Halloween (2007)

The film’s first act is simply a huge version of the 1978 classic’s opening scene; following Michael Myers as a child through his first murder(s). Though many people found this tedious and far too drawn-out, personally I relished the opportunity to get more than a half a minute of character-development on the antagonist. In fact, we don’t only get to see Michael growing up and being arrested, the film then goes on to show us his evolution in a mental asylum. Once again, I know that was less than appreciated by quite a number of people who saw the film, but I find the sequence fascinating every time I watch the movie. Things like the relevance of the mask and kitchen knife are explored more deeply than the original, and the brutality of the character of Michael Myers is more striking. Though this is not considered good to hardcore fans of the silent bogeyman-characteristics from the original.
The protagonist of the piece is a character by the name of Laurie Strode, just as she is in the John Carpenter version, and she has two similar off-siders as the original (one of whom is portrayed by Danielle Harris of _Halloween 4_ & _5_ fame). Where the film does not advance in comparison to its predecessor is the dialogue between these three characters. They use virtually identical language to that of the 1978 film, which felt outdated and artificial even then (I can only hope that this was an intentional throwback by Mr. Zombie).
The Ahab to Laurie Strode is Doctor Loomis, Michael Myers’ psychologist, acted by the consistently fantastic Malcolm McDowell. I believe it is his performance that makes me appreciate Rob Zombie’s remake so much. He steals every scene he is in with his overwhelming presence, particularly in the Zone 2 theatrical version of the film (which to my knowledge is unfortunately not available in Australia).
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

Well it has Malcolm McDowell, and he delivers in the master of accents kind of way.
But....1 star for being a reboot, out of principal, especially a reboot of a slasher film that, well, I always thought the deal with those was to keep adding and adding until you have to look up the Roman Numerals in Encyclopedias to make sure you're numbering them right.
"Halloween MCMLXXVIII: This Time it's Easter," You know, that sort of thing.
But we will add one for Malcolm McDowell just because, yeah, he delivers.
So two stars: ** And then it seems like Zombies idea was to show a lot of nudity and especially a lot of naked women getting killed by a horrible male monster after committing the sin of fornication.
So three stars: *** And that is because he MIGHT--with a really big stretch on that--have been trying to do a satire thing of the slasher genre with all the naked murdered women.
But...he could have also been going for mainstream snuff porn.
I'm honestly not sure which way to go on this one...so We are back to two stars: ** Just because it really might not have been an attempt at satire and I sort of want to be sure.
And we can't add any more because well...
It was already made and when it came around in 1978 it was moody and atmospheric and, well, it really looked a lot like Halloween, only a nightmare version of it.
Zombie's remake feels more like a cheap version of Halloween and really, the outdoor shots that are supposed to give you the seasonal feel remind me more of Thanksgiving pick-up football games. They look and feel less like a nightmare version of Halloween than Season of the Witch's small Southern Town atmosphere.
And the horror parts, really, ANY slasher movie and, by the way, since when was Halloween about T&A? I thought Friday the 13th owned that stereotype and we went to Halloween for, you know, atmosphere and scares...at least in the first 2 films.
So really, I guess my point is that it has Malcolm McDowell and that is slightly redeeming. He's always fun to watch...even in his bad movies...like this one.