That's all folks....well, for now at least.

Thank you so much for the support and encouraging words everyone gave over the past year and a half. I Hate Movie Reviews is taking a sabbatical to explore the idea of making their own videos, web-series, and movies after bashing all the fine filmmakers they bashed. Isn't that all any movie reviewer really wants to do anyways?

Feel free to offer up comments , start discussions, or post reviews of your own. I'll be sure to comment.

Live long and prosper. And watch good movies.

Pulp Freddy

Growing up in the 80’s, there was no other horror figure anyone talked about more than Freddy Kruger. Every Halloween plastic knives on a ratty brown glove and cheap, burnt flesh masks were all the rage. When I was finally introduced to Freddy on VHS, there was something unforgettable about him, something special.

Unforgettable is a word I don’t find myself using when referring to recent horror films. Have you been paying attention to horror films lately? They suck. They are totally forgettable. Final Destination 4? Saw V? The Collector? Come on. The best horror movie that anyone watched in the past year was Paranormal Activity, and while it was good, it has come and gone. (In reality, the best horror movie from last year was The House of The Devil, but I’m sure few of you have heard of it, let alone seen it)

The new nightmare is a stylized update of the 1984 classic, and you know what, it couldn’t hold Wes Craven’s jockstrap. They set out to make the update “darker” than the original, which they accomplished. But darker doesn’t mean the same thing as scary.

So, what’s up with horror?

The original might look old, cheesy, perhaps even fake to young eyes. Then how is it that  current horror movies look considerably more fake to my eyes then the horror movies of the 70’s and 80’s? I’m sure not the first to say it, but more importantly, I hope I’m not the last...

...CGI is killing the horror movie.

Where is the mystery in CGI anymore? A prime example of poor use of CGI is a scene that appears in both the 1984 and the 2010 A Nightmare on Elm St. Asleep in her bed, Nancy is woken up as Freddy seems to liquefy the wall above her bed trying to break through. She wakes up, knocks on the wall, and goes back to sleep. The 1984 version was a special effect. A little bit of “movie magic” if you will. How’d they do that? It looked so real... It was real.  

In the new version they use CGI for the same exact scene. Blah, how boring. We know how you did it, and more importantly, we know it's fake. In Wes Craven’s original, he used special effects, make-up, and lighting, cuts, close-up's, and the audiences' fears to create a modern masterpiece. His story was fresh and original (remember those two things?). He made a real horror movie. The update just gives us an exercise in computer animation, and who need’s that?

I miss the good old days of horror movies. Movies that stayed with you even days after you watched them. Movies that disturbed you because they looked so real. Movies that made you wonder if they were real. Movie’s where exploding body parts were, in fact, a tangible thing that exploded in front of the camera rather then codes that existed on a hard drive somewhere. The problem is people making horror movies these days lack an understanding of where fear comes from. Their answer to everything is “we’ll fix it in post”.

There is no greater computer than our minds, where fear originates. 


A Nightmare on Elm Street, (2010) is a mediocre horror movie at best, put it up against something like The Collector,  it takes the cake. But for now, the bar was set 20, 30 years ago, the classics still reign supreme.

My Vote: I think Freddy is finally dead. No more new nightmares, just reoccurring one’s. Thanks CGI.

The (Harmless) Losers

Another week, another comic book-turned action movie showdown. Kick-Ass caught me off guard last week with its smart genre bending story and the tenacity with which it delivered its satire. I knew I was taking it down a notch for a PG-13 flick, so it was a little adjustment, but I settled in nicely.

“The Losers” are a Special Forces unit, created by DC Comics in the late 60’s, who are betrayed and left for dead. We join them as fugitives stuck in Bolivia... or Costa Rica... or some place like that. They gotta get the bad guy, but to do that - they gotta get that thing, to get that money, so they can save the world... or something like that.

The Losers, as you should infer, is all about “the losers”; Clay, Roque, Pooch, Cougar, and Jake. They've had a long 3^rd world-drug-lord-taking-down history together. They're the quintessential group of military buddies.  Either you’re into that kind of thing, or you’re not. 

This thought prompted me to establish a list of criteria that you must commit to if you want to enjoy this movie.

 #1. You must love ensemble buddy movies.

#2. You must not hold the one-liners against any of said Losers… “Pay back is a bitch”.

#3. You must enjoy cheap set-ups and pay-offs.

#4. You must not get mad at being able to predict just about everything that happens-        Scene for scene, line for line.

#5. You must LOVE the villain - a.k.a. the best character in the movie.

Commit to all 5 of these agreements and you'll walk out of The Losers happy to be alive.

