list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Halloween on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Halloween/289055/default.aspx Title: Halloween
Year: 2007
Director: Rob Zombie
Plot: The Devil's Rejects director Rob Zombie resurrects one of the most notorious slashers in screen history with this re-imagining of the 1978 John Carpenter classic that spawned numerous sequels and countless imitators. As a child, young Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch) committed one of the most unspeakable crimes imaginable. Subsequently locked in an asylum and placed under the care of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), the hollow-eyed boy grew into an emotionless man determined to escape back to his hometown of Haddonfield and complete the murderous mission that he began so many years back. These days, the long-abandoned Myers house sits decrepit and overgrown on a peaceful suburban street, its boarded windows and rotting wood a silent testament to the slaughter that has haunted Haddonfield for decades. Now Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) is back, and as the children of this typical Midwestern town fill the sidewalks for a fun-filled night of tricks and treats, Haddonfield is about to find out that there is no escape from pure evil. Brad Dourif, William Forsythe, Udo Kier, Dee Wallace, Sheri Moon Zombie, Danny Trejo, and Adrienne Barbeau co-star. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 31
Number of Lists: 26
Number of blog posts: 23
Number of discussion threads: 5
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:10:08 GMTHalloween2007Rob Zombie<a href=/films/230433/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Devil's Rejects</a> director <a href="/players/P___328451/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rob Zombie</a> resurrects one of the most notorious slashers in screen history with this re-imagining of the 1978 <a href="/players/P____84225/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Carpenter</a> classic that spawned numerous sequels and countless imitators. As a child, young Michael Myers (<a href="/players/P___501588/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Daeg Faerch</a>) committed one of the most unspeakable crimes imaginable. Subsequently locked in an asylum and placed under the care of Dr. Loomis (<a href="/players/P____47319/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Malcolm McDowell</a>), the hollow-eyed boy grew into an emotionless man determined to escape back to his hometown of Haddonfield and complete the murderous mission that he began so many years back. These days, the long-abandoned Myers house sits decrepit and overgrown on a peaceful suburban street, its boarded windows and rotting wood a silent testament to the slaughter that has haunted Haddonfield for decades. Now Michael Myers (<a href="/players/P___277100/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Tyler Mane</a>) is back, and as the children of this typical Midwestern town fill the sidewalks for a fun-filled night of tricks and treats, Haddonfield is about to find out that there is no escape from pure evil. <a href="/players/P____19921/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brad Dourif</a>, <a href="/players/P____24374/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Forsythe</a>, <a href="/players/P____38082/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Udo Kier</a>, <a href="/players/P____68458/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dee Wallace</a>, <a href="/players/P___359131/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sheri Moon Zombie</a>, <a href="/players/P____71701/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Danny Trejo</a>, and <a href="/players/P_____3815/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Adrienne Barbeau</a> co-star. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide31Tag Target (>10)262353http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s289055.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Halloween/289055/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/jdpennington/archive/2009/7/13/43034.aspx Post By: jdpennington
Post To: jdpennington Blog
Post Date: 7/13/2009 8:10:08 PM
Body: I'm normally not a fan of re-makes of films that are already considered classics in their own right,but,regardless of wether or not Rob Zombie said yes,if he would have said no then I'm sure they would have made the film with some director that probably does'nt even like the horror genre.I believe Zombie has a love for the genre and for John Carpenters original work,and it shows in this version.You can tell Zombie put alot of thought into the story,re-tracing Micheal's story all the way from his childhood so we can see why Micheal had become the heartless souless killer he is(wich definetly had my curiosity up as I enjoy seeing the origins of any iconic charector)and what motivated him.I loved the film from begining to end and am looking forwward to the next chapter and how it will be told.
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:10:08 GMTjdpenningtonjdpennington Blog7/13/2009 8:10:08 PM I'm normally not a fan of re-makes of films that are already considered classics in their own right,but,regardless of wether or not Rob Zombie said yes,if he would have said no then I'm sure they would have made the film with some director that probably does'nt even like the horror genre.I believe Zombie has a love for the genre and for John Carpenters original work,and it shows in this version.You can tell Zombie put alot of thought into the story,re-tracing Micheal's story all the way from his childhood so we can see why Micheal had become the heartless souless killer he is(wich definetly had my curiosity up as I enjoy seeing the origins of any iconic charector)and what motivated him.I loved the film from begining to end and am looking forwward to the next chapter and how it will be told. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/27/41289.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/27/2009 9:00:44 AM
Body: Though the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:00:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/27/2009 9:00:44 AMThough the third Fast and the Furious installment, Tokyo Drift, wasn’t a huge box office disappointment with its $63 million domestic gross, it was significantly less successful than its predecessors, The Fast and the Furious ($145 million) and 2 Fast 2 Furious ($127 million). A fourth film would normally see an even bigger drop in box office receipts, but next week’s Fast & Furious has a good chance of actually being the highest-grossing film in the series yet, due to the return of original cast members Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordanna Brewster and, most importantly, Vin Diesel. With the expectation that Fast & Furious will be enough of a hit to save the franchise, we take a look at ten other films that similarly kept their respective series going, either because of an increase in profits or a surprising increase in quality, following one or many disappointing installments. Batman Begins (2005) It’s appropriate to begin with the film that has “begins” in the title. Also, this is one of the more obvious examples (it’s also the first in alphabetical order), but it almost seems to count the least, because while it did lift the Batman franchise back up, both in terms of box office and quality, after Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the character isn’t much in line with the previous installments. For all the difference between Burton’s and Schumacher’s pairs of films, they are of the same continuity, for the most part. Still, compared to attempted reboots like Superman Returns and Punisher: War Zone, Batman Begins is a real savior; just imagine if it had failed, and we’d never have gotten The Dark Knight. Goldeneye (1995) and Casino Royale (2006) While Casino Royale is another obvious choice and could very well have been the only James Bond film on this list, it’s worth including Goldeneye, too, because after the disappointing 007 films starring Timothy Dalton, this installment boosted the franchise’s profits way back up and thankfully knocked Moonraker off the highest-grossing-Bond movie throne. Beginning a more action-packed run with new lead Pierce Brosnan, Goldeneye was a terrific addition to the series even if it led to a subsequent drop in quality where spectacle took precedence over story. Fortunately, a decade later Casino Royale came in and saved the franchise once again. Halloween H20 (1998) Thanks in part to the return of Jamie Lee Curtis, who was joined by a crop of young, likable stars including Michelle Williams, Josh Hartnett and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (not to mention LL Cool J), Halloween H20 was a huge success and a huge breath of fresh air after a number of unwatchable (even with Paul Rudd) Halloween sequels. This film did the Superman Returns thing, too (and first), where it jumped back and ignored all the terrible installments, treating them as having never happened. It wasn’t great, but it was better, and for the first time, a Halloween sequel grossed more money than the original (since that time, the remake has replaced H20 at the top). