Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud  I wouldn't go as far as to say that Rob Zombie didn't understand the original movie when he made his, I mean all the original elements were there, he just did it with a more exploitative feel over suspense and that was fine by me because instead of being a carbon copy it had its own identity. I really like that movie a lot. As for the sequel, I really need to revisit it in its director's cut, but I recall the first 30 minutes being as good as anything I've seen over the past decade, then once you realise it's a dream and the film then starts off properly it went wrong... horribly wrong! Its downfall included an overly dark look which stopped it from being as atmospheric as the first. In addition there was the casting of his wife as a ghost which imo looked tacky as hell, not to mention pointless, the characterisation of Laurie and Dr. Loomis which made them both REALLY unlikable and also the bearded Michael Myers appearance which I just didn't think worked. So yeah, I had such high expectation for it and really felt it was a huge letdown. |
Yeah 2 was unforgivable.Even Resurrection was better.
Part 1 I didn't say was a bad film, I just don't think he understood the original film or concept. The unknown of Michael and the boogeyman aspect. Someone inexplicably kills for unknown reasons. Michael didn't have a backstory. Hell even Carpenter admitted he was tipsy when he write the brother-sister thing for part 2 and he regretted it. It took away from the horror.
Zombie obviously never got that and apparently thought he was making Friday the 13th meets TCM because that's how it came off. Not bad for a film on its own but horrible film for the Halloween name.