Don't get me wrong.
If there is a sequel, which there will be, I will not see it. 
If someone asks me if they should see this movie, I  will not necessarily umm, "recommend" it. 
But, The Losers is a harmless movie. It’s not claiming to be anything it isn't and I can respect that. A "B-movie" passing as an "A". A choose your own adventure book without the choice.


Don't stop believing.

My Vote: If you have a pre-teen nephew or son or little brother, you’d be the coolest if you took him to see The Losers.

On a side note: My prediction is The Losers is about as good as The Expendables will be, which would be rather…..

The 100 Cheesiest Movie Quotes of All Time

Kick-Ass isn't just a clever title...

After the trailer for Kick-Ass repeatedly made it look like a “Spy Kids” take on comic books I was ready to pass over the cheesy dialog, the warm fuzzy messages about being yourself, and all the truth and justice bullshit for a chance at some comedy down the hall at Death at a Funeral. 

For the most part, I don’t like comic book movies. I’ve never read a comic book cover to cover in my life. The Dark Knight got boring. Watchman was over-rated. 

But something deep within my soul was pulling me towards Kick-Ass. I mean, think of all the jokes I could make about this movie and all the cheese-dicks in the audience. 

I realized quickly that Kick-Ass wasn’t here to mess around. Have you ever heard an 11-year old girl call someone a “cunt”? How bout seen a man cooked in a microwave? And they say Tarantino brings too much violence to the table. Kick-Ass was like Kill Bill for comic book kids… but this movie ain’t for no little kiddies. 

Balls to the wall, campy, ridiculous, unbelievable at times….but so much fun. Violent, obscene, make your mother wonder what kind of kid she raised-fun.

Kick-Ass is adapted from the comic book of the same name created by Mark Millar (even I know that name). It’s about an ordinary kid who decides to become a super hero. No special powers, no million-dollar gadgets. He gets himself a wet suit, practices some lines in the mirror, and POW!-BAM!-ZOOM!, he’s “Kick-Ass”. Nicholas Cage plays “Big Daddy”, a Batman type vigilante with his daughter, “Hit Girl”, played by Chloe Grace Moretz, following closely behind in daddy’s footsteps. Of course there’s a ruthless drug dealing bad guy standing in everybody’s way with absolutely no problem punching a little girl in the mouth... repeatedly. 

I’m not going to get into any of the plot points, it’s too much fun for you to discover on your own. Literally, at times, Kick-Ass had me at the edge of my seat, having no idea what was going to happen next. In a movie like this, I can ask for nothing more.

Kick-Ass is a well-directed movie with action scenes that flow, music that will make your palms sweaty, and it’s funny. Maybe not laugh out loud, quote for weeks funny, but I had a smile on my face more than I didn’t. If you let this movie take you for a ride you’ll be ready to get off by the end, but you’ll be happy you got on board.

My Vote: Surprisingly smart and refreshing. A must see movie for sure.

Getting whacked off on Date Night is never a good thing... or is it?

Phil and Claire Foster, played by Steve Carell and Tina Fey, might be having a good time as they make fun of other people, but they are going through the motions of date night, going through the motions of their marriage. Watching other couples split apart is putting the pressure on the both of them to spice things up before they end up like everyone else.

In a desperate move to liven up their normal Friday night activities, the Foster’s pose as another couple, the Tripplehorn’s, to nab a reservation at the hottest seafood restaurant in town bestowing a Hitchcockian case of the wrong man upon the Foster’s and turning them into the most wanted couple in the Big Apple. The Police, the Mob, and Politicians all need something from them, but the Foster’s are having a hard time figuring out exactly what it is.

Date Night is not a good movie, per se, but it sure is a funny one. Carell and Fey team up and turn a story, one that’s about as original as taking your girl out for dinner and a movie on date night, into something people will be talking about. The twist and turns of the plot are a little tired and in the beginning I became worried that the movies minor pitfalls would become major issues and leave me restless. Thankfully Carell and Fey are masters at their craft and saved the over produced, clichéd story from its self.

James Franco and Mila Kunis are hilarious as the real Tripplehorn's. Mark Wahlberg shows off his Marky Mark muscles while Ray Liotta takes a chance at playing a gangster. Common and Jimmi Simpson play the crooked cops after the Tripplehorn’s and Kristen Wigg and Mark Ruffalo show their faces and help set the story in motion as the perfect couple gone bad. Even Bobby Bottle Service shows up to round out one of the most recognizable casts outside of Valentine's Day.

My Vote: You’ll have a good time at this movie, laughing and forgetting about all the things that go on in your routine day-to-day life. Isn't that what "Date Night" is all about?

Clash of the Titans

Sam Worthington is having a pretty great year as far as actors go.

He came out of nowhere last June when we were introduced to him in the sub-par Terminator Salvation as a half-man half-machine saving the world from Skynet alongside of Christian Bale.