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) Following two adequate but not great Harry Potter adaptations from Chris Columbus, the series got a huge makeover and new life when Alfonso Cuaron took on the third film. Though some of us may think it a tad overrated and not actually as great as the fourth film, Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Azkaban was undeniably important in showing that the franchise could (and would) mature along with its characters. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) It wasn’t necessarily because Heather Langenkamp returned to the series, and it wasn’t necessarily that this second sequel took in so much money (A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge had already out-grossed the original). After a darkly shot and depressingly non-scary sequel, Dream Warriors did the best thing a horror franchise can do (in our opinion): it turned it into a fantasy film that combined the likes of Dungeons and Dragons and superhero movies. Without this refreshing installment, we children of the ‘80s might not have continued following the franchise so enthusiastically. Mission: Impossible III (2006) This J.J. Abrams-directed installment may have been the lowest grossing of the franchise, but it is the best of the three. Coming off the sloppy and confusing disasters that were Brian De Palma’s original and John Woo’s sequel, that may not be saying much, but shockingly it is an exceptional action film. Part of its favor is of course Philip Seymour Hoffman as the villain (and as Ethan Hunt disguised as the villain wearing a Philip Seymour Hoffman mask), but overall the film was more critically lauded than the first two films, and in spite of its being a box office disappointment, M:iI:III may have saved the franchise simply on the merit of its reviews (or, is a fourth installment merely being made because Hollywood has nothing better to do?). Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) and Star Trek: First Contact (1996) Many Trekkies would note that every other installment in the Star Trek franchise saves the series, and it’s generally understood that even-numbered films are always better than odd-numbered. Many Trekkies would also argue therefore that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan should be on this list for initially saving the series following a relatively weak start. But we non-Trek fans have to point to The Voyage Home for bringing in us kids who cared more about humpback whales than space battles. Or, at least that seems to be how this installment managed to become the (still) highest-grossing Trek movie. Unfortunately, there were no sea mammals in any of the subsequent sequels and it wasn’t until the Next Generation TV cast got their own movie (as in, not shared with the original crew) that another installment, First Contact, out-grossed all other sequels (except the always-reigning whale-filled one, of course) and appeared to temporarily save the franchise once again. Later this year, we’ll get to see if J.J. Abrams’ reboot, Star Trek, has any ocean life and/or what it takes to jumpstart the series, too. Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002) It made the least amount of money of the three Star Wars prequels, but Attack of the Clones was the trilogy’s saving grace, because after the “George Lucas ruined my childhood!” disappointments of The Phantom Menace, this second (or fifth?) installment of the franchise got the old fans excited again by alluding to (and leading in the direction of) more characters and events of the original movies, while overall featuring a better plot and more satisfying action. It helped, of course, that Jake Lloyd isn’t in it and that Jar-Jar isn’t quite as prominent. If it hadn’t been so good, many of us would have never bothered with Revenge of the Sith. In a way, it’s to the other two prequels what Empire Strikes Back was to the other films of the first trilogy, though it’s not quite worthy of such a favorable comparison. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/10/16/36398.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 10/16/2008 1:00:43 PM
Body: It hasn’t been terribly uncommon since the late ’60s for musicians to get behind the camera, whether for a straight concert film, a tour documentary or some kind of silly narrative focused on themselves and their bands. Jerry Garcia co-directed The Grateful Dead, Frank Zappa co-directed 200 Motels, The Beatles collectively co-directed The Magical Mystery Tour and separately John, Paul and Ringo has each taken the helm on a film project, some more artsy (John and Yoko’s cinematic collaborations, like Up Your Legs Forever) or less self-focused (Ringo’s Marc Bolan doc, Born to Boogie) than others. Now it’s a little more common for musicians to become directors of fictional films that aren’t so reflexive. Many don’t even have anything to do with music at all. And many are so awful that it’s safe to say the filmmaker should stick to music making. This week, IFC releases the directorial debut of Madonna (Filth and Wisdom), and Beastie Boy Adam Yauch has a new basketball documentary (Gunnin’ for That #1 Spot) hitting stores, so we’d like to celebrate by looking at some other musicians who turned filmmaker, for better or worse. Musician: Ray Manzarek, keyboardist for The Doors Debut Narrative Feature: Love Her Madly (2000) He and Jim Morrison met in film school, so it isn’t too surprising that Manzarek shot a lot of the tour footage that you find on Doors home videos, nor is it too surprising that he’d have greater aspirations as a director. But he really blew it with his first narrative feature, named for one of his band’s songs, which came with the Skinamax-ready tagline, “At the crossroads of art and obsession…waits murder.” Musician: Prince Debut Narrative Feature: Under the Cherry Moon (1986) Following the success of his acting debut in Purple Rain, Prince became attached to star in this black and white period musical and then ended up replacing Mary Lambert as its director. Unfortunately, the Fellini-influenced musician-turned-filmmaker disappointed, and Under the Cherry Moon bombed at the box office. Yet Prince would still go on to helm the concert film Sign o’ the Times and the even less popular Purple Rain sequel, Graffiti Bridge. Musician: Master P Debut Narrative Feature: I’m Bout It (1997) Rapper Master P is probably the most prolific filmmaker on this list, but he’s possibly also the least deserving of directorial work. Most of his movies have been ranked extremely low by IMDb users, yet they must be somewhat popular, as he’s been able to release nine straight-to-video titles since he first shared the director’s chair with Moon Jones for the semi-autobiographical I’m Bout It. His tenth movie, Internet Dating, hits stores December 30. Musician: Bob Dylan Debut Narrative Feature: Renaldo and Clara (1978) Dylan got his directorial feet wet working with D.A. Pennebaker on the doc Eat the Document, and then with this nearly four-hour surreal pic he pretty much drowned himself as a filmmaker. Not only was it poorly reviewed, it also played to mostly empty theaters, resulting in a recut two-hour version that focused primarily on the film’s musical performances. Currently, there is no cut of the film available to fans, though excerpts can be found on a bonus DVD released with a live CD a few years ago. Musician: Neil Young Debut Narrative Feature: Human