero reboots like Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Superman and, to a somewhat less-successful point, Spider-Man.  The loudest criticism was hurled at the late Heath Ledger as soon as he was cast as The Joker; I'll happily continue to eat my own hearty meal of crow once I saw the film and hailed his genius performance!  On the pseudo-failure side, there's Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man which, for my money, didn't really need to be rebooted so closely after Sam Raimi's trilogy . . . though I suspect the failure there may have been more script-based and behind the scenes instead of casting.  Same goes for Brandon Routh in Superman Returns, a fine actor and great performance that ultimately was crushed under the weight of the character itself and fans' expectations.  On the same coin, Henry Cavill has done a fine job in Supes' tights, again with my only complaints coming from the script and/or direction.  With this year's Batman V. Superman, I'd say Ben Affleck as Batman wasn't too bad and, honestly, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Bat-fleck, as having an older big screen take was a refreshing change.

As I pondered possible reasons for why these famous characters were never recast or deviated from their narrative continuity throughout their respective franchises, there was only one that kept coming to mind.  All of the franchises I've mentioned were born (or thrived) in the VHS and cable era where many of us watched them endlessly and, as a result, they endured much more so than a film that we may have only seen a few scant times theatrically during initial release or an occasional re-release.  Maybe that's why the majority of the casting changes and story continuity changes in the Bond franchise were so easy to overlook?  Raise your hand if you literally wore out your VHS of copy of a Back To The Future, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Rocky, Star Wars, Friday the 13th, or A Nightmare on Elm Street movie from watching it so many times....go ahead, I see you laughing, but it's true! 

So, while I'm not saying there's absolutely no sexist stance against this summer's Ghostbusters -- because it's quite obvious that there is, especially from the anonymity behind a computer screen -- I'm leaning towards the fact that those original characters and the actors who played them are so ingrained in a lot of fans' minds that it's almost impossible to accept change.  I'm not exactly thrilled about the movie myself, but it's certainly not because of its female cast.  Setting aside my nostalgia for the original and The Real Ghostbusters cartoon and toy line), I'm curious to see how it all plays out and will no doubt be there opening weekend.

And, of course, earlier this week it was announced that Platinum Dunes plans to soldier on and force another Friday the 13th reboot upon the world -- only, this time it will be different because it's going to delve into a part of Jason's origin that we haven't yet seen . . . by introducing his father, Elias Voorhees.  Originally, that character was to make an appearance at the end of Friday the 13th Part VI:  Jason Lives, though it was dropped before filming and the character was only casually mentioned in Jason Goes To Hell.  Listen, I'm all for another Friday the 13th movie but, dammit, why can't we just have a sequel that picks up like a Bond sequel, with Jason (looking cool and not like the haunted hayride knockoff of Freddy Vs. Jason of course) in the middle of a new adventure where he's doing what he does best -- hacking up teenagers?  Is that too much to ask?   My ideal Friday the 13th sequel would be just that with a poster tagline that reads:  "Not familiar with Jason?   Ask your parents to show you the first 8 movies!"  No need to rehash the past and delve into backstory that wasn't originally there in there first place; just give the fans what they want:  Jason hacking up teenagers via squishy practical special effects.

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!

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!"

2001 Maniacs (2005)

Its still unclear if this is a remake or a sequel to H. G. Lewis’s gorror classic TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! It’s got a similar plot of a bunch of yankees finding themselves trapped in an odd southern town, where they’re the guests of honor for a centennial celebration. Robert Englund hams it up as the town’s mayor (come on, you know you love Robert!), making him really the only noteworthy actor in this piece. Some people out there will probably refer to this as “cheesy” (yes, I HATE it when people use that term to describe a Horror movie), but that’s probably because they’re not familiar with the original movie. 2001 MANIACS pays homage to Lewis’s classic (seasoned viewers may get a sense of deja vu at times), but also adds a few new things to the story. It’s funny. It’s gory. And it’s a good time. I promise. Look for supporting roles by Lin Shaye and Peter Stormare. See it!

Prom Night (2008)

One of two things that will seemingly be around forever in Horror is the Slasher Film. Many would argue when John Carpenter made Halloween in 1978, he kick-started the sub-genre. Of course, there are fans who feel Bob Clark beat Carpenter to the punch with 1974's Black Christmas, but the argument is something for another time and, indeed, another place. The point is, both of those movies are fine examples of "smart" Slasher pictures. And, unfortunately, in their wake, they spawned innumerable entries that consistently dumbed the genre down more and more. One of those many titles is 1980's Prom Night, which starred Jamie Lee Curtis as she and her friends are stalked by a masked madman with an axe to grind.

And, unfortunately, the second thing that will never die in Horror is the dreaded REMAKE. Every time a new classic title is announced to have boarded the Remake Train, there seem to be two responses from fans: "Fuck remakes!" or "Let's do it!" As far as I'm concerned, since Dawn of the Dead and Halloween have both been remade, anything is fair game, so there's really no use complaining about it.

Prom Night is the newest Horror remake. And, right from the beginning, this ain't your older cousin's Prom Night and, sadly, there's no disco soundtrack -- what? no big dance number? -- this time around (or Leslie Nielsen for that matter). Prom Night (2008) is one of those "remake by name only" movies, where a studio tries to capitalize off of a classic title and the young target audience pisses on the original title as being "cheesy" and outdated. TV director Nelson McCormick must not be much of a Slasher fan because he forgot all of the essential elements....but we'll get to that in a second.