Then the entire world saw him as Jake Sully in the groundbreaking Avatar, a half-man half Na’vi, who tames the beast and saves Pandora.

To round out the trifecta Mr. Worthington stretches his acting capabilities to the limit, playing Perseus in Clash of the Titans, a half mortal, half God, who tames Pegasus and is destined to save Argon.

Apparently casting agents see something in him.

So how does Worthington fair in his third attempt to save the world?

Well, let’s not put this all on him.

I wanted to like this movie, I truly did.  However, I did go into the theatre with lowered expectations; I was not confident that it would hold my attention and keep me entertained. It truly didn’t…even with a head start.

The epic journey of Perseus’ quest to save the Princess and exact his revenge on the Gods who so carelessly took his family from him should jump off the page when read and should be a compelling story to watch on the big screen. While the screenplay may have garnered some smiles from studio execs who recalled growing up with the original, the final product had to leave them feeling betrayed.

There were moments during Clash of the Titans were the CGI looked comparable to the stop-motion of the 1981 original (the scorpions in the desert). Liam Neeson as Zeus looked equally tacky, the light shown off his armor in a way that seemed…out of focus. Maybe in theory that was the thing to do, but I just found it…annoying.

Now lets get real, a $70 million budget wasn’t enough to realize this movie as we can realize it with our imaginations. They should have knocked it down to $30 million, used stop-motion animation, and thrown in some more blood or sex among the Gods, at least then it would have had character, it may have been interesting or even risqué.

The set-up of the 2 hour film is trite, followed by cluttered action scenes, expository dialog, more hard to follow action, blah-blah-blah, a lot of walking/riding and a rather lack-luster climax. The whole film builds up to the release of the Kraken but it was no more a spectacle than what I had seen in the trailer.

Aren’t action adventure stories supposed to be fun and suspenseful? I never once thought to myself; “how the hell are they going to get outta this one”? Clash of the Titans was like a really short, bland, Hobbit-less Lord of the Rings trilogy.

At the 15minute mark of the movie the sound cut out for about two seconds. For two seconds I imagined a world were the God’s had had enough with the mortals portraying them with unimaginative CGI tricks and emotionless dialog and abolished all theatergoers to the lobby… for a refund and a voucher for a free popcorn. Then the sound came back on and Sam Worthington said something cliché.

For two seconds, it was like heaven.

My Vote: This could become an 8-year old boys favorite movie…unless he has seen any other action/adventure movie ever made.

Reason... where we’re going, we don’t need reason….

What’s in a movie title? Whether it’s a Drama or a Romantic Comedy the title of a movie can say a lot...and cause you to love it or hate it before you ever step foot into the theatre.


Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure is simply about Bill and Ted’s most excellent adventure, stupid title... or widely ingenious? It’s not metaphorical or thematic. Five words never said so much. Dude Where’s My Car is another title that gets to it’s point rather quickly. Not that there is a point to that movie, but I digress.

So what does a name like Hot Tub Time Machine say? Well, everything.

If you accept that there is a hot tub that doubles as a time machine than you are willing to accept ANYTHING that comes after. If that’s the case, than Hot Tub Time Machine is the funniest movie you will see all year.

Hot tubs have been around for a long time. Cave men sat in Hot Springs. But the purpose, the origin, or the mystery behind the Hot Tub Time Machine is never explained, and thank GOD for that. There is no reason to care why there is a hot tub that takes us to 1986,  it just does. There is no reason to care why any of these guys are at low point in their lives, they just are. We accept everything because of the title.

This movie will never die. You take a huge risk buy giving your movie a title like this, if it doesn’t work out you’re gonna look like an ass…if it does, your a genius.  Hot Tub Time Machine is the funniest, raunchiest guy movie that I’ve seen in a long time and it stayed honest and true to it’s title. Its must have soft and sentimental moments move along quickly and I don’t see these jokes getting any less funny as time goes by.

And any movie that brings my Cleveland Browns to a Super Bowl is okay in my book.

My Vote: Don’t bring your girlfriend; she’ll realize you’re an idiot…


Kyle Retter - I Hate Movie Reviews

Minor League

I was in a pretty good mood when I walked into She’s Out of My league. When I walked out, well…

Jay Buchental stars as Kirk, an awkward, out of shape Pittsburgh airport TSA agent, which, for some reason is a worse job than shoveling shit at the circus. He is pursued by Molly, played by Alice Eve*, a wealthy party planner with a law degree…who is a lot more attractive in her underwear than Kirk is.

It’s a Rom/Com. Boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy looses girl, boy gets girl back. There is a pretty basic formula for romantic comedies; we all know what is going to happen.

Question: Why do Romantic Comedies keep Hollywood afloat along with Horror movies?