Highway (1982) Young’s filmmaking alter-ego, “Bernard Shakey”, started off with the CSNY doc Journey Through the Past and has since also continued making films about his old supergroup, most recently with CSNY Deja Vu. But he’s also let a few narrative films slip through, including this weird edge-of-apocalypse tale co-directed by actor Dean Stockwell and featuring the members of Devo. Considering how easily it could be a cult classic today, it’s a shame the film isn’t available on DVD. Young’s more serious fans, though, at least have his so-so rock opera Greendale to enjoy for now. Musician: Rob Zombie, singer of White Zombie Debut Narrative Feature: House of 1000 Corpses (2003) Exactly what you’d expect from a heavy metal star, Rob Zombie entered filmmaking with a violent exploitation horror film. He followed it with the more accessible and more successful sequel The Devil’s Rejects and the more mainstream Halloween remake. It’s still up in the air if he’s better suited for the concert stage or the director’s chair. Musician: Fred Durst, singer for Limp Bizkit Debut Narrative Feature: The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) Many people would have expected something akin to Zombie’s filmmaking style to also come from rap-rocker Durst, but the former Limp Bizkit frontman surprised audiences at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival when he premiered this 1970s-set coming-of-age drama. Even more shocking than its genre and tone, though, was that it isn’t actually completely terrible. However, Durst’s sophomore effort, The Longshots, which opened to poor reviews and poor box office, may be evidence that Durst’s future as a filmmaker isn’t as bright as originally thought. Musician: Ice Cube Debut Narrative Feature: The Players Club (1998) He’s a much better actor than some might have expected or may still give him credit for — even if he sometimes appears in crap like Durst’s The Longshots — but Ice Cube’s filmmaking ability leaves much to be desired, as evidenced with this debut and only feature from the former member of rap group N.W.A. It’s not so awful, though, that he shouldn’t keep trying. He’s certainly not the worst rapper-turned-filmmaker (that might be Master P). Musician: David Byrne, singer/guitarist for Talking Heads Debut Narrative Feature: True Stories (1986) When Byrne’s quirky Warner Bros.-distributed film was released to theaters, it somehow failed to connect with either moviegoers or critics. Since then, it has fortunately become a cult hit, possibly because every film featuring John Goodman eventually catches on with cult audiences (Speed Racer may eventually have its day!). Following this fictional effort, Byrne went on to direct a couple of documentaries, including the arty Ile Aiye (The House of Life) about a Brazilian spirit cult. Musician: Frank Sinatra Debut Narrative Feature: None But the Brave (1965) This might be considered more along the lines of an actor-turned-filmmaker effort, but even during the peak of his movie career, even after he won an Oscar, the “Chairman of the Board” was first and foremost a singer. Sinatra had already produced a number of films, including Ocean’s Eleven, but Warner Bros. was still reluctant to give him his first directing gig. And perhaps the studio should have kept him out of the role, since he apparently didn’t even have the decency and respect to call his Japanese actors by their real names (he reportedly called them all “Freddy”). Though the WWII film was a modest hit, ol’ blue eyes never sat in the director’s chair again, but it’s speculated this has more to do with Sinatra’s wanting less responsibility than the studios’ wanting less racism from their filmmakers. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com10/16/2008 1:00:43 PMIt hasn’t been terribly uncommon since the late ’60s for musicians to get behind the camera, whether for a straight concert film, a tour documentary or some kind of silly narrative focused on themselves and their bands. Jerry Garcia co-directed The Grateful Dead, Frank Zappa co-directed 200 Motels, The Beatles collectively co-directed The Magical Mystery Tour and separately John, Paul and Ringo has each taken the helm on a film project, some more artsy (John and Yoko’s cinematic collaborations, like Up Your Legs Forever) or less self-focused (Ringo’s Marc Bolan doc, Born to Boogie) than others. Now it’s a little more common for musicians to become directors of fictional films that aren’t so reflexive. Many don’t even have anything to do with music at all. And many are so awful that it’s safe to say the filmmaker should stick to music making. This week, IFC releases the directorial debut of Madonna (Filth and Wisdom), and Beastie Boy Adam Yauch has a new basketball documentary (Gunnin’ for That #1 Spot) hitting stores, so we’d like to celebrate by looking at some other musicians who turned filmmaker, for better or worse. Musician: Ray Manzarek, keyboardist for The Doors Debut Narrative Feature: Love Her Madly (2000) He and Jim Morrison met in film school, so it isn’t too surprising that Manzarek shot a lot of the tour footage that you find on Doors home videos, nor is it too surprising that he’d have greater aspirations as a director. But he really blew it with his first narrative feature, named for one of his band’s songs, which came with the Skinamax-ready tagline, “At the crossroads of art and obsession…waits murder.” Musician: Prince Debut Narrative Feature: Under the Cherry Moon (1986) Following the success of his acting debut in Purple Rain, Prince became attached to star in this black and white period musical and then ended up replacing Mary Lambert as its director. Unfortunately, the Fellini-influenced musician-turned-filmmaker disappointed, and Under the Cherry Moon bombed at the box office. Yet Prince would still go on to helm the concert film Sign o’ the Times and the even less popular Purple Rain sequel, Graffiti Bridge. Musician: Master P Debut Narrative Feature: I’m Bout It (1997) Rapper Master P is probably the most prolific filmmaker on this list, but he’s possibly also the least deserving of directorial work. Most of his movies have been ranked extremely low by IMDb users, yet they must be somewhat popular, as he’s been able to release nine straight-to-video titles since he first shared the director’s chair with Moon Jones for the semi-autobiographical I’m Bout It. His tenth movie, Internet Dating, hits stores December 30. Musician: Bob Dylan Debut Narrative Feature: Renaldo and Clara (1978) Dylan got his directorial feet wet working with D.A. Pennebaker on the doc Eat the Document, and then with this nearly four-hour surreal pic he pretty much drowned himself as a filmmaker. Not only was it poorly reviewed, it also played to mostly empty theaters, resulting in a recut two-hour version that focused primarily on the film’s musical performances. Currently, there is no cut of the film available to fans, though excerpts can be found on a bonus DVD released with a live CD a few years ago. Musician: Neil Young Debut Narrative Feature: Human Highway (1982) Young’s filmmaking alter-ego, “Bernard Shakey”, started off with the CSNY doc Journey Through the Past and has since also continued making films about his old supergroup, most recently with CSNY Deja Vu. But he’s also let a few narrative films slip through, including this weird edge-of-apocalypse tale co-directed by actor Dean Stockwell and featuring the members of Devo. Considering how easily it could be a cult classic today, it’s a shame the film isn’t available on DVD. Young’s more serious fans, though, at least have his so-so rock opera Greendale to enjoy for now. Musician: Rob Zombie, singer of White Zombie Debut Narrative Feature: House of 1000 Corpses (2003) Exactly what you’d expect from a heavy metal star, Rob Zombie entered filmmaking with a violent exploitation horror film. He followed it with the more accessible and more successful sequel The Devil’s Rejects and the more mainstream Halloween remake. It’s still up in the air if he’s better suited for the concert stage or the director’s chair. Musician: Fred Durst, singer for Limp Bizkit Debut Narrative Feature: The Education of Charlie Banks (2007) Many people would have expected something akin to Zombie’s filmmaking style to also come from rap-rocker Durst, but the former Limp Bizkit frontman surprised audiences at the 2007 Tribeca Film Festival when he premiered this 1970s-set coming-of-age drama. Even more shocking than its genre and tone, though, was that it isn’t actually completely terrible. However, Durst’s sophomore effort, The Longshots, which opened to poor reviews and poor box office, may be evidence that Durst’s future as a filmmaker isn’t as bright as originally thought. Musician: Ice Cube Debut Narrative Feature: The Players Club (1998) He’s a much better actor than some might have expected or may still give him credit for — even if he sometimes appears in crap like Durst’s The Longshots — but Ice Cube’s filmmaking ability leaves much to be desired, as evidenced with this debut and only feature from the former member of rap group N.W.A. It’s not so awful, though, that he shouldn’t keep trying. He’s certainly not the worst rapper-turned-filmmaker (that might be Master P). Musician: David Byrne, singer/guitarist for Talking Heads Debut Narrative Feature: True Stories (1986) When Byrne’s quirky Warner Bros.