An essay on Rob Zombie's Halloween

[SoulOfVoorhees]

I did not write this, but I agree almost completely with the sentiments presented herein. I know there's a thread already for this film, and Kat can merge this if she'd like, but this essay is long and contentious and would probably clutter that thread up.

Your name is Robert Cummings, not Rob Zombie!: How a Man Single-Handedly Destroyed a Franchise.

By Paul Zamarelli



Wow! A guy with "Zombie" as a last name! He must be super cool… or not. I never fell for Rob Zombie. I never enjoyed his breed of trendy pop metal nor did I completely accept his films. I never bought into his appearance, "cool" music videos, nor the merchandise he sold to pale MTV followers. I just never understood what the big deal was with Rob Zombie, and to be completely honest, I still don't. Here, I aim to comment on Rob Zombie in regards to his filmmaking career. I also hope to expose him for the liar and traitor he is to the fans who worship him. In specifically, how he destroyed a classic horror franchise.

I. The Rise of a "Zombie" Icon

When I first heard of Rob Zombie during his Hellbilly Deluxe era, I thought of him as just another marketable music spectacle. Not only were his music videos regulars on MTV's video lineup, but his music was heard in popular video games, Hollywood movies, and later, on an action figure of himself. I remember back when I was in middle and high school, seeing the "cool" kids sporting their Rob Zombie t-shirts while dragging their baggy Jnco Jeans behind them. During this time, I had just discovered music for myself, preferring the classic rock and metal bands of the past, to the contemporary sound bleeding through the walkmans of adolescent teens across the country. In that respect, I didn't like Rob Zombie's music. It just wasn't my taste. Besides, I was more a movie guy than a music listener. Where teens were listing to Zombie's latest album, I was watching an 80's slasher flick.

As I said, I'm no music nut. I'm not an expert on metal, let alone music in general, nor am I here to argue that Rob Zombie's music is just hipster garbage. I do admit, however, that while growing up in a generation where his music was a piece of the soundtrack, I did find several of his tracks catchy. They sounded as he intended them to sound, "cool." But finding a few tunes catchy wasn't enough to make me like him or his music. There was something more to Rob Zombie that I just didn't understand. At the time, it wasn't so much that I didn't like his music, but what he strived to represent.

For one, his last name of "Zombie" seemed to be a blatant attempt to appeal to trendy metal kids. I understand that "Cummings" isn't necessarily a cool last name to have (unless of course you're a porn star), but he could've picked a name that a bit less cliché for a metal act. Secondly, I couldn't get over Rob Zombie's whole Southern white trash look. It just didn't make any logical sense to me. Why would someone worth millions continue to look like a dirtbag? We know he lives in a beautiful million dollar house as was shown on MTV Cribs, so why wasn't he able to make that same leap with his appearance? If the white trash appearance is truly him as some might argue, then why not live it? Perhaps I just didn't get, but really, it didn't make a different to me at the time. He seemed to be just another icon with a "cool" last name.


II. A Zombie On the Other End of a Camera

Around 2001 while I was skimming through horror-related message boards on the net, I remember coming across a link to Universal's promotional site for Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses. I had always heard rumors that he was making a "sick and twisted" horror film. At first glance, I thought it was somehow related to a much earlier film of a very similar title, House of 7 Corpses. But later did I realize that it was a completely different film with no relevance to the other. But despite the title rip-off and my dislike for his music, I was open-minded and decided to give the movie a chance.

To be completely honest, the trailer excited me. It seemed to be a throwback to the horror films of the 70's and 80's. Because of my age, I really never had the chance to experience the films I grew to love in theaters. Prior to House, there was an onslaught of glossy teen horror flicks, such as Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. These films had known faces and were polished by Hollywood standards. At the time, I had grown to hate these films. They just didn't feel real and I had trouble separating the actors from the teen chick flicks they previously appeared in. Zombie's House, however, gave hope that a gritty horror film could make it to theaters and at the time, I felt it would be the closest I would get to seeing a 70's-80's horror film on the big screen.

On the day the film was released to theaters, my father was cool enough to sign me out of class early (I was a real horror nut and had to be the first to see the movie). Despite being underage without ID, my cousin and I managed to get in while the Wolfenstein bit had already begun. From when we walked in to the end of the opening credits, I was somewhat relieved. Not because I liked what I saw, but because it was refreshing to see something totally different than another Scream imitation.

That day, I admit, I left the theater pleased. It was fast paced, had the necessary antiheros we grow to love, and was simply sadistic. It was dark, twisted, and resembled the horror films made decades back. But later did I realize that my excitement of seeing a classic imitation in theaters had clouded my judgments. House, although fun to watch, wasn't that great. After maturing as an avid viewer of horror cinema, I look back at House and realize it's nothing more than a feature-length music video.

Rob Zombie's House had predictable and cliché characters, a ripped-off score, and felt too much like an MTV music video. Why did it feel like a music video? Because up until that point, it was the only real experience he had. It had fast cuts, random clips outside the structure of the story, and repeatedly used basic grain and color effects. After watching the film several times, you begin to realize that about a forth of the movie's colors are either solarized or inverted. In the commentary for House, he states that the reason he solarized the Dr. Satan grave scene was simply because it originally looked bad. Whether or not this was the case for the rest of the solarized and inverted scenes is unclear.

But all in all, Zombie intended to make a film like those in the 70's, but failed because it lacked originality where it was greatly needed. House was refreshing the time it was released, but when we take a closer look, it's not exactly what we might have first imagined. Zombie himself even looks back at the film unsatisfied despite initially claiming enthusiastically, "If I didn't make this thing and I saw it, I would be so into this…I love it!" Shortly after the release of the film in an interview with Bloody-Disgusting.com, when asked if he would do anything differently, he states, "Probably one million things actually…there's a ton of stuff I'd probably change." From that point on, he had always given the impression that he wished House had came out differently.

What led Zombie to make his own film? Lets back up a bit. Prior to directing his first film, Zombie designed and directed a variety of music videos, as well as an animated hallucination sequence for Beavis and Butthead Do America. But even before working in music videos, the only experience he had in film or television was working as a production assistant for Pee Wee's Playhouse, and later, as a writer of a rejected screenplay for a Crow sequel. So how does Zombie go from a PA on the set of children's television program to directing MTV music videos for artists such as Ozzy Osbourne? Because of the notoriety he had achieved as a metal act and the little experience he had directing his own videos (including White Zombie). These videos were nothing more than amateurish short clips that depended almost entirely on their editing rather than its visual content. The video for his hit song "Dragula" seemed to be a bunch of clips directed entirely in front of a green screen with a variety of black and white movie clips juxtaposed against them. How does he go from music videos to film? Not because of the music videos he directed, but rather a haunted house he designed for Universal Studios. Apparently, that's all it took for Universal to offer him a multi-million dollar contract to direct and write a script they probably never thought read.

It's pretty fair to say that Zombie's film/video career couldn't have evolved if it hadn't been for his music act. If he had never gotten a solo contract with Geffen Records (which is owned by Universal), its quite possible he would never have been given the budget needed to make House. Without Universal backing him from the beginning, Rob Zombie the horror director probably wouldn't exist. In other words, Rob Zombie's career as a filmmaker has been guided by his status as a metal figure, not his filmmaking ability. In an interview with DVDTalk.com in 2003, he states,

"They (fans and critics) think if you're a video store clerk, making movies is really a passion you have. Whereas if you've already had success in another field, they think you're just sort of fucking around. 'Oh, look! Someone handed me this opportunity on a golden platter.' But it's not really like that...It's difficult"

With that said, how exactly is it then, Rob Zombie? We never really get a clear answer. It might have been difficult to make the film no doubt, but already belonging to a studio you made millions for is a pretty damn good way of getting a movie deal, especially when you have a marketable household name.