Answer: It’s the characters. It’s how the paint by numbers plot is colored and manipulated that separates a good movie from a bad one.

It’s fair to say they colored inside the lines here, with a very small, bland palate in mind.

Hailed as the “ the funniest movie since The Hangover” and clearly trying to be a “Knocked up and There’s Something about Mary” hybrid, She’s Out of My League manages to be worlds apart from any of those three, and the comparison is an insult of epic proportions. Although they tried and tried, I don’t think I laughed for the first 15 minutes of the movie, it was actually kind of sad.

She’s Out of My League misses the mark by so much, I began to take it personally...I just spent $12 to laugh and someone didn't even care to realize they didn't even have much of a story, let alone a funny one. You’re smart…you'll feel the same way. This movie doesn’t make much sense; it’s unintentionally unintelligent and boring, so much in fact I was almost confused. Why is the weather in Pittsburgh so awesome during Hockey season? Why are these two meant to be together? Why are the obstacles keeping them apart so…weak? Why, why, why…. bother.

There were a few laughs, a couple smiles, but in the end this was just a poor attempt at both Romance and Comedy.

My Vote: If you need to see a loser get the girl, you can do a lot better….see above.

Kyle Retter - I Hate Movie Reviews

*As far as I can tell, Alice Eve is her real name and no, she is not an adult film star, if she was….nevermind.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Sometimes you gotta eat the cheese….

I don’t remember too much of my middle school days besides the fact I was small, wimpy, didn’t play sports, tried to be cool, and my best friend broke my arm…and then laughed about it. Diary of a Wimpy Kid could have been my autobiography….

Greg Heffley has just entered middle school and his mother forces him to create a “journal” to log his trials and tribulations…for when he gets rich and famous and doesn’t have time to answer silly questions. My, oh my how I wish I had one of these now. Not because of all the questions I get asked about my childhood, but so I could laugh at how important middle school was to us at 12 or 13 years old. Never the less, Greg Heffley kept a journal, and it will have to suffice.

I realized, walking out of Wimpy Kid, that the past two movies I’ve seen and reviewed had something very important missing, a central character I could care about. It was refreshing to feel something during a movie besides excited or enchanted (Alice in Wonderland) and bored out of my mind (She’s Out of My League).

I’ll admit, at times I found Greg to be a little bit of a jerk. He throws his best friend under the bus over and over only to seem shocked when the friendship ends. However, his brother is an even bigger jerk, so I sympathized with Greg nonetheless.

For a PG movie I laughed out loud a lot more than I would have predicted. I was proud of Greg and felt bad for him all the while his best friend Rowley kept me in stitches. The series of events are rather exaggerated, but I’m sure that my 7^th grade journal would seem a little exaggerated as well.

Lessons are learned and friendships are made stronger by the end. Most films try to accomplish this very simple task but fail to contain any reason for us to care. Kids are amazing. Sometimes I think they are here more for adults benefit than the other way around. Sweet, funny, and to the point, I wish I saw more movies like this on a regular basis.

My Vote: Superbad for a 10 year old.

Kyle Retter

Ihatemoviereviews.blogspot.com

Alice in Underland?

The usual suspects come together for another trip down the rabbit hole, this time, through Tim Burton’s gothic eye. The Lewis Carol books ( Alice’s Adventure through Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass ) have been adapted for the screen as many times as Beatles songs have been covered by undeserving bands. 

Okay, maybe not that many, but enough. 

The familiar story combines the two books’ characters and follows a young girl, Alice, as she falls down a rabbit hole where she encounters a curious cast of eccentric friends and foes  before waking up from her strange dream and returning home in time for a spot of tea. 

To those familiar with his work, it would appear that Tim Burton was put on this earth for no other reason than to direct a re-make of Walt Disney’s 1951 animated classic, Alice in Wonderland …but he didn’t.

Burton’s goal was to give the story "some framework of emotional grounding" and "to try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events." So instead of a re-make or worse yet, a re-imagination, Burton gives us a Return to Oz* kind of journey back to Wonderland. 

Our once young Alice is now 19 and on the verge of a courtship with Hamish Ascot, a pompous young man with digestion problems. Alice, a wild child for the Victorian era, avoids Mr. Ascots' marriage proposal by once again following the White Rabbit down his rabbit hole, without any recollection of her first escapade down south.

Wonderland, isn’t Wonderland any longer, in fact, it never was. Underland, as it has apparently always been referred to is ruled by the terrible Red Queen. Unbeknownst to Alice, it has been written that she will slay the Jabberwocky- defeating the Red Queen and returning the Crown to the White Queen, thus restoring order in Wonder-eh-hem, Underland, although there is question to whether or not the White Rabbit even lured the correct Alice down the hole in the first place. 

