For me, I don't care to humanize Michael Myers. I feel like Michael was in a bad situation that many people who kill claim and it didn't impress me. The reason I love the original is because Michael did start human but just snapped. I find it much scarier that one day this innocent child just snapped, and became something pure evil. It may very well still be mental illness, but we don't know that, and it makes us fear it.
First off, let me say I hate remakes, no matter how good they may turn out to be. I hate the concept and the very idea of them. Narrow-minded? Maybe. Do I give a s**t? Not at all. So, Zombie's Halloween being a remake is a detraction. Had he done something completely different with completely different characters (like
marvelman2006 suggested) would've also been a detraction once they decided to slap the Halloween name on it. You want original? Do original titles and launch your own damn franchise. You wanna do the same? You lost me right there. It's a lose-lose situation for me.
Having said that, Zombie went to Carpenter, who told him to make it his own. And that's what Zombie did. The parts that weren't Zombie's own were the worst for me. Humanizing him was a risky idea but Zombie made it work in spades, imo. It was the creepy kid, the white trash angle, his mom was a wonderful character. Trejo's character was also fantastic (still the best way to show he had no humanity anymore). The sessions between Loomis and Myers (and the mother's visits) were the best parts of the movie and some of the best in the entire franchise. They almost reassured you thast things were going to look up, but then Loomis reminded you that was not the case and then... the nurse getting offed.
Carp went for the boogeyman angle and it was perfect. He didn't start out as human, like you said, because Carp never intended to show him as a human. He went POV in the beginning to create the shock value that it's a kid, but you get nothing more. And that's indeed the scary part. So Carp went for the Unknown.
And Zombie didn't. He deconstructed the character and tried to show us what made him tick or not tick, whatever you prefer). The fact that he was a sociopath as opposed to Carp's psychopath, the masks to hide his true emotions and then the lack of them, the fact that what he wanted this time was Laurie's love in a sick way and not just to kill her. You need to humanize him to tell that story.
Now, you and most (from what I gather) didn't want to be told that story. Fair enough. I didn't NEED to be told that story. I was told a boogeyman story in 1978 and, to be honest, I didn't care much for H2. It was fine, sure, whatever, but to me it's always been H1 and then H3, aka Carpenter's vision of making Halloween-related movies every year. I find Michael to work best as a one-off thing, thus making the character set the standars for Voorhees to imitate and not in turn become a Voorhees ripoff himself.
That is why I liked Zombie's remake. I enjoyed it as a Myers story and as an overall movie, 'cause it's the first one after H1 not to be a blandly directed horror flick. There was vision behind Zombie's direction, his music choices, the editing, everything.
And I looooooooooove the new Laurie, both the actress and the sassier characterization. It's 2007. Jamie's Laurie was perfect for 1978. Scout's was perfect (and very fall-in-loveable, if I may add a more personal note) for 2007.
I don't like they tried to give him powers and all that later, but looking at my favorite films, the original, II, and H20, you can see how he's human but he's completely dead inside now.
Well, see, H20 is still illogical when it comes to how H2 ended. But whatever, it was a reunion kind of even so I give it a pass, even if it screams... well, Scream. Had it not been for Curtis' return it would've been as bad as, say, H4-5, imo. It was just fun.
Only at the end of H20 (ignoring the stupidity that is Resurrection), he maybe reclaims one shred of humanity before Laurie ends him.
Pretty sure Myers was faking it and was going to kill Laurie. She saw that and she wised up, deciding to off him instead.
I went alittle off topic, but I'm just not a fan of MM having this kind of origin. I didn't much care for the white trash angle either, but Zombie has used it to great effect in his previous films and I loved those.
I look at it totally, not in separate angles: To humanize him the way he did, the white trash angle was necessary, not just good.
What I hate is it gets taken to the extreme in H2 for no reason and brings that film way down.
Will get back to you on that after I've seen H2 (I was 10 minutes in yesternight). Suffice it to say, I wished that after Michael attacks Laurie after stabbing Annie, I wanted the story to go to completely different places. I hear H2 does just that, so perhaps I'll like it. The no mask angle is something I'm very excited for.
Also the parts Zombie outright remade just don't hold up to the original. Maybe that is aprt of my problem, the fact I cannot look at Zombie;s film without seeing the original.
I agree. And that's why he made them last far less than in the original. And that's why he had 5-8 more minutes after the "It was the boogeyman" line. He wanted to be done with them quickly and it shows. Another aspect I liked, since (like I said) I hate remakes, so the remade parts where the worst to me.
But his choice of music, the editing, the direction and the whole approach was very unique and told me he had a vision, he wasn't a gun for hire, like the people who remade NoES and F13. It was an overall enjoyable movie to me, not just in terms of what it added or crapped on with regard to the franchise.
Same here!
t:
