User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 250 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 79 out of 250
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 27, 2015
    5
    O filme deveria focar mais nas características dos personagens, e não depender somente de sangue, cenário e gritos, deveria existir também um medo, mas medo tenebroso, mas não medo superficial.
  2. Nov 22, 2014
    6
    I liked the fact that the didn't try to reinvent the wheel with this remake. Certainly not as good as the original but they are two different movies. I enjoyed the extension on the film that showed what happened during Michael Myers years away. It really shows the intensity building. I think Rob Zombie changed just enough of the story to make it enjoyable and didn't try to recreate theI liked the fact that the didn't try to reinvent the wheel with this remake. Certainly not as good as the original but they are two different movies. I enjoyed the extension on the film that showed what happened during Michael Myers years away. It really shows the intensity building. I think Rob Zombie changed just enough of the story to make it enjoyable and didn't try to recreate the greatness of the original film. I'm not touching the sequel though. Expand
  3. Nov 4, 2014
    6
    A great remake of a horror classic! However I do wish there would have been a sequel after resurrection. I didn't want that film to end the original series. This is exactly where the series should have ended.
  4. Jun 9, 2014
    5
    This is not a bad movie, but it plays in the comfort zone of horror movies.

    It's not a problem of execution but a problem of simplicity, the original movie keeps the character of Micheal Myers has a sadistic and cold killer, while this movie gives him a tragic back story that is taken from the "generic back story" book; the problem with this is that it makes Michael an regular
    This is not a bad movie, but it plays in the comfort zone of horror movies.

    It's not a problem of execution but a problem of simplicity, the original movie keeps the character of Micheal Myers has a sadistic and cold killer, while this movie gives him a tragic back story that is taken from the "generic back story" book; the problem with this is that it makes Michael an regular psychopath instead of an unstoppable force like in the original...

    The movie holds very well on it's own however, is well shoot, well acted and well directed; the problems with this movie is that is based on a classic when it didn't need to. I don't blame if somebody likes this movie because it's good, it just has problems when compared to the classic.
    Expand
  5. Mar 21, 2014
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've done reviews on this horror film before I feel like I've done them hundreds of times. Okay. The storyline is decent, the acting is overdone and terrible at times. But it's nothing compared to the sequel. Halloween starts out good, then goes no where. With Scout Taylor Compton screaming like a maniac unrealistically she really is no Laurie Strode compared to Jamie Lee Curtis. The film follows young Michael Myers at a young age. Age: 10 to be precise. He kills his school bully in the woods and he returns home to kill three people.
    One of them is his older sister Judith. The others are his mothers' boyfriend and and his sisters' boyfriend.

    All of this is fine story telling. He gets locked up in a mental institute. Smiths' Grove sanitarium. Dr. Loomis questions him. Days later he kills a nurse while Loomis walks Mrs. Myers out to her car. It is clear that he'll never leave after the security camera captures him. After fast forwarding 15 years later Michael is still is in the sanitarium making his masks. But during a transfer he breaks out and heads to Haddonfield after killing a truck driver at a shop and stealing his jump suit. At this point it all goes down hill. John Carpenters' story is
    repeated. There's only mild differences. The ending is different. But it's not a big difference. Overall only rent Halloween (2007) don't by it. Also the cinematography was to gritty, raw and dark.
    Expand
  6. Jan 11, 2014
    5
    The error in this reboot was making it so violent. There is nothing left to the imagination in this film and the acts of murderous rage almost seem unnatural.
  7. Oct 31, 2013
    6
    A pretty solid remake. I love Michael's prequel back-story and Malcolm McDowell does a good job as Loomis. That being said, I think it was a little too loyal to the original film. I'd have liked to see more originality from it. Other than that, It's certainly worth watching, I'd recommend it.