[SoulOfVoorhees]

III. Evil is the Root to All Money

When Zombie brought his work print of House before the heads of Universal for review, they felt the film was too shocking and weird for their studio. Instead of going through the complications of re-editing the film, they sold the film to Zombie, who then shopped it around to other distributors. After having much trouble finding a distributor, House finds a home with Lions Gate, who at the time was making a name for itself as a strong horror distributor. Upon the first weekend of its release, House was moderately successful, in that it made more than what it cost to make. Between horror cameos and being directed by a metal icon, the film appealed to both horror and metal fans, leading to its small success.

At this point, Universal is now totally out of the picture, movie-wise. Since they couldn't handle nor desired Zombie's brand of twisted horror, there was no cause for him to crawl back for future funding. They just weren't compatible. Rob Zombie no longer had a large studio backing him up financially. However, when Lions Gate saw the success of House, they also saw dollar signs and were quick to jump on the opportunity for a sequel. Zombie quickly agreed on a sequel for the same reason. In an interview with TheFilmAsylum.com, when asked if he had always planned a sequel to House, he admits, "It was more because of the success of Corpses."

Upon it's release, The Devil's Rejects shocked many who thought it was going to be just another long and dark psychedelic music video. But in reality, the film was pretty well conceived. To the amazement of many genre fans, even Ebert and Roeper, who have had a history of bashing violent horror films, gave Devil's Rejects two thumbs up (I'm still suspicious of this). It was a movie that appeared to be well constructed and planned. On a personal level, the film wasn't my taste. It might have been better made technically, but I just didn't jive with the whole yellow western theme. For a sequel, it was incredibly different than the first film. In many ways, I believe this made the film a bit less relatable for some of the fans of the first film. Nonetheless, it was made, and was a much bigger success than House. Rob Zombie the filmmaker was now in the spotlight.

At this point in Zombie's career, my opinion of him was pretty indifferent. I really only thought of him as a metal icon who made a few horror flicks. In that respect, I didn't exactly hate him, I really had no reason to. As a fan of the genre, I felt he was just capitalizing on his "hardcore" metal image to sell a few movie tickets. But after reading several interviews published in magazines and various websites, I began to realize he was in fact passionate about horror films. In that regard, I gained some respect towards him despite not being a fan. As like much of the horror community, he loved and respected the classics and was openly against the Hollywood horror remake trend. In fact, there were several occasions where he confessed his dislike for remakes.
..[endif]-->

"I feel it's the worst thing that any filmmaker can do. I actually got a call from my agent and they asked me if I wanted to be involved with the remake of Chainsaw. I said no fucking way! Those movies are perfect- you're only going to make yourself look like an asshole by remaking them."

(Are You Going? 2002 By Christopher P. Garetano)




"Remaking films that were already great is kind of stupid. I don't really see the point."

(DVDTalk.com 2003 By G. Noel Gross)




"…my first reaction was just to wonder what the point of the remake is. I thought the same when they remade Psycho, and now they're remaking Dawn of the Dead as well. I love the originals so much that I just wonder what's the point of doing a remake of these great movies is, what do you hope to improve on?"

(Bloody-Disgusting.com 2004 by Calum Waddell)


"Finally, a celebrity that was against the remake trend!" I thought to myself. "It's about goddamn time." But this newfound respect for Zombie wouldn't last long. Something would happen that would turn the entire horror world upside down.

On June 4th, 2006, it was officially announced. Something every purist fan dreaded had come to formation. John Carpenter's horror classic, Halloween, was going to be remade. It was truly a shock. It then became apparent that no film was safe. By that point, they've remade Psycho, Dawn of the Dead, Amityville Horror, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and others. Now, they had set their eyes on Halloween and made it official. I asked the same question many of the fans were wondering in response to this news. Who was the guy in charge of its production? Who could be responsible for desecrating the grounds from which modern slasher horror has evolved? That man's name was Rob Zombie.