Burton creates a clear goal for Alice, and thus, a story, as opposed to a series of events. However, does he succeed in his attempt to give this story “some framework of emotional grounding?

Yes and no.

I know that’s not really a fair answer, but life ain’t fair, kids.

Halfway through the movie Alice has a Network (1976) moment, claims her individuality, and clues us into the real theme of the story. We’ve all seen it before, but I sure wasn’t expecting something groundbreaking. A kid friendly movie has to reach a wide audience, especially a movie with a $200 million dollar budget, and it will. 

Consequently, my emotional connection to Alice teetered between a-little and not so much, but I ask you, who’s face is it we see filling the movie poster frame? I’ll give you a hint; it doesn’t belong to anyone resembling Goldilocks.  Johnny Depp is the real star of this movie. Depp and Burton team up for the sixth time shaping a character sure to grab the spotlight and garner much of our emotional response. Depp, as always, is impressive, and to be honest, his perfection is almost boring. But Depp isn’t the only big name on this cast list.

There has been talk of how Burton’s wife, Helena Bonham Carter, steals the show from Depp as The Red Queen; indeed her character is rich and fun.  Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen and Stephen Fry round out this all-star cast. In reality, it's not the cast or even the characters that really carry this movie along, but the spectacle Burton creates. 

While the original film is in many ways ominous, thought provoking, and, well, something of a trip, Burton’s vision hardly deserves the same comparison. Released in 3-D and IMAX 3-D (the only way to see a 3-D movie), comparing the 2010 release to the 1951 release is like comparing your home cooking to your mothers; you may call the dish by the same name but they're really worlds apart. 


However, the brush that Burton paints with, the colors on the palate he chooses, the characters he helps to embellish, and the score Danny Elfman orchestrated produces a fantasy spectacle worthy of anyone's two hours.

My Vote: Sliding into the # 6 spot on the All Time Opening Weekends list, it would appear that my vote really wouldn’t count.

* Return to Oz from 1985 tells the tale of Dorothy returning to Oz 6 months after her initial departure. There’s no Emerald city and there are people with wheels where their hands should be. It’s not pretty, but it’s pretty scary.  

On DVD...

The Invention of Lying-

The Invention of Lying was written, directed and stars Ricky Gervais as Mark Bellison, a man living in a world that knows no lies. When Mark comes up short on his rent he invents a lie and attempts to control his future and get the girl of his dreams. Mark is a failing screenwriter which is rather ironic given the flimsy story that unfolds in front of us.

My Vote: Skip this high concept comedy and check out Ghost Town, a funnier, smarter film from last year.

The Cove

Nominated for Best Documentary Feature at this years Oscars, The Cove shows us the slaughtering of dolphins for high profits and Dolphin meat. Suspenseful and heartbreaking, The Cove is sure to move audiences. Some images may be too much for animal lovers to take, but the truth often stings.

My Vote: A well-made Documentary with a clear agenda.

Cop Out

As the credits rolled at the end of Cop Out the group of kids* in front of me proclaimed “that shit was awesome, hilarious…now lets go smoke another bowl* ”.

I knew I forgot to do something before I left the house.

Cop Out stars Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan as Jimmy and Paul, 2 New York City cops who have been partners for 9 years! Yeah, 9 years! I only mention this because it was the first thing we find out about the two and I'm not sure why. One of the first things they teach you as a screenwriter (so I’m told) is not to come out and state simple expository information like “ gee Martha, how long is it that we’ve been married, 40 years?”, but that’s just what you get. I guess screenwriters Mark and Robb Cullen, both television producers by trade, were setting a tone. The story unfolds like a poorly drawn cop show, but as luck would have it we don't have the option of changing the channel.

The gimmick here is Paul (Tracy Morgan) likes to pay homage to every kind of movie he's seen, while doing his cop thing. This offered some funny moments but unfortunately it was overdone in the very first scene. Like Paul, we can also then assume that Cop Out is attempting to pay homage to buddy cop films of yester-year but it lacks the one thing that all old buddy cop films possessed.

Heart.

Now, I feel kind of silly as I write that, but there was something special about movies like Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop even Turner & Hooch…..While Cop Out tries to have fun with the buddy cop genre the only two that are having any real fun are the Cullen brothers…as they laugh all the way to the bank.

And yet, I don’t think they're entirely to blame. It’s all about execution, right?

Kevin Smith takes on his first director-for-hire endeavor and I was less than impressed. Now any real fan of Smith is less than concerned with Mise- en-scene, I’m sure, but at least try to use the film camera as more than a recording device. I was hoping that not having the daunting task of writing AND directing would allow him to flex his directing chops a little bit and grow as a filmmaker here, but it didn’t.