-distributed film was released to theaters, it somehow failed to connect with either moviegoers or critics. Since then, it has fortunately become a cult hit, possibly because every film featuring John Goodman eventually catches on with cult audiences (Speed Racer may eventually have its day!). Following this fictional effort, Byrne went on to direct a couple of documentaries, including the arty Ile Aiye (The House of Life) about a Brazilian spirit cult. Musician: Frank Sinatra Debut Narrative Feature: None But the Brave (1965) This might be considered more along the lines of an actor-turned-filmmaker effort, but even during the peak of his movie career, even after he won an Oscar, the “Chairman of the Board” was first and foremost a singer. Sinatra had already produced a number of films, including Ocean’s Eleven, but Warner Bros. was still reluctant to give him his first directing gig. And perhaps the studio should have kept him out of the role, since he apparently didn’t even have the decency and respect to call his Japanese actors by their real names (he reportedly called them all “Freddy”). Though the WWII film was a modest hit, ol’ blue eyes never sat in the director’s chair again, but it’s speculated this has more to do with Sinatra’s wanting less responsibility than the studios’ wanting less racism from their filmmakers. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/ungowa/archive/2008/10/9/36123.aspx Post By: Ungowa
Post To: Ungowa Blog
Post Date: 10/9/2008 7:34:08 PM
Body: The thing I like about Rob Zombie is he is doing this because he wants to. He doesn't need the money, he has a fan base and lets face it, making movies is one of the hardest thing you can put yourself through. Rob does this because he has a passion for it. Nothing is better than taking a journey with a filmmaker that is there purely to share the experience with you. I must admit when I went in to watch this remake I had my doubts, but within minutes I was swept up by the great characters and could not wait to see this new side of a story I thought I already new. Rob really seems to be able to connect with his actors and together they reach levels of intense emotion and a sense of realism that puts you right there in the moment. Sherri Moon Zombie kicked ass in what may be one of her finest moments to date as young Michael's mom. We got to see a new side of her that showed she can really go to those dark places. It would have been real easy to have the audience sympathizing with young Michael and having us root for him like the crew of the Devils Rejects but Rob is able to keep him disturbing and terrifying. I feel it made him more scary as an adult once we saw what he was capable of as a child. The entire cast was incredible and worked well together. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis was a stroke of genius. One would think that seeing Zombies usual suspects here and there would distract but from the story but all are such great actors they keep the plot moving right along. I left the theater in awe. What could have been a disaster is a masterpiece. An excellent addition to the franchise, this installment really complements John Carpenters Classic. Rob Zombie has really proved himself with this one.
]]>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:34:08 GMTUngowaUngowa Blog10/9/2008 7:34:08 PMThe thing I like about Rob Zombie is he is doing this because he wants to. He doesn't need the money, he has a fan base and lets face it, making movies is one of the hardest thing you can put yourself through. Rob does this because he has a passion for it. Nothing is better than taking a journey with a filmmaker that is there purely to share the experience with you. I must admit when I went in to watch this remake I had my doubts, but within minutes I was swept up by the great characters and could not wait to see this new side of a story I thought I already new. Rob really seems to be able to connect with his actors and together they reach levels of intense emotion and a sense of realism that puts you right there in the moment. Sherri Moon Zombie kicked ass in what may be one of her finest moments to date as young Michael's mom. We got to see a new side of her that showed she can really go to those dark places. It would have been real easy to have the audience sympathizing with young Michael and having us root for him like the crew of the Devils Rejects but Rob is able to keep him disturbing and terrifying. I feel it made him more scary as an adult once we saw what he was capable of as a child. The entire cast was incredible and worked well together. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis was a stroke of genius. One would think that seeing Zombies usual suspects here and there would distract but from the story but all are such great actors they keep the plot moving right along. I left the theater in awe. What could have been a disaster is a masterpiece. An excellent addition to the franchise, this installment really complements John Carpenters Classic. Rob Zombie has really proved himself with this one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/ungowa/archive/2008/10/9/36122.aspx Post By: Ungowa
Post To: Ungowa Blog
Post Date: 10/9/2008 7:32:45 PM
Body: The thing I like about Rob Zombie is he is doing this because he wants to. He doesn't need the money, he has a fan base and lets face it, making movies is one of the hardest thing you can put yourself through. Rob does this because he has a passion for it. Nothing is better than taking a journey with a filmmaker that is there purely to share the experience with you. I must admit when I went in to watch this remake I had my doubts, but within minutes I was swept up by the great characters and could not wait to see this new side of a story I thought I already new. Rob really seems to be able to connect with his actors and together they reach levels of intense emotion and a sense of realism that puts you right there in the moment. Sherri Moon Zombie kicked ass in what may be one of her finest moments to date as young Michael's mom. We got to see a new side of her that showed she can really go to those dark places. It would have been real easy to have the audience sympathizing with young Michael and having us root for him like the crew of the Devils Rejects but Rob is able to keep him disturbing and terrifying. I feel it made him more scary as an adult once we saw what he was capable of as a child. The entire cast was incredible and worked well together. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis was a stroke of genius. One would think that seeing Zombies usual suspects here and there would distract but from the story but all are such great actors they keep the plot moving right along. I left the theater in awe. What could have been a disaster is a masterpiece. An excellent addition to the franchise, this installment really complements John Carpenters Classic. Rob Zombie has really proved himself with this one.