The story concerns Donna Keppel (played by Brittany Snow from the Hairspray remake), her boyfriend and their four other friends as they're stalked by a killer on the night of their senior prom -- that's pretty much where the similarities to the OG Prom Night begin and end. Unlike the original's masked killer (which, today, doesn't even seem that cool -- what? A black glittery ski-mask?), Nelson McCormick introduces his killer in the first five minutes and shows his face. See that? Suspense and Mystery just took off on an all-expenses paid trip to Cabbo for Spring Break courtesy of Sony Screen Gems. An essential element in just about every single Slasher movie worth its weight in blood is the "Who Dunnit?" story arc. Sometimes it's pretty obvious, while other times the audience is thrown for a helluva loop that asks them to ignore certain plot holes during the reveal -- but it's always FUN. You would've thought the major studios got the clue that mystery is essential after Dimension Films peeked under the tree in Black Christmas (2006) by showing and explaining who Billy is. Sheesh.

Okay so, Nelson McCormick, your Slasher movie doesn't have much surprise or mystery to it....what else can the audience look forward to? That's right! Graphic, on-screen kills that are done in really cool ways so that the audience will go "Aaahhh!" and cheer. Sadly, there's none of that here either. It's not clear whether this movie was shot with the intention of being PG-13 all along or not, but damn . . . there's not much blood on-screen at all. Sony Screen Gems, you're killing me here! Victims are stabbed repeatedly and throats are slashed...but there is hardly a drop of blood to be found. At least one body is shown in a white, tiled bathroom that is so spotless, you could serve an entree on the floor. Maybe since it's 2008 and the disco music has been replaced by crunkin' club hip hop, perhaps Slasher movie victims don't bleed like they used to? Seriously....when the killer has a wicked-looking knife and uses it to turn some annoying kids into pin cushions, it should be expected that there'd be a ton of blood (or at least a reasonable amount of red stuff on a victim's white shirt).

Some things Prom Night '08 do manage to retain from its Slasher forefathers are a lack of logic, wooden acting, and actors who are older than 17 playing high schoolers (Scott Porter, who plays Bobby, is almost 30 years old). In terms of logic, there are too many incidents to count where foreheads will be slapped and eyes will roll. Here's an acting and logic double damn: when a character is pissed at not winning Prom Queen, she utters a "shit" and tears up....yet, even though we're told how much she wants to be Prom Queen, we don't get any payoff after she doesn't win the honor. I still say she should've showed up at Donna's house later on and demanded a recount! Or, yet another character who's also in the running for Prom Queen (she repeatedly makes it known how important it is for her to win) decides to go up to the hotel room to have sex with her boyfriend shortly after the house DJ announces that the King and Queen ceremony will be underway in a few. What?!?

Speaking of logic, Donna and her friends have some major beef with a girl named Crissy, whom they dub "Rich-Bitch". Crissy's on the Prom planning crew and reportedly went $100,000 over her budget, so her daddy wrote a check to cover it all. First off, what school not named Beverly Hills High would allow for any school-related function (outside of maybe a pep rally for its star football or wrestling team) to cost in excess of that amount?!? On top of that, Donna and her friends seem to have a chip against Crissy because she's got money....yet these kids all pitch in for a ssssssstrech limo, have nice digital cameras, live in fat houses (at least Donna does), and can afford what looks like a penthouse apartment suite at a hotel that is surely not a Days Inn. Really? The suite the three couples are sharing is bigger than the house I grew up in! Also, when all of the couples are arriving at the hotel for the prom, why is there a fenced off area with a bunch of punters/paparazzi camped out and cheering for them? This is the prom, not the red carpet premiere for the movie!

One other aspect remakes of Horror classics love to do -- or should at least try to do -- is have some sort of nod to the original movie. Some people roll their eyes at it, but others like me love to point that shit out. In some way, it shows that the people behind said remake have some sort of affection and respect for the source material. Dawn of the Dead did it with Scott H. Reiniger and Ken Foree (who even says his famous line from Romero's classic movie), Invasion of the Body Snatchers had Kevin McCarthy, Black Christmas did it by casting Andrea Martin as Mrs. Mac, and Halloween even had series favorite Danielle Harris. Somewhere along the production of this movie, you'd think there were some phone calls made to David Fucci for a cameo, right? All we get is a brief cameo by Joshua Leonard from The Blair Witch Project (yeah, it's been almost ten years...). I feel so braindead after seeing this, I don't even remember if the school was named Hamilton High. At the very least, the initials for the school could've been JLC no?

In the end, Prom Night (2008) is just another one for the fire on a never-ending list of remakes to modern day classics. Thinking outside the box, I suppose it's only natural that the genre comes to this. I can imagine an older generation of fans being pissed off and shaking their fists when The Thing From Another World or Cat People were remade in '82. The bottom line: I'm sure you may enjoy this if you see it with a bunch of friends and laugh at how stupid it is, but it's not really worth paying good money for -- wait 'til it's available On Demand. Skip it!