"I've added a lot more to it, and I've tried to make everything he did be motivated and justified in some way, so it's never random killing for no reason."

This sounds like what they did to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre when they remade it. I think that one of the things that makes Halloween so unsettling is that it WAS violence without reason. One you give someone like Michael Myers a motive, you make an insinuation that he's curable, and I thinks that detracts from the overall unease and morbid chaos that was this character's trademark. It's like in the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre where they said that Leatherface had a skin condition. It used to be that he was a fvcking maniac and he got off by being a ruthless killer and wearing skin. He didn't wear skin to hide his "skin condidtion".

This'll be a tough one. I consider myself a big fan of White/Rob Zombie, but I have recently developed a severe disliking for horror remakes (except for the Hills Have Eyes), but hey, not only did they remake "House of Wax", but they fvcking put Paris Hilton in it, so what do I know?

# Mar 13, 2007 @ 9:05 AM ET | IP Logged

3.75? I wish I'd paid that!

I ended up paying almost $10 to see that garbage in the theatre!

I wanted to go get eye surgery after that.

# Mar 13, 2007 @ 12:17 PM ET | IP Logged

The scene at the beginning when the girl hitchhiker girl shot herself in the head was all I really needed to watch to know that they fxcked Texas Chainsaw Massacre up. I think that the older version with the hitchhiker who turned out to be leatherface's brother cutting himself and smearing blood on the van and shxt was a pretty powerful and intense way to start a movie. And the way they threw it out the window in the remake for a little bit of over-the-top violent shock value was pretty disappointing. And also, the movie isn't that disturbing when they made the kids in the remake out to be a bunch of boozer drug addicts. In the original, they were all on the way to see if their grandfather's grave had been robbed, and in the remake it was just a bunch of fxcking punks on the way to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. By the time the kids got killed in the remake, I felt they actually deserved it. Taking away from the innocence of the kids in the remake affected the whole story. R. Lee Emery was the shxt, though, but it's not enough to save the story.

# Mar 13, 2007 @ 12:51 PM ET | IP Logged

I appreciated the Hills Have Eyes Remake because it was just as unsettling, but, to contradict my previous post, it was full of gratuitous violence, but that's not a bad thing. There's a scene where the freaks break into the family's trailer, right? And this girl is laying on the floor and she reaches up and grabs on of the mutant guys by the leg, like he's going to lose balance or something, and instead of him falling down, he aims his revolver right at her face and pulls the trigger. What was interesting about it though was that the camera didn't change shots. It was like "BLAM" and not one second of it was left to the imagination. Not like the newer movies where the camera cuts away just as you hear the gun go off. This chick's face got blasted and I thought it was a pretty bold scene to shoot. Very unsettling.

And I'm sorry to change direction, but I'm curious. Did anyone out there like the Descent? Honestly?

BTW Last House on the Left rules.

# Mar 13, 2007 @ 1:36 PM ET | IP Logged