  8. Oct 17, 2013
    4
    THIS IS WHAT ROB ZOMBIE MADE OF MY FAVOURITE HORROR FILM? Well, this is. This is it. My review of watching a crappy version of Halloween. Director Rob Zombie returns with his reimagining of John Carpenter's classic- Halloween. You must be thinking- is this the same cheap excellent horror? Nope. Not at all. Halloween has 90% more sex than the original and 100% more gore than the original.THIS IS WHAT ROB ZOMBIE MADE OF MY FAVOURITE HORROR FILM? Well, this is. This is it. My review of watching a crappy version of Halloween. Director Rob Zombie returns with his reimagining of John Carpenter's classic- Halloween. You must be thinking- is this the same cheap excellent horror? Nope. Not at all. Halloween has 90% more sex than the original and 100% more gore than the original. Sex and horror work. Well, at least for some movies. Halloween isn't that crappy, ya know. Rob Zombie has great imagination here and does what the trailer promises. It's demons, sex and gore. What we want. The problem with this one is that boobs are not something that makes a slasher movie. This film has so much sexual and bloody issues that Carpenter's cult was wwwaaaaaaaaayyyyy better. Zombie gathers an okay cast but makes a cheesy sex, rock and roll version of Carpenter's classic. Expand
  9. Oct 10, 2013
    4
    Zombie does not succeed here. The movie is a hollow remake of the satisfying original, and doesn't live up to it at all, even in a "remake" kind of way.
  10. Jun 20, 2013
    4
    Finally the retelling of the classic story of a killer escaping a mental asylum and returning to his home town to continue his killing spree. To think that it wouldn't be too hard to remake such a simple idea, but I was surprised in how brutal, and how boring this flick is. I mean wow, is it that hard to make a remake about something that isn't that hard to do. Yet here we got twoFinally the retelling of the classic story of a killer escaping a mental asylum and returning to his home town to continue his killing spree. To think that it wouldn't be too hard to remake such a simple idea, but I was surprised in how brutal, and how boring this flick is. I mean wow, is it that hard to make a remake about something that isn't that hard to do. Yet here we got two different films, the origin part and the remake part. In all honesty the first part is the only part that is somewhat interesting. We sorta get the history of Michael Myers, that he was just a messed up kid in a bad family environment. I'am just inserting my opinion here, but wouldn't be more interesting if he was a messed up child, but had good parents? I don't know, I don't know what the right decision would have been. I am going to say right now what the major problem of this flick is: it's too brutal. To think that a horror movie can be too cruel, but here it's different. The original was great for its subtle killings and camera technique, it's the exact opposite here. Too much violence, and an annoying shaking camera. The only good parts in this movie are the people who play Michael Myers, the kid is pretty creepy, and that Sabertooth guy (Taylor Mane) is pretty bruiting. Expand
  11. Jan 24, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Personally, I like movies in which a murderer kills naked women. Expand
  12. Sep 9, 2012
    5
    Disappointing and dreadful remake of John Carpenter's 1978 original scary movie. Rob Zombie's directing style is offensive and crude, as are the characters that populate this film. On a good note, the film does give the viewer some insight into Michael's background as a child. Other than that, not much going for this film. Not scary, just brutal and full of disgusting language.
  13. Sep 7, 2012
    6
    It was suspenseful and had the eerie creepy horror vibe about it. Pretty stupid, but it is not half bad. Seeing in once a year (maybe) is good enough for me. That kid was a psycho and it was funny.
  14. Oct 13, 2011
    5
    Zombie does well here in trying make a story his own while paying small tribute to the ultimate Carpenter horror classic. The best part of this film is witnessing the origins of Michael Myers. The cast is strong, but ultimately one cannot help but compare this film to Carpenter's version. Though Zombie had no intention of duplicating the original, the audience can't help but to wish forZombie does well here in trying make a story his own while paying small tribute to the ultimate Carpenter horror classic. The best part of this film is witnessing the origins of Michael Myers. The cast is strong, but ultimately one cannot help but compare this film to Carpenter's version. Though Zombie had no intention of duplicating the original, the audience can't help but to wish for more of the same from one of the best horror films ever made. Expand
  15. Sep 25, 2011
    6
    I am surprised that boobs, blood, and gore can actually work in this movie.