I couldn't believe what I was reading. Rob Zombie?! He had finally earned my respect, and now he does this? He had done a complete u-turn, crept up behind me, and stabbed me in the back. Much of the horror community felt the same and asked the same questions. "Why would he do it? How cold he do it? Why?!" Below, he describes the meeting with the Weinstein Company:


"One day I got a call asking if I wanted to meet with Bob Weinstein because he was in town…So I went and met him at his hotel and we started talking and he just threw out "Halloween." Not as a remake, just in any sense…at first I didn't know if I really wanted to do it because I was not really keen on the idea of making a remake. I just said "I don't know, I'll think about it,' sort of thinking that I was going to call them back later and say no. But I left there and thought about it for a couple of weeks. And then I kind of started feeling like, 'Wait a minute. Why am I assuming that this is a bad idea? This can be an incredible idea.'"

(IconsOfFright.com, August 2007 By Mike C.)

The above statement by Zombie shows his inability to keep his story straight. First, he says that they just threw out "Halloween" not in a remake sense. But shortly after, he states he wasn't keen on the offer because he wasn't interested in a remake. You see the problem here? Zombie attempts to place the blame of the remake idea on the Weinstein Company, when in fact, they gave him the choice to do whatever he liked. In the interview with TheCinemaSource.com, he further explains, "I think if I had told them, 'well, what if it's Michael Myers in space fighting Predator?' Then they would be like, 'Yeah!'" So here, he makes it clear that that remaking Halloween rather than making a sequel or pure prequel was entirely his idea.

Immediately, I suspected money was the motivation. Throughout the devastating ordeal, I sought out answers. I read just about every interview and article that had to do with the new Halloween film. First, I had to know why he decided to do it. Of course he wouldn't admit that it was money, but I had to hear what he had to say to be fair, and so I did. Below are the possible reasons for Zombie, the alleged horror fan, to remake Halloween.

IV. Motive, Ego and Money

In early interviews, I had remember him stating that bad films should be remade, not ones that were already perfect. In the interview with Are You Going? in 2002, he states, "Go remake something that's a piece of shit and make it good." And as we already read, in 2003, he says it again to DVDTalk.com, "Remaking films that were already great is kind of stupid. I don't really see the point." This led me to believe that maybe he wasn't going back on his word, but rather he believed that the original Halloween was in fact a horrible film. Despite repeated claims that he loved the original, in interviews with MTV, he points out what he believed to be the flaws with Carpenter's classic to demonstrate how his film is an improvement. They are as follows:

"Well, what if they didn't have that mask? Would he steal a Jimmy Carter mask? Or an Elmo mask, if that was the only one available at the hardware store? And when did he rob the hardware store? In the broad daylight? And the alarm is still ringing? Thank God Loomis stopped to make that phone call, at exactly that phone booth, and found the Rabbit in Red matchbook! That type of thing always bothered me."

(MTV.com 3/9/07 by Larry Carroll)




"Loomis, in all the other Halloween movies, was some kind of crazy guy running around getting other people trying to help him. It wasn't too hard to believe that no one believed him, because he seemed a little bit like he was crazy and drunk and off his rocker."

(MTV.com 3/9/07 by Larry Carroll)




"Michael Myers does not know how to drive in this movie, because that always bothered me. They would always play that off like someone must have given him lessons, but you know no one gave him lessons! He's in a maximum-security prison! So he doesn't drive."

(MTV.com 3/9/07 by Larry Carroll)



"There's even things about the original Michael Myers that bothered me, like he killed the only mechanic that wears a pristine mechanic's uniform. Its just things like that that bothered me."

(MTV.com 2007 by Robert Mancini)




"I felt the character of Dr. Loomis (in the original) just popped in and out when they needed somebody to say something dramatic."

(MTV.com 2007 by Robert Mancini)

So could it be that Zombie, despite his claims of loving the original, felt it could've been done better? This is an important question that fans will probably never receive an honest answer to.

On that note, Zombie perspective towards remakes slowly began to change. For years he had preached his dislike for the remake phenomenon, but ever since his deal with the Weinstein Company, he began to believe it "could be an incredible idea" and that he was originally "taking the completely wrong attitude." In an interview with TVWire.TV at the Halloween premiere, when asked why remake a classic, he responds, "Because, what? You would want to remake something that sucked?" In another interview, he goes on to say, "The remake thing is done all the time, but its not done well...Truthfully, if I couldn't see any way to do this, I wouldn't do it because it's a challenging project." So what is Rob Zombie saying here? That only he is capable of doing a Halloween remake justice? A year later, his perspective of remakes sways more in favor of them. He states, "To me, remakes are sort of about passion and intent."