I think he decided to throw in the towel when Watchmen came out on Blu-Ray.

Smith’s early stuff was so on point. Chasing Amy, I think, is an absolutely wonderful movie that everyone should see. Clerks is decent, and has an inspiring story behind it*, and Mallrats and Dogma are interesting and funny flicks. An evening with Kevin Smith cracks me up more than most comedies that come out every year. A fat nerd who loves movies and poop and dick jokes turned himself into an icon (really, people worship Kevin Smith on a level I don’t understand). Lately though, Smith has come across as a big Hollywood pussy (I mean no disrespect Mr. Smith, cause I respect you… and I would be happy to purchase you lunch and watch you eat it if you’ll let me) and the past 10 years has been rather disappointing.

My Vote- You know how when someone drives a shitty car they always smirk and say “it gets me from point A to point B”. Cop Out is kinda like Kevin Smith’s shitty car.

*17 or 18 year olds…unfortunately these are kids to me now.
**They were high on drugs you nerds.
***Smith financed Clerks on his credit card for something like $27,000.

Halloween (1978) vs. Halloween (2007) The Changing Face of Horror

Much of the allure to horror films is the same allure that draws us to the cinema in the first place; we get to see our collective fears, anxieties, desires, and subconscious feelings played out in front of us, but without having to actually deal with them. This is much like what happens in our dreams. Horror films take on the specific task of calling to our fears about death and the after life. Horror films speak to us in the same way a car wreck on the highway does; we don’t want to look, but we have to, mainly because we are curious, but also, and more understandably, it forces us to put things in perspective.

Throughout cinemas short history it seems that horror films have never fully received their due credit either from critics or box office success (of the top 50 highest grossing movies of all time, only two, The Sixth Sense and Jaws make the list at 32 and 45 respectively); yet they remain to be part of the Hollywood staple. It can be argued that the horror genre is powerful, relevant, and deserves to be discussed amongst other great films throughout cinema’s history. The horror genre, much like other genres, has gone through a transformation over the past 30 years. It seems, much to my disliking, that the horror genre has regressed and is danger of returning to place of insignificance within the critical film world.

In this posting I will be exploring the changing face of horror, both literally and figuratively, by comparing John Carpenters 1978 film, Halloween to its remake, Rob Zombie’s 2007 Halloween. I will attempt to explain how the 1978 film is, in both theory and practice, an affective piece of filmmaking while the 2007 version has fallen into the same trap that most post-modernist films stumble upon and that the knowledge and deconstruction of the original text has drastically changed the meaning of the new text and therefore has become an ineffective piece of filmmaking. It is my contention that Halloween (2007) failed in its attempt to horrify audiences due to its self-conscience approach to the new text.

In October of 1978 a new kind of evil was born. Pure evil. “The Shape”, more commonly referred to as Michael Myers is the masked stalker and arguably the star of John Carpenters horror classic Halloween. Carpenter envisioned a monster that had no purpose, other than to be evil. “The Shape”, as he saw it, was the physically embodiment of evil, darkness, The Devil himself (Muir, 79). Halloween struck a cord with its audience and can’t be dismissed as purely a teenage “slasher” film. In 2007 Rob Zombie, a musician and horror enthusiast turned director followed up his filmmaking debut of House of 1,000 corpses (2003) and The Devils Rejects (2005) and attempted to re-create and re-imagine Halloween, a series that had become laughable to most viewers after spawning 8 sequels spanning three decades.

While Carpenters original film employs conventional genre tactics it’s his use of camera movement, careful camera placement, and his eerie original score that helped to create an atmosphere of suspense. In complete opposition to the original, Zombies “re-imagination” of the film gives us all the answers to the questions that made the original such a haunting experience, while neglecting the deliberate construction of the mis-en-scene that made the original so magical.

The first example of this can be seen when comparing the opening scenes of both pictures. In the 1978 version the credits roll over the theme music composed by John Carpenter himself and sets the melo-dramatic mood for the film. We descend upon the suburban town of Haddonfield, IL on Halloween night, 1963. We are presented with a point-of-view shot (POV) via a hand-held camera of someone watching a teenage boy and girl kissing on a couch and then ascending to the second floor, seemingly to engage in what can only be interpreted as some form of sexual act. As an upstairs light is turned off, a piercing piano riff fills our ears.

As we follow the POV shot a hand reaches into a kitchen drawer and pulls out a large butcher knife and soon after puts on a clown mask left behind by the teenagers. As we follow the character up the stairs and into the bedroom we see, through the eyes of a clown mask, a knife appearing and disappearing in a stabbing motion, however, we never see the actual piercing of the flesh, leaving the real horror to the imagination. After the victim expires, we continue with a POV shot down the stairs and into the front yard where we initially started the scene. The camera finally shows us the face of the killer; an 8 year old Michael Myers. A crane shot closes the scene as it pulls away from the quite suburban home.