  16. Jun 12, 2011
    4
    When I watched the original Halloween I just remember thinking "this needs more boob and blood." Oh wait no I didn't. One thing thats been lost on the horror genre is that we as an audience don't need to see everything. We all have our imaginations and most of the time that can be a whole lot scarier then anything that can be put on screen. I don't need to see every single gory detail ofWhen I watched the original Halloween I just remember thinking "this needs more boob and blood." Oh wait no I didn't. One thing thats been lost on the horror genre is that we as an audience don't need to see everything. We all have our imaginations and most of the time that can be a whole lot scarier then anything that can be put on screen. I don't need to see every single gory detail of the murder just the person being killed by the killer can be scary enough. Also why did we need the rape scene. It did nothing to further the plot except in telling us that Michael got out while two red necks were raping a girl. The theater version didn't have the rape and I didn't have any issues with how he got out. The only positive from this movie is that it does a good job of giving a back story too Michael. But the truth is we didn't need a back story, again no back story is almost scarier. Watch the original its a much better film. Expand
  17. Mar 22, 2011
    4
    After watching so many greatest horror movies of all time, I heard that this remake was made and I haven't even seen it in theaters besides other great movies in 2007. Later, I decided to watch this on Youtube just to look at it. When I saw Michael Myers' parents arguing at each other, I was like, "Did that happen in the 1970s version?", and waited to see Michael kill her sister JudithAfter watching so many greatest horror movies of all time, I heard that this remake was made and I haven't even seen it in theaters besides other great movies in 2007. Later, I decided to watch this on Youtube just to look at it. When I saw Michael Myers' parents arguing at each other, I was like, "Did that happen in the 1970s version?", and waited to see Michael kill her sister Judith Myers(just like that other movie), but When I saw his mother kill herself after seeing Michael killing another person, I stopped watching it and went on to something else.

    I hate to say this, but Rob Zombie just simply failed to put some charm from the original. I mean, some of the scenes have reenactments from the original and Malcolm Mcdowell was the right actor for Dr. Loomis, but the storyline was very confusing, so uninteresting, and boringly dull. I'm sorry, but Rob Zombie would've at least try to make this remake good.

    This movie may not be the worst ever, but its just forgettable.

    At my highest hopes, this one deserves a 4/10 thanks to its reenactments and Malcolm Mcdowell.
    Expand
  18. Feb 15, 2011
    5
    This movie is good if you're just looking for a decent scare, some blood, and enjoy the anticipation of wondering when he'll jump out from behind the door, but it really isn't anything spectacular. The plot was okay at best.
  19. JohnR.
    May 6, 2010
    5
    Rob Zombies attempt at a re-imagining succeeds on some levels, but falls quite short in a few other aspects making this re-imagining/re-telling a dull sit.
  20. ChristianS.
    Aug 8, 2009
    5
    It was ok at best, but the original was far better. I am not a huge fan of Rob Zombie and the acting was below par. the thing that I really liked was when they went deep in how Micheal became more psychotic.
  21. FbFb
    Feb 13, 2009
    6
    Well i thought this was just okay but zombie's best his other movies are just awful house of a 1000 corpses to name one. Anyway the acting was ok but some scenes seem unnessary and violent with a little to much nudity some scenes seemed forced and it lacked suspense just alot of gore. The music was good though. So the movie not terrible but nothing to write home about either.
  22. RobinS
    Mar 17, 2008
    6
    I have to say Mark Bell is spot on. Not the great film it could've been, but certainly not a horrible one (in every sense of the word). It has grit, and doesn't compromise, but the entertainment value is lost in the apathetic world of Michael Myers.
  23. RobertR.
    Jan 18, 2008
    5
    Halloween is clearly unimpressive as it fails to enhance Zombie
  24. EduardoF.
    Nov 29, 2007
    4
    Rob Zombie tried to make Halloween his own and i respect him for that...but in doing so he made a slasher film, that has no atmosphere at all, therefore it isn't scary or even remotely good.