But the most popular theory speculated among fans is that he did it for money. Money has always been the major (if not only) motive in Hollywood studios. We've seen them produce inferior imitations to mimic success, and we've also seen long strings of sometimes low-grade sequels for that same reason. It would only make sense that the Hollywood money bug had bitten Zombie as well. In an interview with IconsOfFright.com, he responds to all the criticism:


"People thought I was only doing this for money. No. I could've went on tour and made 10 times the money I made making this movie. It wasn't about money. It was just about really wanting to do it, and I think that's when movies work."

(IconsOfFright.com, August 2007 By Mike C.)

Rob Zombie was right about one thing. He would in fact have made more money on tour than he would've made from this movie's production alone. But there was something he was leaving out in that interview with IconsOfFright.com. There was a long-term incentive for Zombie to team up with the Weinstein Company and Dimension. According to an article in Variety, "Dimension Films has inked a two-picture deal with writer-director Rob Zombie." Zombie goes on to state that the deal was a, "natural step in the evolution of my film career." Finally, I had my answer.

What does the above amount to? At first, his instincts as a fan said "no, don't do it." But as he dreamt dollar signs over the next couple of months, he saw the Halloween remake as a great opportunity to break into the major studios of Hollywood. It's true that he didn't use Halloween as a source of income, but what he did use it for was an opportunity. Even TheCinemaSource.com article goes on to state, "Now, Zombie has his first shot at mainstream filmmaking with the remake/re-imaging of John Carpenter's classic horror film Halloween for the Weinstein Company." The Weinstein Company has been responsible for such travesties as Thunderpants and Who's Your Caddy and now a remake of our beloved Halloween?

Is anyone really surprised that Zombie decided to take advantage of his image and accept the Weinstein deal as an opportunity for future projects? In the 2004 interview with Bloody-Disgusting.com, he is asked how he feels towards the movies his music is heard in. He simply responds, "To be honest, I don't really care. Even if the movie is shit, I just take the money and run." This answer is an important reflection of Zombie's character and foreshadows his future decision to desecrate a classic. Rob Zombie lacks what many lose when they allow themselves to be sucked into the Hollywood industry: Artistic integrity.

[SoulOfVoorhees]

V. The Destruction of a Classic

Once it sunk in that Zombie was going to do the remake, we all wondered how he was going to do it. Since he was going to do it regardless of how fan's felt, he might as well do it with a respect towards the original. According to the press release:

"Zombie's vision of this film is an entirely new take on the legend and will satisfy fans of the classic "Halloween" legacy while beginning a new chapter in the Michael Myers saga. This new movie will not only appeal to horror fans, but to a wider movie-going audience as well. It will not be a copycat of any prior films in the "Halloween" franchise."

So it appeared that Zombie was going to do something totally different. At this point, I agreed with Zombie about one thing: What's the point of a remake that imitates the original? But on that note, I would also say, what's the point of creating a remake that is totally different? If that's the case, why not call it by a different title instead of milking off the iconic character and title? Is that how you're going to owe respect to the original? There's obviously a problem with either choice you make. The only solution is to NOT MAKE A REMAKE.

When Zombie ripped on remakes several years ago, he complained how many of them imitated the original and he didn't see the point since "that film already existed." This got me wondering. Which movies is he talking about besides the Psycho remake? Every modern remake I've seen of a 70-80's classic is extraordinary different. They would do what Zombie did: keep the main iconic character, title or the core structure. That's it. The 2006 remake of Black Christmas, for example, is very much different from the original, and in many ways, just like Zombie's take on Halloween. It's part prequel and remake, while answering the questions the original didn't answer.

