XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

baileygiannini Everyone who read my movie review of Halloween (1978), they know that I'm a big fan of the Halloween films. However, Rob Zombie has a very poor ability to create scares and frights, unlike the original, Rob Zombie relied on Shock value with lots of gore to try to strike the fear into horror fans. Sadly, that's not how it always works. Sometimes what we don't see, is scarier than what we do see. He didn't know what to show and what not to show. I remember on the trivia on IMDB, that one of the facts was that Rob Zombie didn't want his remake to go up against Saw IV. In my opinion, if he's afraid to face another filmmaker who makes horror films, then he shouldn't be in the filmmaking industry at all. We need creative filmmakers for us, the audience, in all genres. Not only that, but they need to be brave. The fact that it wasn't released because they were afraid of what might've happened if it had gone up against Saw IV, that means that Zombie isn't as good of a filmmaker that he says he is. If he wants to stay in the film industry, he might want to consider taking some filmmaking classes at a film school. Someone needs to show him how to make a really horrifying film. Carpenter gave Zombie his complete support on remaking the film. After he encouraged him to make it his own, probably not just for him, but for his fans as well, Rob Zombie said the opposite. He said that Carpenter wasn't very supportive, I'm glade that Carpenter shot back an assertive response during an interview. Zombie definitely deserved it. As for the 2007 remake of Halloween, focusing on the film itself, I felt that Zombie could've taken more time to come up with more creative plot points. It could've also used more professional sounding dialogue, all of the swearing seemed to be never ending, all of the adult content could've been taken down a notch or two. My best advice for people who want to see the remake of Halloween, get it on Netflix or amazon streaming. If this film ever comes back to the theaters in the future, don't go to see it, you're only putting money in Zombie's pocket. There's no real thrill ride here. After fifteen to twenty minutes into the movie, you'll begin to realize that Zombie copies pretty much everything that Carpenter had created in the original film. In which shows that Zombie couldn't rely on his own creativity. All in all, 3 & 1/2 stars out of 10.

Michael Myers is the best The reason why I made this account because I want to review the director's cut of both of the Rob Zombie films. I gave the theatrical cut a 5/10 and I got the unrated director's cut of the movie on Christmas. I gave this movie a 7.5/10 because of better story telling, and the script flows well. I still hate the white trash theme of the movie. Yeah I know their is one scene that's uncountable but I ignore that scene. Is it worth buying? It depends if you hate or love the theatrical cut of Halloween (2007). A better version of the film.

brandinfennessy-77531 HALLOWEEN 2007 Dir.: Rob Zombie Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Scout Taylor-Compton 10*s out of 10 Halloween (2007) is, to date, Zombie's best film .. he has since had the wind taken from his sails; his recent cinematic outings have been the types of failures that people and critics alike always accused him of making - although, it seems obvious to me that he's only since fallen apart since this film ....... it's a masterpiece. I said it .. and it's true.. especially in context of how awful the genre, generally, can be. The Carpenter film is mysterious, yes, atmospheric as hell, yes .. but overrated .... now, please don't judge me - I consider myself a major lover of films , aka a true cinephile, and I am not a teenager or a Rob Zombie fanboy .. but this film here, albeit idiosyncratic and purposefully expository, is genius, and a superior film to the original film , whose influence far exceeds its actual greatness; the 1978 film's influence and reputation - whether deserved or not - made up the minds of the remake's audience even before they saw it ... laypeople and critics alike sat down and expected Mr. Zombie to try and emulate Mr. Carpenter ,, but he did not .. he instead made a detailed, hyper-realistic, epic-like, postmodern insta-classic, at least within the genre .. and I always grade in context .... the Zombie remake has its own heart and its own character, and with the brutal, unwieldy, idiosyncratic style that Rob Zombie used to subject audiences to . I've heard a lot of people complain about the backstory here .. they seem to say that too much motivation is given for Michael's 'evil'; they say Zombie humanises him too much with the child abuse, poverty, socio-politics, etc ..... well, all that has been exaggerated by fans of the original and its larger (technically poor) franchise... well, this Michael Myers just isn't quite as existential, lol .. but not much motivation AT ALL is provided by Zombie beyond general child abuse.. and all this remake really suggests is that Michael is a 'perfect storm' of various colliding factors; i.e. nature AND nurture .. Zombie, however, does NOT systematically break down why Michael becomes a killer .. this aspect of the remake I think just serves as the biggest symbol of the two film's differences, and, therefore, laypeople go on and on about it ....... the truth is: it's obvious from the first viewing that not at any time did Zombie want to emulate, or replicate, or rework the original film .. he just took 'Michael Myers' as a big, monstrous, horrifying myth, dissected it/him, then reassembled it/him in a brutal, jagged, and even surreal film - one which is just not meant to be compared to the original film any more than it has to be ... basically, I believe that what the laypeople have seen as unnecessary, detrimental backstory/motivation is just Zombie's hyper-realisitc, ultra-violent 'image' (so to speak) of what Carpenter relays in the original when little, angelic, bloodless Michael snaps and kills his sister -- it's essentially just Zombie's TRANSLATION of that .. not much more .... everything about Michael snapping - at its essence - is as 'out of the blue' as when Michael snaps in the 1978 original. 10*s out of 10

sonnybunz Horrible actors...are you serious? This is embarrassing to even try and stomach your way through. What an utter insult to John Carpenter and Debra Hill. This mess is a who's who of washed up and wanna be actors. The story is ridiculous.. a dysfunctional family? How Psych 101! Very low end high school project work here. A spoon fed script written for an audience of low intelligence. I mean go ahead and rent it for "stupid movie night" for laughs. Apparently the director needs to stick to shtick music and leave classics to the classics.