]]>Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:32:45 GMTUngowaUngowa Blog10/9/2008 7:32:45 PMThe thing I like about Rob Zombie is he is doing this because he wants to. He doesn't need the money, he has a fan base and lets face it, making movies is one of the hardest thing you can put yourself through. Rob does this because he has a passion for it. Nothing is better than taking a journey with a filmmaker that is there purely to share the experience with you. I must admit when I went in to watch this remake I had my doubts, but within minutes I was swept up by the great characters and could not wait to see this new side of a story I thought I already new. Rob really seems to be able to connect with his actors and together they reach levels of intense emotion and a sense of realism that puts you right there in the moment. Sherri Moon Zombie kicked ass in what may be one of her finest moments to date as young Michael's mom. We got to see a new side of her that showed she can really go to those dark places. It would have been real easy to have the audience sympathizing with young Michael and having us root for him like the crew of the Devils Rejects but Rob is able to keep him disturbing and terrifying. I feel it made him more scary as an adult once we saw what he was capable of as a child. The entire cast was incredible and worked well together. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis was a stroke of genius. One would think that seeing Zombies usual suspects here and there would distract but from the story but all are such great actors they keep the plot moving right along. I left the theater in awe. What could have been a disaster is a masterpiece. An excellent addition to the franchise, this installment really complements John Carpenters Classic. Rob Zombie has really proved himself with this one. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30763.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 4:24:04 PM
Body: Remaking a movie which has already spawned seven sequels is a daunting task. It´s akin to seeing an NBA logo which isn´t Jerry West. The colors are the same, the idea is there but something is different. It doesn´t feel quite right. In the case of Rob Zombie´s remake of John Carpenter´s "Halloween," the characters exist in the universe and the situation is familiar; the artistry and the magic of the original film is lost in a veritable orgy of blood and profanity. Oh yeah, and a William Shatner mask. As a young child, Michael Myers is doted on by a loving mother despite the rest of his world falling around him. He´s harassed at school with pictures of the only person he admires in the world (his mother, who is an exotic dancer); Mom´s live-in lover, Ronny, demeans Michael at every turn; he´s stood up on Halloween by his sister so she can spend "quality" time with her boyfriend. Something inside him snaps, prompting the first of many killings. Many years later, as in the first film, he returns to Haddonfield, Illinois, to pursue the only living member of his family . . . little sister Laurie. The problem with horror films lately is they´re all trying to out-blood each other. The original "Halloween" was more psychological terror than gore terror for one simple reason: director John Carpenter didn´t have the money for elaborate blood effects. He was forced, like Steven Spielberg in "Jaws," to focus on the people inhabiting the movie universe instead of the killing. Yes, death is an important part to these types of movie, but there´s something . . . familiar about the specter of the Grim Reaper today. At first, it appears Zombie is going to delve into the psychology of Michael by showing us the future killer as a kid. What made this child into the adult we all know he will be? That is the more interesting story instead of a rehash of the original. We´re meant to believe Michael has deep mental problems beyond what we see on the screen. Over and above killing a rat in his bedroom, he´s allegedly also murdered other animals which somehow shocks the crap out of his mother. The whole idea of a movie remake is to portray something different, another aspect of the story, as here . . . showing the origin of Michael Myers and where the entire serial killer gene started. As it is, we´re dumped into the middle of the story after any formative behaviors have been etched into Michael´s consciousness. And Zombie, honestly, isn´t terribly concerned with a story. He´s more than content to condense most of the original film, add Michael´s backstory and show gratuitous amounts of blood and nudity. And that´s the rub with "Halloween," the 2007 version. It has no soul, no characters, no reasoning. Nothing. Every human character is nothing more than a placeholder-a body to be slashed, shot, cut, strangled or disemboweled-for a scene of death. The first four or five killings are chilling because Michael is a child. The rest? They get very old very quickly. In some instances, it´s just the stupidity of the people around him that kills (no pun intended) their death scenes. Another, less deadly issue with the film is we never empathize with the characters. We don´t care about any of them, let alone the heroine (Laurie, no spoiler there), who´s introduced far too late in the film to engender anything but an eye roll from the audience. Why does Michael come after her? Because she´s the last living member of his family? Because she´s the only "pure" and "untainted" person he knows? Because he´s an old softie? The script doesn´t care to answer that question. I guess, then, neither should we. Getting back to the (over)abundance of death for a minute. There´s just too many. Period. Every human body introduced on screen is nothing but cannon fodder. Zombie seems to know this, not developing any character to any extent. In fact, characters are dropped wholesale from the story when the script gets tired of them. The sheriff? Taking care of his bleeding daughter, I guess. Not that it´s important. I didn´t count the people who died, but I have to think "Halloween" rivals any other mainstream horror film in these terms. The count is at last sixteen, each with blood spurting out of their bodies. Apart from a nearly sickening reliance on close-ups through most of the film, Zombie´s direction rarely calls attention to itself. In fact, the only time it´s out of place is a canted shot of Michael exiting the mental institute. As with most of the rest of the movie, it just feels wrong. There´s a similar disconnect in the script itself. Long stretches of time pass between any sort of action, especially considering Zombie doesn´t exactly take the subtle approach to storytelling. Frankly, near the end, the audience is silently hoping something happens to differentiate this entry from Carpenter´s. When viewers openly laugh at the supposed dramatic highpoints of the film ("it´s me . . . Samuel" comes to mind), something is seriously amiss. Despite all my critical issues with the film, I find myself coming back to one indisputable fact: I marginally enjoyed the film. Horrible acting (Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie is a train wreck) and a second half with serves as nothing more than Cliffs Notes for the original-and vastly superior-film ruin the experience of this remaining. "Halloween" rates 4 out of 10. It´s bloody, it´s profane, it´s sexual . . . it´s nearly mind-numbing in its desire to do nothing of importance except show sequences of (you guessed it) blood, swearing and sex. It does a disservice to the original just by cribbing the name.