  25. ChadS.
    Nov 21, 2007
    4
    Maybe it's true of "The Devil's Rejects" as well, but here, this unnecessary but not altogether pointless remake of the John Carpenter "classic", unmistakably has that David Lynch touch(one man's misogyny is another man's realism) of unerotic female nudity(an instance of a topless corpse and then there's the girl who's topless and bloody) and overstylized Maybe it's true of "The Devil's Rejects" as well, but here, this unnecessary but not altogether pointless remake of the John Carpenter "classic", unmistakably has that David Lynch touch(one man's misogyny is another man's realism) of unerotic female nudity(an instance of a topless corpse and then there's the girl who's topless and bloody) and overstylized regional-situated dialogue. "Halloween" owes a debt of gratitude to "Blue Velvet". The bloody and topless girl who gets in the way of Michael's warpath is comparable to Isabella Rossellini's full-frontal stagger across Kyle McLachlan's lawn. There's breasts on the screen but you want to look away. In a slasher pic, you accept the blood, you accept the screaming woman in peril, but you shouldn't accept something that looks straight out of a snuff film. What "Halloween" has going for it, however, is the weird white trash energy of Michael Myers' family. Sheri Moon is a very underrated actress. Expand
  26. DanD.
    Oct 6, 2007
    5
    I am going to sit on the fence a little over this film. Mainly because i can as I have seen a number of Rob Zombie films and I have also seen all of the Halloween sequels. Firstly, i think that it was good shot at a backstory by Zombie but I've always had my idea of "Mikey" being a neglected child who did not really get on with anyone in his family. So the trailer trash approach was I am going to sit on the fence a little over this film. Mainly because i can as I have seen a number of Rob Zombie films and I have also seen all of the Halloween sequels. Firstly, i think that it was good shot at a backstory by Zombie but I've always had my idea of "Mikey" being a neglected child who did not really get on with anyone in his family. So the trailer trash approach was a bit different ( and a little to modern for my liking). I have many qualms with the remake though: 1) I wasn't too happy with the size of Myers ( 6'8 is a bit too big and kid of makes it impossible for any of the other characters to realistically stand a chance against him). However, his size does make his strength abilities more viable. i mean, they claim that he can lift more than half a ton for Christ sake!!! 2) Maybe I missed something in the other sequels, but he has never been blonde (its only a subtle but being an avid fan I have to be meticulous about these things). I had this idea that maybe the Zomb man could have started of with his hair being a blonde at a young age, then when it makes the transition into Micheal 15 years later, maybe make his hair a really dark brown which could be significant of his deterioration to psychosis. Expand
  27. MarkB.
    Sep 21, 2007
    4
    Legendary producer and studio head Samuel Goldwyn never uttered wiser words than when he advised Hollywood to, rather than remaking hit movies and trying to make lightning strike twice, instead redo their flops until they get them right. However, two recent terrific remakes (or perhaps more accurately, reimaginings) of legendary works prove that even the best of us aren't right 100% Legendary producer and studio head Samuel Goldwyn never uttered wiser words than when he advised Hollywood to, rather than remaking hit movies and trying to make lightning strike twice, instead redo their flops until they get them right. However, two recent terrific remakes (or perhaps more accurately, reimaginings) of legendary works prove that even the best of us aren't right 100% of the time: last year's Casino Royale, in reinventing the James Bond saga (but keeping it present day rather than returning it to a Cold War time capsule) made 007 far less superhuman and more vulnerable, and thus much closer to Ian Fleming's original conception. And while nobody loves and reveres the 1933 King Kong more than Peter Jackson (who has often admitted in interviews that it's the movie that inspired him to become a filmmaker in the first place), his brilliant 2005 take didn't shy away from correcting its two sorest points: the original's inherent racism and Fay wray's frustrating refusal to acknowledge the big guy as something other than a scary best, much less treat him with even the slightest iota of kindness, let alone affection. It would be nice to report that Rob Zombie's ambitious meditation on John Carpenter's seminal 1978 horror classic joins this worthy duo, but--and this is putting it VERY kindly--the talented horror auteur fails to pull off the hat trick. In trying to flesh out amorphous