So how different would the film be? Well as he had mentioned, it was going to center around our iconic character, Michael Myers. But what concerned many fans is that Zombie was going to demystify the character. In the original, Myers seemed to be an ordinary kid that snapped one night. There was no rhyme, reason or motive to the killing of his sister and in the new film, there wouldn't be either, or would there be? It seemed Zombie hardly knew himself. In the interview with TheCinemaSource.com:

" 'I didn't want him to have a really terrible childhood,' Zombie says, 'nothing that he didn't want to make any excuses for him, because when it comes down to it, 'he's just evil.' "

(TheCinemaSource.com, 2007 by Michael Dance)




"I wanted to get a glimpse of his life, but everything that would make him that person is completely unexplainable. You cant go 'oh this happened, so he's like that.' No, the whole point was I wanted to set him in a more lower class situation because it doesn't matter if he grew up in a rich family or a poor family, he's still fucking psycho!

(IconsOfFright.com, August 2007 By Mike C.)

Sheri Moon agreeing with her husband:

"I think you can safely assume that he was sort of born that way."

(NY Post by Emily Christianson of Hollywood.com)

But in other interviews, he contradicts himself:

"… I've tried to make everything he did be motivated and justified some way, so its never random killing for no reason. There's a reason for everything."

(MTV.com 3/9/07 by Larry Carroll)

Since it was clear that Zombie himself didn't know what exactly he was doing, do you think he would go to the fans for any advice or guidance? After all, the fans are the ones who've kept the franchise alive so long. Below, he comments on how he feels about those who were openly opinionated on the Halloween remake concept:

"… in pre-production on making the film, I didn't look at anything online or anywhere, because I didn't care. Because you're so focused on what you're trying to do, that it just doesn't matter. The only way to make your movie is you have to have a vision of what you want, and you have to be so single-minded that you don't give a fucking shit what anyone thinks."

(IconsOfFright.com, August 2007 By Mike C.)

So is this Zombie's response to the fans who made these films what they are, especially the original? He doesn't "give a fucking shit what anyone thinks"? If this was Zombies own original idea such as House or Devil's Rejects, I'd completely agree. No one should alter visual and story-telling approach for anyone. But we don't have that here. Zombie is given the keys to a well-established franchise that spans over 30 years. All of these films belong to us as fans. We paid to see them, and paid to get sequels made. When you have a franchise like Halloween or any horror series for that matter, the filmmaker should have a responsibility towards the fans who kept it alive. But instead, Zombie has to be, in his own words, "single-minded." Shame on you, Rob Zombie.

VI. An Autopsy Report

On August 31st, 2007, Rob Zombie's atrocity was unleashed upon the world. The horror world would never be the same. I first saw the film from a download online. I refused to pay for something I was firmly against. I then found out that there were two cuts of the movie. The one I had downloaded was the work-print while the one released into theaters was a slightly different cut. But regardless, both versions of the film were absolutely horrendous. It was worse than I could have ever imagined. Rob Zombie had claimed that he wanted his film to be more believable than the original, when in fact, it's less believable in more than one way. As I usually do in my deep analysis of genre-killing films, I will list the 5 major flaws of Rob Zombie's Halloween below:

White Trash: I never completely understood why Zombie approached this film with white trash in mind. With his previous films, it was fine since they were his own original ideas and the two films were related. But its time for him to branch out and do something different. One of the philosophies he approached this film with was to do something different. But once again, we see the same white trash characters living their white trash ways.




Dialogue: The dialogue was…quite odd. The amount of profanity this film has reaches far beyond believability. Sure, some might use profanity more often than others, but this? To be honest, it got quite annoying. This isn't an Italian mob film, it's a remake of a slasher flick.






Michael Myers: Zombie intended to strip Myers of all supernatural qualities, but the Myers we see in this film is quite the contrary. Miraculously, he goes from a young average sized boy, to a huge overpowering monster by simply making paper masks in a small cell for 15 years. How does he have the strength to break chains? How does he have the strength to lift a grown man off the ground by his head and crush it? How is he able to take 3 or 4 gunshot wounds to the back and still be able to struggle with an erratic teenage girl?