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:24:04 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 4:24:04 PMRemaking a movie which has already spawned seven sequels is a daunting task. It&acute;s akin to seeing an NBA logo which isn&acute;t Jerry West. The colors are the same, the idea is there but something is different. It doesn&acute;t feel quite right. In the case of Rob Zombie&acute;s remake of John Carpenter&acute;s "Halloween," the characters exist in the universe and the situation is familiar; the artistry and the magic of the original film is lost in a veritable orgy of blood and profanity. Oh yeah, and a William Shatner mask. As a young child, Michael Myers is doted on by a loving mother despite the rest of his world falling around him. He&acute;s harassed at school with pictures of the only person he admires in the world (his mother, who is an exotic dancer); Mom&acute;s live-in lover, Ronny, demeans Michael at every turn; he&acute;s stood up on Halloween by his sister so she can spend "quality" time with her boyfriend. Something inside him snaps, prompting the first of many killings. Many years later, as in the first film, he returns to Haddonfield, Illinois, to pursue the only living member of his family . . . little sister Laurie. The problem with horror films lately is they&acute;re all trying to out-blood each other. The original "Halloween" was more psychological terror than gore terror for one simple reason: director John Carpenter didn&acute;t have the money for elaborate blood effects. He was forced, like Steven Spielberg in "Jaws," to focus on the people inhabiting the movie universe instead of the killing. Yes, death is an important part to these types of movie, but there&acute;s something . . . familiar about the specter of the Grim Reaper today. At first, it appears Zombie is going to delve into the psychology of Michael by showing us the future killer as a kid. What made this child into the adult we all know he will be? That is the more interesting story instead of a rehash of the original. We&acute;re meant to believe Michael has deep mental problems beyond what we see on the screen. Over and above killing a rat in his bedroom, he&acute;s allegedly also murdered other animals which somehow shocks the crap out of his mother. The whole idea of a movie remake is to portray something different, another aspect of the story, as here . . . showing the origin of Michael Myers and where the entire serial killer gene started. As it is, we&acute;re dumped into the middle of the story after any formative behaviors have been etched into Michael&acute;s consciousness. And Zombie, honestly, isn&acute;t terribly concerned with a story. He&acute;s more than content to condense most of the original film, add Michael&acute;s backstory and show gratuitous amounts of blood and nudity. And that&acute;s the rub with "Halloween," the 2007 version. It has no soul, no characters, no reasoning. Nothing. Every human character is nothing more than a placeholder-a body to be slashed, shot, cut, strangled or disemboweled-for a scene of death. The first four or five killings are chilling because Michael is a child. The rest? They get very old very quickly. In some instances, it&acute;s just the stupidity of the people around him that kills (no pun intended) their death scenes. Another, less deadly issue with the film is we never empathize with the characters. We don&acute;t care about any of them, let alone the heroine (Laurie, no spoiler there), who&acute;s introduced far too late in the film to engender anything but an eye roll from the audience. Why does Michael come after her? Because she&acute;s the last living member of his family? Because she&acute;s the only "pure" and "untainted" person he knows? Because he&acute;s an old softie? The script doesn&acute;t care to answer that question. I guess, then, neither should we. Getting back to the (over)abundance of death for a minute. There&acute;s just too many. Period. Every human body introduced on screen is nothing but cannon fodder. Zombie seems to know this, not developing any character to any extent. In fact, characters are dropped wholesale from the story when the script gets tired of them. The sheriff? Taking care of his bleeding daughter, I guess. Not that it&acute;s important. I didn&acute;t count the people who died, but I have to think "Halloween" rivals any other mainstream horror film in these terms. The count is at last sixteen, each with blood spurting out of their bodies. Apart from a nearly sickening reliance on close-ups through most of the film, Zombie&acute;s direction rarely calls attention to itself. In fact, the only time it&acute;s out of place is a canted shot of Michael exiting the mental institute. As with most of the rest of the movie, it just feels wrong. There&acute;s a similar disconnect in the script itself. Long stretches of time pass between any sort of action, especially considering Zombie doesn&acute;t exactly take the subtle approach to storytelling. Frankly, near the end, the audience is silently hoping something happens to differentiate this entry from Carpenter&acute;s. When viewers openly laugh at the supposed dramatic highpoints of the film ("it&acute;s me . . . Samuel" comes to mind), something is seriously amiss. Despite all my critical issues with the film, I find myself coming back to one indisputable fact: I marginally enjoyed the film. Horrible acting (Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie is a train wreck) and a second half with serves as nothing more than Cliffs Notes for the original-and vastly superior-film ruin the experience of this remaining. "Halloween" rates 4 out of 10. It&acute;s bloody, it&acute;s profane, it&acute;s sexual . . . it&acute;s nearly mind-numbing in its desire to do nothing of importance except show sequences of (you guessed it) blood, swearing and sex. It does a disservice to the original just by cribbing the name. http://www.spout.com/blogs/devomayhan/archive/2008/5/28/30083.aspx Post By: devomayhan
Post To: devomayhan Blog
Post Date: 5/28/2008 12:48:26 PM
Body: The movie was good in the way it was a remake of the oiginal.But Micheal myers dosn't have long hair!He also does not have stitches on his mask!it was a little ok though!
]]>Wed, 28 May 2008 16:48:26 GMTdevomayhandevomayhan Blog5/28/2008 12:48:26 PMThe movie was good in the way it was a remake of the oiginal.But Micheal myers dosn't have long hair!He also does not have stitches on his mask!it was a little ok though! http://www.spout.com/blogs/minjoe/archive/2008/3/7/25964.aspx Post By: minjoe
Post To: minjoe Blog
Post Date: 3/7/2008 4:03:08 PM
Body: Hi, my name is Minjoe and I have a problem with this movie. "What's your problem with it Minjoe?" Ummm, you remember the original correct? "vaguely." Let me refresh you. Michael Myers is institutionalized. We know he kills his sister in the original but we don't know what led up to that night other than him apparently being an evil kid. "Ah yes, I recall. But the remake filled in the gaping plot hole by showing you the man behind the mask and why he became the killer he was." Right, and in theory, that sounds like a good idea. However, you didn't show us the man behind the mask, you showed us the boy--and when you take a character that was great because he was essentially the incarnation of evil and turn him into an angst-filled kid who doesn't have the best home life it takes something away from the film I think. In the original we are left to let our imaginations run wild with why a small child would knife a family member, in the new one we are to presume its because he was a kid who led an incredibly difficult life and snapped. "Yes and that turned him into the evil killing machine that is Michael Myers" ...which brings me to my next point. In the original, the man behind the mask appeared to be an average sized guy who moved and killed completely without sound or mercy. The white mask adequately conveyed the emotionless character who lurked behind it. "Yeah...but isn't that a bit...strange?" Yes. It is a horror movie. Strange, unexplained things are supposed to happen. But apparently in your world, that is not good enough, everything can, and must, be explained. Which is why the unstoppable killer in your remake appears to be a 7 ft tall monster who is anything but silent. Every 5 seconds you could hear his heavy breathing or his grunts--it was wildly distracting. in the original the only time you hear him is when he is breathing and the camera is portraying a first person view point through the killers eyes. Furthermore, the scenes of him showing his long lost little sister pictures and trying to empathize with her behind an emtionless mask came off as, dare I say it, stupid. "Well you're more than welcome to have your opinion, but aren't you glad to have the back story of this invincible killer!?" Ah yes, that brings me to my final point. Michael Myers is invincible. Throughout the original, and countless sequels, he is shot, stabbed, and brutalized in pretty much every way possible and yet he never falls and always comes back for more. "Absolutely, its part of the horror of the character" So would you mind explaining to me, now that you gave us your wonderful back story, how an angsty kid who grew up to be 7 ft tall is also invincible--where is the back story on that one? You seem keen on having an explanation for everything except this, why? In the original the answer was that he was pure evil stalking the earth and we could think about that in any way we choose. After seeing some 12 year old actor picking through candy in the opening scenes and crying about his terrible life, the idea of him becoming invincible for unknown reasons seems a bit--strange... "Well....ummm.....we.....backstory...umm....remake..." Yeah, thats what I thought. But hey, don't get to down. The movie was still filmed pretty decent and the kills were ok I suppose. Chin up buddy, I won't give you a 1 star rating--you'll get a two star for when I "lost interest" over the backstory of Michael Myers. "Thanks for doing that for me, we'll try to come up with better ideas next time..." Thank you. http://movieswithminjoe.blogspot.com