mad slasher Michael Myers (whose unmasked face is only glimpsed twice onscreen in Carpenter's original) and explain what happened in his childhood to make him the remorseless, unstoppable killing machine he beacame, Zombie succeeds only in trivializing his source material. Fans of this previous efforts, House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects (count me in) will not be surprised to learn that Mikey's troubles germinated from being brought up by a group of foulmouthed, subhuman white-trash rednecks, but they'll be hard pressed not to consider that Zombie's creative well is getting more than a little parched: might I suggest to Zombie that his next horror thriller feature no male characters with hair longer than that worn by Spencer Tracy in any movie he made in 1938? Equally predictably, the scenes that work the most effectively are the ones that most directly parrot Carpenter's original staging (and admittedly his legendary electronic music score sounds dynamite in Dolby stereo!) but Zombie shoots, stabs and amputates his own foot by adding astonishingly unpleasant ultrarealistic carnage and gore to a property that Richard Corliss accurately described in its original run as having as little blood onscreen as an anemic ant...which helped Carpenter, despite the body count, to deliver a wonderful campfire ghost story that was a delicious bit of fun escapism. Even Zombie's most likable characteristic--his frequent casting of 1970s and 80s actors he admires (Sid Haig, Leslie Easterbrook, etc.)--goes for naught; his distasteful, nihilistic use of Dee Wallace, who was so memorably sympathetic in E.T., The Howling and Blake Edwards' 10, made me genuinely angry. Zombie has too much imagination and far too distinctive a voice to be lumped in with all the current torture porn directors, and his apparent intention to unflinchingly depict the psychological and physical pain beneath the surface of Carpenter's original is certainly unique, but to this mind the only viewers who can possibly enjoy two hours of child abuse, unrelenting viscera and Michael's victims pleading with him to finish the job are those who, like Michael himself, cause their neighbors to keep their household pets locked up. The closest thing to a compliment I can bring myself to offer Zombie's Halloween is that it's one of the rarest of birds: a movie whose intentions are intriguing--maybe even honorable--but whose realization of same is so relentlessly scummy and repugnant that many who have experienced it will not want to go six blocks or less near a theater showing it (or, in the near future, a Blockbuster Video renting the DVD) without wanting to take three long hot showers and undergo a thorough delousing afterward. Expand
  28. ChristopherW.
    Sep 13, 2007
    5
    More of an homage, than an actual remake, Halloween is a relatively bloodless thriller despite the fact that it's a pretty bloody movie. It's certainly overlong and takes a long time to get going. Once it does, an actual story never truly develops. It just meanders about as Myers happens upon this person or that person with inevitable results. There is also nobody to cheer for More of an homage, than an actual remake, Halloween is a relatively bloodless thriller despite the fact that it's a pretty bloody movie. It's certainly overlong and takes a long time to get going. Once it does, an actual story never truly develops. It just meanders about as Myers happens upon this person or that person with inevitable results. There is also nobody to cheer for as all the characters seem embued with portents of their own demise. While it does have some style and some technical strengths such as in the editing and photography, overall, Zombie's film left me glaring at my wrist watch. BooHoo! Expand
  29. Kewlkat
    Sep 10, 2007
    6
    No supspense. No terror. No excitement. Just......there. I would have died the first 10 minutes into the film. You know why? Because I would have called Michael BORING, something him and this film have in common. Yeah, there's interesting moments, but that's just what they are. MOMENTS. Nothing happens. Ever. Throughout this ENTIRE 109 minute film, we watch michael- OMG- BEING No supspense. No terror. No excitement. Just......there. I would have died the first 10 minutes into the film. You know why? Because I would have called Michael BORING, something him and this film have in common. Yeah, there's interesting moments, but that's just what they are. MOMENTS. Nothing happens. Ever. Throughout this ENTIRE 109 minute film, we watch michael- OMG- BEING MICHAEL. Next time, when a filmaker tries to remake a classic, remember one thing: TRY TO SURPRISE US. Expand
  30. nic-
    Sep 3, 2007
    6
    Terrible.. trying to put a background and make the viewer try to sympathize with Michael falls flat on its face.