Mask: How does a mask survive after being buried for 15 years? Latex rots. Its not going to last long being buried under some old floorboards. It would either dry rot and fall apart or the humidity would fuse it into a big gooey latex ball.





Cameos: Zombie had stated he didn't want actors from the previous Halloween films to play in his film because the cameos become a joke (with the exception of Danielle Harris apparently). So instead, Zombie has cameos of a different kind, his buddies! At least many of the actors from the other Halloween films are less known and recognizable! If Zombie wants to put his buds in his own films, then fine, but the fans own Halloween, we don't want to see the same tribe of horror duds in the same movies over and over again.





VII. Conclusion

Before completing this analysis of the man behind the Halloween remake, I waited more than a month for the special edition DVD release. Perhaps I was hoping to find a confession, or even an apology by Zombie himself to the fans, but much to my dismay, the features said very little about why the film was made. The DVD offered no new insight into the controversy. I sat through an hour and a half of commentary waiting for a rebuttal by Zombie against the claims that he went back on his word, but he didn't even hint it the least bit.

Once upon a time, Rob Zombie was an "awesome" metal icon that wanted to make movies that were just as edgy as his music. He did so, and succeeded. With success, came Hollywood knocking at his door, and with them, a huge briefcase of cash money. Zombie was a sell-out well before he started making movies, and is a sell-out now. As a self-proclaimed horror fan, he destroyed the very franchised that opened up a whole new sub-genre of horror, and what does he receive? A standing ovation by those who don't understand the importance of originality and preservation, and reviled by those who want to protect the name of classic horror from becoming a cash box. Robert Cummings committed a crime against true terror.

On a final note, I'd like to end with a Rob Zombie quote on remakes:

"I don't think its because someone feels inspired, its done because someone sees money."

- From the Official Rob Zombie's Halloween Remake Sucks MySpace page.

[Don of the Dead]

Wow. That guy spent waaaaaaay too much time on that.

What a douchebag.

[Shifty]

Great read. The writer makes a ton of great points.

[Kat]

Nah, I'll leave it to its own topic...

I don't know why this reviewer feels the need to really attack Zombie on his looks...who cares, its the guys style, so what that he's worth a lot of money and lives in a house, he chooses to look the way he looks because he likes it.

I give props to whoever wrote this, because it was very long and very detailed. But I found it a bore fest, and probably would have skipped right over it, if it weren't posted on the forum.

At this point in Zombie's career, my opinion of him was pretty indifferent. I really only thought of him as a metal icon who made a few horror flicks. In that respect, I didn't exactly hate him, I really had no reason to. As a fan of the genre, I felt he was just capitalizing on his "hardcore" metal image to sell a few movie tickets. But after reading several interviews published in magazines and various websites, I began to realize he was in fact passionate about horror films. In that regard, I gained some respect towards him despite not being a fan. As like much of the horror community, he loved and respected the classics and was openly against the Hollywood horror remake trend. In fact, there were several occasions where he confessed his dislike for remakes.

I sorta feel the same way...however, I wasn't a fan of his first two movies, so felt the Halloween remake would suck even more so then just baseing it on the fact that it was a remake of one of my fav. horror films of all time.

" 'I didn't want him to have a really terrible childhood,' Zombie says, 'nothing that he didn't want to make any excuses for him, because when it comes down to it, 'he's just evil.' "

I didn't get that impression of Myers at all from that film. He had a terrible childhood, and I felt we were meant to feel bad for him.

"I wanted to get a glimpse of his life, but everything that would make him that person is completely unexplainable. You cant go 'oh this happened, so he's like that.' No, the whole point was I wanted to set him in a more lower class situation because it doesn't matter if he grew up in a rich family or a poor family, he's still fucking psycho!

In the original he was from a normal family. A lot of serial killers claim they are a victim of abuse of some sort. Or are from a low class family. Making it different, trying to show that it doesn't matter what class his family is in, would have made more sense if he had made the family rich, with NO problems. In fact, in the original Halloween, I always was under the impression that they weren't rich, but middle class.