]]>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:03:08 GMTminjoeminjoe Blog3/7/2008 4:03:08 PMHi, my name is Minjoe and I have a problem with this movie. "What's your problem with it Minjoe?" Ummm, you remember the original correct? "vaguely." Let me refresh you. Michael Myers is institutionalized. We know he kills his sister in the original but we don't know what led up to that night other than him apparently being an evil kid. "Ah yes, I recall. But the remake filled in the gaping plot hole by showing you the man behind the mask and why he became the killer he was." Right, and in theory, that sounds like a good idea. However, you didn't show us the man behind the mask, you showed us the boy--and when you take a character that was great because he was essentially the incarnation of evil and turn him into an angst-filled kid who doesn't have the best home life it takes something away from the film I think. In the original we are left to let our imaginations run wild with why a small child would knife a family member, in the new one we are to presume its because he was a kid who led an incredibly difficult life and snapped. "Yes and that turned him into the evil killing machine that is Michael Myers" ...which brings me to my next point. In the original, the man behind the mask appeared to be an average sized guy who moved and killed completely without sound or mercy. The white mask adequately conveyed the emotionless character who lurked behind it. "Yeah...but isn't that a bit...strange?" Yes. It is a horror movie. Strange, unexplained things are supposed to happen. But apparently in your world, that is not good enough, everything can, and must, be explained. Which is why the unstoppable killer in your remake appears to be a 7 ft tall monster who is anything but silent. Every 5 seconds you could hear his heavy breathing or his grunts--it was wildly distracting. in the original the only time you hear him is when he is breathing and the camera is portraying a first person view point through the killers eyes. Furthermore, the scenes of him showing his long lost little sister pictures and trying to empathize with her behind an emtionless mask came off as, dare I say it, stupid. "Well you're more than welcome to have your opinion, but aren't you glad to have the back story of this invincible killer!?" Ah yes, that brings me to my final point. Michael Myers is invincible. Throughout the original, and countless sequels, he is shot, stabbed, and brutalized in pretty much every way possible and yet he never falls and always comes back for more. "Absolutely, its part of the horror of the character" So would you mind explaining to me, now that you gave us your wonderful back story, how an angsty kid who grew up to be 7 ft tall is also invincible--where is the back story on that one? You seem keen on having an explanation for everything except this, why? In the original the answer was that he was pure evil stalking the earth and we could think about that in any way we choose. After seeing some 12 year old actor picking through candy in the opening scenes and crying about his terrible life, the idea of him becoming invincible for unknown reasons seems a bit--strange... "Well....ummm.....we.....backstory...umm....remake..." Yeah, thats what I thought. But hey, don't get to down. The movie was still filmed pretty decent and the kills were ok I suppose. Chin up buddy, I won't give you a 1 star rating--you'll get a two star for when I "lost interest" over the backstory of Michael Myers. "Thanks for doing that for me, we'll try to come up with better ideas next time..." Thank you. http://movieswithminjoe.blogspot.com http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Who_Wants_to_Help_Me_Kill_Michael_Bay/222/24804/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 2/7/2008 2:06:27 AM
Body: Yes, I have to agree that there have been a few very excellent remakes. I really love the 70s Invasion of the Body Snatchers too. Donald Sutherland is just incredible and towards the end when he points and sreeches, I still can't get that image out of my head...shiver (has anyone seen him in the 70s movie, Don't Look Now - I love that little film too). But yes, every once in a while a remake comes along that just blows my socks off. Sometimes I forget that The Thing is a remake, the old movie is kind of cute actually, but the remake is pretty incredible (actually anything that Kurt Russell is in is pretty incredible). Hey I will even admit it, I loved the OLD Black Christmas movie, but I also enjoyed the remake of it. I did enjoy the remake of NOTLD in a way but I didn't like the woman that was the lead. There were even some parts of the remake of Halloween that I liked, but as a WHOLE movie, I didn't care for it at all and don't even compare it to the original. So, every once in a while a good one will come along, but I just wish they would be more original and keep putting out some NEW movies that will blow our socks off.
]]>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:06:27 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 1012/7/2008 2:06:27 AMYes, I have to agree that there have been a few very excellent remakes. I really love the 70s Invasion of the Body Snatchers too. Donald Sutherland is just incredible and towards the end when he points and sreeches, I still can&#39;t get that image out of my head...shiver (has anyone seen him in the 70s movie, Don&#39;t Look Now - I love that little film too). But yes, every once in a while a remake comes along that just blows my socks off. Sometimes I forget that The Thing is a remake, the old movie is kind of cute actually, but the remake is pretty incredible (actually anything that Kurt Russell is in is pretty incredible). Hey I will even admit it, I loved the OLD Black Christmas movie, but I also enjoyed the remake of it. I did enjoy the remake of NOTLD in a way but I didn&#39;t like the woman that was the lead. There were even some parts of the remake of Halloween that I liked, but as a WHOLE movie, I didn&#39;t care for it at all and don&#39;t even compare it to the original. So, every once in a while a good one will come along, but I just wish they would be more original and keep putting out some NEW movies that will blow our socks off. http://www.spout.com/blogs/clownman70360/archive/2008/1/19/24092.aspx Post By: clownman70360
Post To: clownman70360 Blog
Post Date: 1/19/2008 11:15:10 PM
Body: I really love this remake,it was slammin,i got that on 2-discs,unrated dvd.I gonna write a another upcoming horror slasher film for Rob Zombie called:The Massacre House,is about an iron masked,murderous farmer named Massacre is terrorized a group of stranded childhood friends,while they trapped in a locked,isolated farmhouse,it's half The Haunting,half The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,half House of Wax,half High Tension,half Venom,half Wrong Turn,half See No Evil,half Spirit Trap,half The Butcher,half My Little Eye and half Saw,all become mixed.
]]>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:15:10 GMTclownman70360clownman70360 Blog1/19/2008 11:15:10 PMI really love this remake,it was slammin,i got that on 2-discs,unrated dvd.I gonna write a another upcoming horror slasher film for Rob Zombie called:The Massacre House,is about an iron masked,murderous farmer named Massacre is terrorized a group of stranded childhood friends,while they trapped in a locked,isolated farmhouse,it&#39;s half The Haunting,half The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,half House of Wax,half High Tension,half Venom,half Wrong Turn,half See No Evil,half Spirit Trap,half The Butcher,half My Little Eye and half Saw,all become mixed. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/masterpiece/MemberTagFilms.aspxmasterpiece
Number of films tagged: 226

