The Smith's Grove stuff was pure shit. That little kid who plays Michael cannot act whatsoever and McDowell wears the worst wig in the history of film as he phones in his performance. You can literally see him cashing in his check.
Again, the unrated cut. They add some scenes that weren't in the theatrical or the work print. Mainly black and while shots with McDowell voiceovers. It's basically some shots of him standing around in some of the creepier masks that weren't seen in the theatrical. It really adds to the film IMO, because I thought the Smith's Grove sequence was adequate, but lacking.
It's obvious from the casting on the special features that they had better child actors (the kid who played Tommy, while not that much better, kicked Daeg Faerch's ass with his performance in the screen tests) but that Zombie used Faerch because he looks creepier. It's evident that the decision was justified whenever I watched the added VO scenes, with the kid wearing the mask, what direction Zombie took with it and why.
I'm definitely glad they took the grown up Michael Myers dialogue out of it as well, some of the dialogue was used for the actors (Scout-Taylor Compton, specifically) to respond to in the screen tests, and it was utter shit.
I see Zombie's reasoning to use Faerch, but damn, if they would have used the child actor who played Tommy, it would have been a totally different film. They could have used him and made a Norman Batesish type child character, a skinny kid who isn't that intimidating, but could have been believable as a quiet psychopath. Faerch's only good scene was the bathroom scene where he tells the principal "Fuck You." The rest of it I try to forget.
It's by far not a perfect film, but in terms of some of the horror movies I've seen recently, much better than some of the crap Hollywood shits into theatres... mainly because I see some actual decisions and work put into the film. I like the new Halloween, but I'm not about to put it over the Carpenter original. There are some things clicking in it though, and it does succeed on a level.
It's around a 6.5 or 7 IMO.
your opinions on the internet are much different than they are "IRL." And wrong too, the kid that played Tommy was SHIT as Michael, he had no substance whatsoever in those screen tests. He did much better as Tommy, yes, but Daeg did a fucking good job as young Michael. Of course I'm not a super elitist like the rest of you, I don't really think any child actor has been UTTERLY AMAZING in their roles but I thought Daeg did a really nice job, especially when he asks his mom if everyone at home is okay.
Again,
, I can't tell if you lied to me about what you thought about Halloween, or if you just don't want to have differing opinions on the internet. It's pretty goddamn confusing!
And sorry, Zombie's Halloween had much better acting than the original, maybe sans Donald Pleasance. The girl that played Annie in the original had some pretty ham-fisted deliveries, the girl that played Lynda -- good, but she wasn't exactly best supporting actress material, and Jamie Lee Curtis held her own good enough but it's not like her acting was anything unique or legendary. Of course it's the way the parts are written in the original and the remake, she was a slightly different character in both, but how's that bad? Scout Taylor-Compton brought with her an extreme amount of charm and energy to the role. Jamie Lee's Laurie was much more subdued and laid back -- and while that isn't a bad thing, it isn't exactly fantastic character writing either. Pretty sure most of the Halloween remake hate comes from the original being held on such a ridiculously high pedestal. I think it's fucking great too, the original, but seriously come on.
As for the "white trash" stuff, there isn't much of it, and I think it really just comes down to whether or not you prefer it. I don't think it's "bad." Ronnie, to me, had some pretty hilarious dialogue and he did a good job with it. A lot of it is quotable, if you ask me. And he gets a great death scene, too. Speaking of dialogue, again I don't really see how the original had SOOOO MUCH BETTER lines. In fact I think Zombie wrote better, more energetic dialogue. Just my opinion but I can think of a lot of lines from his Halloween while the only shit I can recall from the original is some of the stuff that Loomis says. In NO WAY am I downplaying the original -- it still has far more subtlety and it's creepier and was a landmark horror film for its time. But I'm not sure how Rob's Halloween was supposed to "top it" in those aspects since the original got said aspects perfectly right. Then you may ask, well, what was the point of a remake? And as a Halloween fan, I can answer that pretty easily -- because Michael Myers and the whole mythology is fucking great and all the sequels were pure ass and didn't do it justice. In my mind, Rob Zombie is the first director to come along and respect what John Carpenter did, and simply made a movie that fleshed out those ideas more, and to me it turned out to be the best slasher film SINCE the original. I've seen so many shitty horror movies in my day, and I cannot say this is one of them, especially compared to such gems as BOOGEYMAN or THE GRUDGE.
Before I get labels from a couple of you, know there ARE things I didn't like about it. Just not many. I didn't like Danny Trejo's death, I think it went on a bit too long with the whole head being dunked into the sinkwater, and unlike Bloodwake I don't think the bathroom scene at the school is all that great, even in the DVD commentary Rob Zombie said that Daeg couldn't restrain himself from laughing because he got to say "Fuck you" for the camera a number of times and I think this rather hurts the scene because you can tell he's trying not to laugh. Also, not all the dialogue is great, but I still think it has better dialogue than the original. So yes, I have problems with it but I just don't think it's the mess that everyone claims it is, not even fucking close.