"… in pre-production on making the film, I didn't look at anything online or anywhere, because I didn't care. Because you're so focused on what you're trying to do, that it just doesn't matter. The only way to make your movie is you have to have a vision of what you want, and you have to be so single-minded that you don't give a fucking shit what anyone thinks."

Wow! I have two responses for this:
1 - What an asshole! Its a movie, you are SUPPOSED to appeal to fans.
2 - You shouldn't let what other people say get to you, and tick you off. BUT, in this case, perhaps US fans could have helped to make the film better, given him better ideas on what to do, since he obviously didn't know what he was doing.

So is this Zombie's response to the fans who made these films what they are, especially the original? He doesn't "give a fucking shit what anyone thinks"? If this was Zombies own original idea such as House or Devil's Rejects, I'd completely agree. No one should alter visual and story-telling approach for anyone. But we don't have that here. Zombie is given the keys to a well-established franchise that spans over 30 years. All of these films belong to us as fans. We paid to see them, and paid to get sequels made. When you have a franchise like Halloween or any horror series for that matter, the filmmaker should have a responsibility towards the fans who kept it alive. But instead, Zombie has to be, in his own words, "single-minded." Shame on you, Rob Zombie.

GOOD for you!

Mask: How does a mask survive after being buried for 15 years? Latex rots. Its not going to last long being buried under some old floorboards. It would either dry rot and fall apart or the humidity would fuse it into a big gooey latex ball.

I still like the idea of it.

Overall, that article seemed to focus a lot more on Zombie himself, and hating Zombie rather then the major points of why the guy hated the remake...thats cool though...as it is from a page about hating zombie

[nitemarechild]

this dude sucks on so many levels

[Batty Part 2]

Whoops!

Silly me. I thought this was going to be a critique of the movie. Instead, it's some whiny fan boy bitching about metal icons, money, and Rob Zombie working for a living.

My God, that was beyond pointless.

[Jet]

Whoops!

Silly me. I thought this was going to be a critique of the movie. Instead, it's some whiny fan boy bitching about metal icons, money, and Rob Zombie working for a living.

My God, that was beyond pointless.

LOL, such things usually are.

[locdasmoke]

Whoops!

Silly me. I thought this was going to be a critique of the movie. Instead, it's some whiny fan boy bitching about metal icons, money, and Rob Zombie working for a living.

My God, that was beyond pointless.

I co-sign on that Batty!
It's a matter of opinion of what's good and what's not. To this guy and to a lot of y'all here I know this film is a shit fest, but to me and a lot of others the first remake was great and a really good re-imagining of one of the most iconic horror figures in movie history and all that really comes down to is everybody has their own opinions. This guy just spent way too much time writing an essay of whining like a mad fan boy

[hesvor]

I co-sign on that Batty!
It's a matter of opinion of what's good and what's not. To this guy and to a lot of y'all here I know this film is a shit fest, but to me and a lot of others the first remake was great and a really good re-imagining of one of the most iconic horror figures in movie history and all that really comes down to is everybody has their own opinions. This guy just spent way too much time writing an essay of whining like a mad fan boy

i'm with you loc !!!!!
i loved the 1st Halloween remake ! i saw it in the theater and have good memories from that night . i enjoyed the reimaging of MM as well as the backstory .

same thoughts go out to the F13th remake , minus the backstory as there wasn't one .

[bloop]

This guy clearly speaks through a professional background.
If you attend an art school of any kind (which i have), they force you to take tons of classes where you must dissect everything a thousand times and analyze it from all perspectives. Thats exactly what he did, which is very impressive because its done very professionally.
Its not a matter of how much "time he has on his hands", he approached this topic very maturely and created an article based on pure FACTS, rather than opinions. He uses these tactics on something he sounds like he was passionate about, and made an article for fans to read and take into consideration. Its made by a fan for the fans.
I dont necessarily agree with everything this kid states, but dare i insult one of my own?? Thats pretty lame. If he did NOT do his research, then i would not take him seriously. but he clearly did.

[Wraith]

People are still whining about that?Think its time to get a life people.Its only a movie lol