In contrast, the 2007 version opens with a much different agenda in mind. We are presented with a quote from Dr. Samuel Loomis who was established in the original film as Michael Myers’ failed psychologist. The quote reads “The darkest souls are not those which choose to exist within the hell of the abyss, but those which choose to break free from the abyss and move silently among us”. The title card slams in and rock music swells over a crane shot of an unkempt suburban home. We cut to an extreme close-up of a rat in a cage and a young boy, presumably Michael Myers and later identified as such, in a clown mask looking over the rat. We then cut to the Myers family preparing breakfast in the kitchen. In this scene we are presented with a vulgar and highly dysfunctional family. The mother is established as a stripper, the sister, a foul-mouthed scantily clad teenager, and (presumably) the stepfather who is presented as less than human as he makes fun of Michael and questioning the young boy’s manhood in front of his mother. We then cut to Michael, still wearing the clown mask, washing the blood from his hands after killing his pet rat. Later at breakfast, the stepfather threatens a young Michael with physical violence.

Comparing the opening scenes in each movie offers us a considerable amount of insight into how we interpret the horror genre and what constitutes as horror in the new millennium. Lets first try to understand the opening scenes of the 2007 version.

First, we open with a quote from a fictional character that plays an integral role in the film we are about to view. In essence, it’s fiction commenting on fiction, something that can only really be understood with an understanding of the original 1978 film. While assuming that the audience is fully aware of whom Dr. Loomis is we must also assume that the audience is aware of who Michael Myers is and what he represents. Moving forward we are presented with a dysfunctional look at the Myers household. The Myers family can be summed up by as the stereotypical “white-trash” or “trailer-trash” family that has become a common archetype in American culture. Everyone in the family has some kind of identifiable problem that presents them as inferior to the audience. The Stepfather is a vulgar, unemployed, middle-aged man with no respect for anything. The Mother is a stripper, an occupation that is generally looked down upon, and the sister is the archetypal unruly teen. They live in a filthy home, lead stereotypically filthy lives and in general do filthy things. Young Michael, in essence, is a rat trapped in a cage. This portrayal is in direct opposition with the family that is portrayed briefly in the 1978 film.

In the 1978 version, at the end of the opening scene, we see Michael’s parents, presumably driving a new vehicle returning to their well-kempt home after presumably attending some kind of social function. This portrayal of the family would generally fit into the “normal” standards of 1978’s culture and equally in 2007’s culture. This raises a question as to why Zombie would decide to present us with a completely different world 29 years later.

Let me digress for a moment. Generally speaking, movies tend to tap into cultural fears of the time in which it was made. Most notably this is seen within the Sci-Fi genre, with remakes of movies like War of the Worlds (Spielberg, 2005) and The Day the Earth Stood Still (Derrickson, 2008) updating their general themes to reflect the modern problems society faces today. Horror, however, seems to be updating their remakes with a much different rational in mind. They assume once again that the audience is familiar with the original text and it seems that the re-make becomes not a remake or “re-boot” per-se, but an explanation or a defense against the original text, possibly do to our post-Columbine anxieties. During my critical analysis of Halloween 2007, this fact became painfully obvious.

Zombie presents Michael Myers as the victim in his remake. It seems that Zombie is encouraging us to sympathize with the killer, and how can we not? In the re-make, the Myers family, as noted earlier, is the archetypal dysfunctional family. We are left to assume that Michael has an overall unhealthy view of the world. As a result he decides to hide behind a mask and kill rats and neighborhood cats. All these action are justifiable based on his environment. During the first act, he is bullied at school, and later, gets his revenge by beating the bully to death with a tree branch on his way home from school. Given the events preceding this action it is obvious why this child is acting out the way he is. Which begs the question, what is the desired response the filmmaker is attempting to elicit from the audience? Is this a call to action in order to initiate better parenting? Let it be noted, the set-up of the original film presents us with a problem and no answers, little Michael is a killer, and there is no obvious reason why. The re-make presents us with all the answers to the problems we already knew, or imagined existed, a prime example of self-conscience filmmaking.