  31. DavidN.
    Sep 2, 2007
    5
    I like the original Halloween movie because it's the only horror movie I can see at 2 in the morning and not be scared. Meaning, this one is scarier.
  32. EliasK.
    Sep 2, 2007
    6
    Maybe I expected too much. Putting a sacred film in the hands of a talented director with respect for the original seemed like a no-brainer. Rob gave it his all I guess, adding an interesting back story (though the opening Myers House scenes with the abusive stepfather seemed a bit over the top) and a much larger body count. But once he were back in Haddonfield that faithful night I felt Maybe I expected too much. Putting a sacred film in the hands of a talented director with respect for the original seemed like a no-brainer. Rob gave it his all I guess, adding an interesting back story (though the opening Myers House scenes with the abusive stepfather seemed a bit over the top) and a much larger body count. But once he were back in Haddonfield that faithful night I felt like he abandoned his fresh approach and simply followed the formula. And honestly, how many times do I have to see some wounded broad, who had been stabbed, crawl away on the floor? That is not scary, it's stupid. Loomis was a bright spot but all the leading ladies lacked everything emotionally except a lust for sex. Their acting was atrocious. My love for the original just got heightened, enhancing it's place as a masterpiece. Nice try though Rob, appreciate the effort. It was good to see Michael back on the big screen nonetheless. Expand
  33. seerightt.
    Aug 30, 2007
    5
    "Adam H." is a fucking shill for the movie studio. Don't believe a word. He probably wrote all 3 of those 10 out of 10 reviews. Jackass.
  34. JDS
    Aug 30, 2007
    6
    Not bad, not good. I was really hoping for something exciting from Zombie and it never happened. Far inferior to the original but certainly one of the better horror remakes from the last couple years.
  35. Matt
    Aug 29, 2007
    4
    I'd write a longwinded review on this movie or i could just completely quote Variety, because it is exactly what i was thinking. i saw the movie, saw that tons of fanboys were praising it and then read Variety. Variety's opinion was on point. the only reason i gave it 4 points, as im sure the same reason that variety gave it 10x my score is that, well, Sherri-Moon Zombie is a I'd write a longwinded review on this movie or i could just completely quote Variety, because it is exactly what i was thinking. i saw the movie, saw that tons of fanboys were praising it and then read Variety. Variety's opinion was on point. the only reason i gave it 4 points, as im sure the same reason that variety gave it 10x my score is that, well, Sherri-Moon Zombie is a fuckin babe. minus her, this movie blows Expand
  36. KeithW
    Aug 28, 2007
    4
    Horrible job by Rob Zombie. I dont know much about Zombie's life, but is he white trash or was his upbringing like that? Honestly, after 3 movies now, You would think RZ could come up with something different. The start and end of the movie are horrendous. And why does the dialogue have to be so bad? Every other word is a curse and some of it is so bad, you just gotta laugh. Horrible job by Rob Zombie. I dont know much about Zombie's life, but is he white trash or was his upbringing like that? Honestly, after 3 movies now, You would think RZ could come up with something different. The start and end of the movie are horrendous. And why does the dialogue have to be so bad? Every other word is a curse and some of it is so bad, you just gotta laugh. Honestly, everything we loved about the original, the character buildup and the suspense of Myers is completely gone. To each his own I guess. Expand
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 18
  2. Negative: 6 out of 18
  1. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    30
    Leaves nothing to the imagination: Michael Myers is always right there in plain sight, committing mayhem sans suspenseful buildup or mystique.
  2. 50
    This is not a good movie but, considering what Halloween has evolved into over the course of seven sequels, it's perhaps better than it has a right to be.
  3. Reviewed by: Mark Bell
    60
    As it stands, he made a noble attempt, and it could've been a Hell of a lot worse, but it's not as great a film as its potential hints at.