TeresofBlood

I went into this film with no expectations whatsoever. I had a very vague idea of what the story was. And while I enjoyed the film, it is plagued by mediocrity at every turn, so much so that by the end, you are almost taken completely out of the film, because you're tired of waiting for it to get good.

The biggest problem lies in the script. The characters are all one-dimensional. At no point do we feel like we know anything about anyone. This is frustrating in a film that wants us to be scared. We can't be scared if we don't identify with our characters. The dialogue is also inane and incredibly bland. There isn't a single flair of writerly wit in the entire script. Every exchange feels as if it was rushed through by the writer, never developing the dialogue beyond the purpose of getting from A to B.

Speaking of bland, the visual style of the film is very bleak and one-note. The film sports a dull gray look, that borders on black and white, throughout the entire film. It gets very boring to look at. All of the lighting schemes were flat and without any kind of flair as well. The shots are just as boring. I don't think there is a single outstanding piece of cinematography in the entire film. Everything is very by the book, and like so much of the film, bland and mediocre.

Before I jump into the performances, I want to say that none of the actors are bad. They did not have first class material to work with, but at the same time, no one seems overly dedicated to their roles. Each person seems to have only a basic understanding of their character. No one does anything special in their performance. Like the dialogue and the visual style, it is all very one-dimensional. This film would have benefited from using well-known actors. Since we don't get to know them in the story, it would have been helpful if thew audience knew them before the film even started. This is a sentiment that is inevitable with known actors.

Oh, I have forgotten to say what the film does well. The special effects are quite good. There is gore that will make you gag and occurrences that will shock you. For such an obviously low-budget film, these are effects that would make Hollywood proud.

Overall, there is nothing bad about this film. It has some great ideas, and it is good at its core, but it does nothing great. It barely does anything good. It is proficient. It is mediocre. It is just another example of the lack of Justice we have come to expect from adaptations of Clive Barker's material.

I saw the film last night and let me start off by saying I love the original. It is without question the best slasher film ever made. I went into this with not only low expectations, because of all the negative things I heard, but I also went in with no preconceived notions about the deviations it would make from Carptenter's original. As a fan of Zombie's last outing, "Devil's Rejects" I knew the style I could expect for the film.

In the first act of the film we see Myers as a child. There are a lot of cringe worthy moments in the first act, like William Forsythe's over the top (and sometimes) funny redneck character. But overall it was very convincing. The scene with the bully in the woods was very disturbing to me. It was a great way to kick start the movie. The first act ends with Myers brutally murdering his family and I think this scene is very well done, and frightening; not scary as in Michael hiding in the shadows, but very scary to watch in a brutal "Last House on the Left" kind of way.

The second act details Michael's years in the mental hospital with Doctor Loomis. There are some very compelling parts in this act, where we see Michael's slow progression from talkative, to deadpan. We see his mother's desperation as she visits her son. we feel a lot of sympathy for her character. She has perhaps one of the most sympathetic and powerful scenes in the movie. There is also some great, but understated acting by Danny Trejo in this act.

We also see Michael as an adult in the hospital, now a hulking mass. I was worried when I saw how tall he was, but luckily the cinematography works in such a way that for most of the movie we can't quite tell he's that tall. There is a scene between adult Myers and Loomis, that is simple and short, but is very telling about Myers' character, to me. He feels things. He doesn't want to be given up on because he's always been ignored and given up on. I think the audience feels that vibe without it needing to be said. I felt it. Michael's mission is to find someone who could not/ would not ignore him.FINALLY, we get to Haddonfield and meet the girls. I think the fact that it took so long for us to get here is what angered die-hard fans of the original. I myself would have liked to see a little more of them before the crap hit the fan, but it certainly wasn't bad. The scenes between the three girls were very enjoyable and fun. I liked Zombie's incarnations of these three iconic characters. I think he did them justice in this new generation. When the killing starts, I felt it happened a little too fast. Bob's death felt seriously rushed; don't worry that's not a spoiler. All of the other death scenes very satisfying and very terrifying. Once again, there are very few jump moments in the film, but the fact that we know Michael is coming is what makes it scary. The climax of the film is also very terrifying and thought-provoking at the same time. Rob succeeded in making it scary again. He also succeeded in turning Michael Myers from a shape to a character.

I think something that helped make the film scary was the cinematography. The shaky-cam effect got a little annoying at one or two points, but for this gritty, graphic horror style, it works beautifully. It gives the film a sense of realism, which I think is what it needed to bring back the fear. There is also a great music score accompanying the film in all the right moments. It is a rehash of John Carpter's original, incredible score and here I think it works as well as it did in the original. I can't say anything bad about the cast of the film. Everyone was great; everyone served their purpose to the film. Danielle Harris and Scout-Taylor Compton were excellent I thought. Both turned out very powerful performances - especially Harris. Malcolm McDowell had some cringe-worthy lines to deal with, but I think he was a great modern day Loomis. I don't compare him to Donald Pleasance in the original, but he was great in his own right.

All in all I really loved the film; much more than I expected. For me, it's on par with the original. Not that I think this is better, but on a list of great movies I think they would fall about even. Those who go to see this hoping it will improve upon the arc created in the original by John Carpenter will hate it. In a nutshell this is a remake in concept alone - a young boy kills his family, goes mad and stalks teens several years later. It is a remake of the concept. Keep that in mind and you will love it. I without question will see it again.

There is a lot to the plot that I don't mention in this review, but A. I didn't want to spoil anything and B. I didn't want to write a book. What I mention are the things that stood out to me.

I think this was miles ahead of the theatrical cut. People probably knock it so much because of the "bond" they have established with the theatrical version over the years.

I having never seen either version, I unbiasedly watched Payback a few days ago. I liked it, but I didn't think the last act suited the movie at all. It felt not only tacked on, but it had a different tone and took the movie in a different direction that it should have gone. Gibson's character is a very destructive person, and I just couldn't see it ending so perfectly.

When I saw this version however, I thought it was not only a much better film, and suited the tone of the film much more, but it is also a better homage to the revenge-type films from the 70's.

This film had a very consistent musical score that was very pleasant to listen to throughout. It's the music that should have been. As much as I love Jimi Hendrix and BB King, they were out of place as you never really heard music like that in 70s revenge films. I liked the look of the film as well - the bleached, high contrast look. It was perfect for the gritty nature of this version.

It was also a much darker version. Mel Gibson is much harsher toward his wife when he comes home, and as hard as that is to watch, it feels more appropriate. He is justified in doing what he does. I felt she got off too easy in the theatrical cut.

People complain that they miss Gibson's humor in this version. I don't think the book its based on was ever meant to be humorous, nor were many 70s revenge films. There was a bit of humor in the director's cut, but it all stayed serious in the end, unlike the joke of an end in the theatrical cut.

There were a lot of bits missing here and there from both versions, none of which was really missed from this edit. I noticed that scenes were missing, but it added a bit more mystery to the plot.

The most important change to this cut is in the last act. In the theatrical cut, I found the last act to be very trite, light and out of place. For a movie that began very dark, it ended on a light note that didn't suit the film at all. The final act in this edit was more in line with the great endings of 70's style films. It kept building and building and building. You didn't quite know what was going to happen. It also has a very mysterious ending. You don't quite know what is going to happen and therefore it makes you think. The theatrical version was severely dumbed down. I guess they didn't want us to think.

This is the version that should have been released theatrically. It is the version that I will revisit in the future.