In The Films of John Carpenter, Muir notes that some critics “persist in seeing the film (Halloween, 1978) as a despicable, albeit stylish, exercise in horror because of Carpenter’s adoption of the point-of-view, subjective camera”. He goes on to say that “ the long-held argument insists that this technique puts the audience in the position of (being) Michael Myers…some critics consider this a bad thing, claiming that is causes one to identify with the violence and even become numb to it”. Carpenter, with the initial point of view shot of Michael put the audience in the position of the killer, allowing us to sympathize with him once we realize it is not the brute stalker we are expecting, but a young boy. However, without a critical analysis of the scene, I would assume that most viewers are unaware that the felt any sympathy towards the killer. Zombie, however, makes us undeniably aware that we are supposed to sympathize with him. He is asking you to sympathize with Michael, pleading with you. Carpenter cleverly makes you sympathize with the killer by figuratively putting the knife in your hands with his POV shot, but in contrast he then spends the rest of the movie explaining to you and showing you why you shouldn’t sympathize with Myers through Dr. Loomis’ constant warnings of what Michael Myers is; pure evil

Suspense also seems to be missing from the remake. When making the choice to see a horror film, you intuitively know what to expect, you have been conditioned, either by the filmmaker in the set-up or by watching other horror films. Through music, in Halloween (1978), we know something bad will happen but we are unaware of where, when, and how. When we are presented with the answers, we are satisfied, because we were right, and while the remake may give you the same feeling because of the texts that precede it, I would argue that it fails at something far more important; making you care about the victims. Those killed in the original are not bad people (or canine’s). Halloween takes place in the comfort and security of a suburban town, Anywhere, USA and its victims are the everyday-teenager. It has been argued by critics that Carpenters message was that “bad” teens would die (all the teens that are killed in the original after being “irresponsible”) except for Laurie Strode, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, an innocent teen. In the remake, everyone who dies is associated in some way with bad people, either directly or indirectly, and even Laurie, (who in the remake is identified as Michael’s sister while in the original this isn’t brought to light until Halloween II, 1980 in order to reap financial benefits ) in the remake is not portrayed as the sweet and innocent girl that Carpenter depicts. He gives Michael a purpose and a reason for everything he does. In the original, he just wanted to kill.

Suspense is also lost with Zombie’s camera use. Carpenter, as stated earlier, only employs the POV shot in the opening scene for a specific purpose, and uses long sweeping shots (and subtle everyday dialog) to establish the scene and his characters. Zombie, however, uses generic camera techniques like the extreme close up shots and choppy “MTV style” editing approach which changes the whole dynamic of “Halloween”, as the remake comes across as more of a Michael Myers bio-pic than a horror film. Instead of setting up the scene and carefully showing you in the beginning of the film things that will come into play during the climax i.e. the long empty streets of Haddonfield and the distance between homes, the stalking voyeur that is Michael Myers, like Carpenter does, Zombie’s only goal is to set up the justified killing by a monster with clear motives. There is far less a sense of discovery and fear in the re-make. One of the biggest differences between an average filmmaker and a great filmmaker is their ability to make you feel and think what they want you to feel and think without you ever realizing that you are being totally manipulated. Carpenter is able to do this through his subtle use of the camera and music, while Zombie’s intentions are painfully obvious from the jump.

Yet another major difference between these two films and generally speaking, in recent horror movies, is the literal changing face of the monster. Horror stories are specific in their structure; the fear of the unknown, discovery, transformation, proof that the “other” exists, and so on. Carpenter is much more concerned with the classical structure. Michael is seen lurking in dark corners, his face hidden, a voyeur plotting his next victims demise. His face is only seen as a young boys face, and barley shown in the shadows for about a total of 4 seconds as an adult, where we are tricked into believing this is a normal human that can be defeated. Carpenter in fact, does his best to hide the William Shattner mask that serves as Michael’s face and is never explained in depth as to what purpose it serves. Zombie, and the new age of horror, is far more concerned with the justification of the killer. The star of the show is no longer the “final girl” as it seems to have been in the late 70’s and early 80’s, but the killer. Not only does the killer now receive more back-story and attention to the questions of why he or she is the killer, but they receive ample “face-time” as well, thus, taking away from the actual shock and climatic feeling in the third act.

In 2007’s Halloween, Myers goes from being an average twenty something man that he was in the original, to a beast, an unusual specimen to say the least. The original Michael Myers was all of 6 feet 180 lbs, seemingly very average, but yet he could not be killed. In the remake, Zombie cast Tayler Mane, a former professional wrestler who stands an astonishing 6 feet 9 inches and weighs over 275 lbs. For Zombie, and this re-imagination, the new face of horror seems to be a “bigger, stronger, faster” mentality suggesting that an average man could not be feared any longer and that society somehow plays an intrical role in creating monsters like Michael Myers.

Recent filmmakers, based on my understanding of the horror genre have missed the point of horror all together. It can be assumed that in a post-Columbine world there is a great deal of fear surrounding the questions as to why someone chooses to maim, rape, and kill. The ultimate horror, however, will always remain in what cannot be explained, what is unknown. Hopefully, for the sake of horror and filmgoers, this trend will fade and we will make a conscience shift back to a time when horror films were actually terrifying.