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 215

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:28 GMT226101215Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/remake/MemberTagFilms.aspxremake
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 71

Number of times used: 204

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:44 GMT15671204Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/zombie/MemberTagFilms.aspxzombie
Number of films tagged: 449

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 152

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:55:30 GMT44965152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evil/MemberTagFilms.aspxevil
Number of films tagged: 885

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 79

]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:19:10 GMT8854279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/childhood/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildhood
Number of films tagged: 499

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 93

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:42:53 GMT4993893Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/halloween/MemberTagFilms.aspxhalloween
Number of films tagged: 126

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 33

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:59:54 GMT1262333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/massacre/MemberTagFilms.aspxmassacre
Number of films tagged: 277

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 46

]]>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:55:55 GMT2772146Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stalking/MemberTagFilms.aspxstalking
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 35

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT4901835Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/babysitter/MemberTagFilms.aspxbabysitter
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:53:16 GMT771727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/psychiatrist/MemberTagFilms.aspxpsychiatrist
Number of films tagged: 218

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 15

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT2181115Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/more/MemberTagFilms.aspxmore
Number of films tagged: 10

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 23 May 2008 16:00:14 GMT101010Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dr/MemberTagFilms.aspxdr
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 7

]]>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:24:20 GMT677Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/from/MemberTagFilms.aspxfrom
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:57:22 GMT666Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mask-disguise/MemberTagFilms.aspxmask-disguise
Number of films tagged: 209

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT20966Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/rob/MemberTagFilms.aspxrob
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:04:31 GMT566Tag