My Thoughts on 'White Trash: The Movie' AKA 'Halloween' (2007)

[Chakor Channing]

For those of you who didn't like the idea of me bashing the RZ remake without having actually seen it first, I can now honestly say that I was right all along. Today, I had a friend of mine rent the RZ remake from my nearest video rental store and tried to watch it. Believe me, I tried to be as open-minded as I could, and that didn't help anything. At the beginning of this abomination, we have not a single likable character. Myers' father is a dirty pervert with no likability at all, his mother (played by Rob's wife, of course) is a stripper, and his sister is also a tramp. Michael himself is just a great big sissy, going on a killing rampage simply because he feels sorry for himself. In addition, the majority of the beginning is just a contest to see who can use the word "f*ck" the most. I couldn't even watch the beginning in its entirety and ended up fast-forwarding through most of it.

Then, we get to meet Rob's take on Laurie... Good God. If I were Jamie Lee Curtis, I'd be suing Rob Zombie for the way that he portrayed the character. Its awful hard for me to believe that this was supposed to be the protagonist of the film. Then we have Laurie's friends, all of whom have no likability either. As was the case with the beginning, I ended up fast-forwarding through most of this as well. The fact that Michael has to kill everyone either while or right after they're done having sex is annoying as well, and I stopped watching it after that.

This isn't a Halloween remake... It's a white trash porn movie with some gore thrown in because it's trying to sell itself off as a horror. The most horrifying thing about this monstrosity was how unbelievably bad it was. I could only watch about 25 minutes of this disaster, 25 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. I immediately drove back to the video rental store, returned the DVD, and suggested that the store owner either burn the DVD or have anyone else who rents it sign a contract claiming that the store isn't responsible for anything that happens to your mind as a result of watching this atrocity. I regret ever putting the DVD in my television, and I'm surprised that the television screen didn't break from playing it.  If I were Dr. Brown, I'd be traveling back in time to stop this from ever being made.

However, if you happen to like this "film", by all means, keep on liking it! I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad for those of you who can actually watch this. I have nothing against Rob Zombie as a person, but I think he did this as a complete cash-grab. This "film" was utterly disgusting, and not in a good way.

After trying to watch this abomination, I immediately popped-in my two favorite horror films of all time, Pumpkinhead and Halloween III: Season of the Witch, to help lighten my mood.

[the_horror_man]

I liked Rob Zombie's Halloween. The first half had some really well done parts. I think they dragged some of it out towards the end. However, all in all, I enjoyed the film. However, imo, part 2 was not good.

thm

[long live kong]

I actually got bored of Rob Zombie's Halloween and ended up switching it off about two thirds through. I enjoyed House of 1000 Corpses but am not a fan of his other movies to date, although I haven't seen '31'. I know plenty of people who enjoy his films so I'm glad he's adding something to the genre.

[AlwaysWitty]

You were right that you wouldn't like it, but as I must remind you for what feels like the billionth time, your opinion is not a fact, and you needn't condescend to people who do like the film ("I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad for those of you who can actually watch this"). It's getting exhausting. And yes, I said film. Not "film".

This isn't a Halloween remake... It's a white trash porn movie with some gore thrown in because it's trying to sell itself off as a horror. The most horrifying thing about this monstrosity was how unbelievably bad it was. I could only watch about 25 minutes of this disaster, 25 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. I immediately drove back to the video rental store, returned the DVD, and suggested that the store owner either burn the DVD or have anyone else who rents it sign a contract claiming that the store isn't responsible for anything that happens to your mind as a result of watching this atrocity. I regret ever putting the DVD in my television, and I'm surprised that the television screen didn't break from playing it.  If I were Dr. Brown, I'd be traveling back in time to stop this from ever being made.

Yes, actually, it is a Halloween remake. That doesn't change just because you didn't like it. It's also a horror movie. No need to "sell itself off" as one. Your boasting about signing a contract, about the TV screen breaking, about the laughably absurd feeling that Jamie Lee Curtis should actually sue Rob Zombie, it's not doing you any favors. It's extreme hyperbole, it's tasteless, and it's deeply offensive to me, as I'm someone who values the freedom of artistic expression and will stand for that freedom no matter what film or book or comic or video game is being discussed.

But I won't dwell on you or your superiority complex (which, like Michael Myers himself, stubbornly refuses to die) any further. I'd rather discuss the film.

Having given them a re-watch recently, I actually feel better about both of his Halloween films now than I did the previous time I spoke of them. They're still not perfect, of course. I have to wonder which cut of the film you actually watched. The uncut version actually does the film a bit of a disservice by drastically changing the escape scene, which I felt was much better in the theatrical version.

I disagree with you that there are no sympathetic characters. Michael's mother is a stripper, yes, but she isn't a cartoon of a person. She seemed to me like someone who would much rather have a nicer life than the one she has, and so did Michael to be honest. There's a key line of dialogue from Judith when she talks to her boyfriend about how Ronnie is not her father, or even a father figure to her, because her real father is dead. Seems you missed that detail since you referred to him as "Myers' father" but of course, you admitted you fast-forwarded through it so I shouldn't expect you to have a solid grasp of the film's full content.

I've long theorized that this loss of a real father is a primary motivating factor for the fragile emotional state Michael is in at first, a state through which he eventually descends into darkness. When Michael lashes out, even kills, in this film there seem to be three motivating factors.

One, the easiest to pick up on, is that he's lashing out at people who are actively cruel to him, the first such murder in this train of thought being the school bully and then stepfather later on.

Two, he's lashing out at people who are cruel to him in a more passive way through abandoning him, either literally (in the case of Loomis who ends his visitation and treatment with Michael) or in the abstract (his sister Judith who abandons him by becoming more emotionally distant, though she's arguably also actively cruel to him in a minor way that older siblings often are). Michael has severe abandonment issues and this is the primary motivating factor beneath everything else, indeed I believe the death of his real father may have been the start of these issues.

The third motivating factor for Michael's attacks is a feeling of power and control over others. This is why he kills even those who were friendly to him, like the orderly played by Danny Trejo. This is a more common issue among serial killers, but it's all connected to his issues of abandonment.

Personally I think it's a very interesting interpretation of Michael Myers, and there's a key reason for this I'll get into in a moment.

As for Laurie, I'm not so sure she is the protagonist, really. We don't even meet her until about an hour into the film. Honestly I'd say Michael Myers is the closest thing to a real protagonist, with other characters revolving around him almost as secondary protagonists for brief periods of time, those characters being Michael's mother, Dr. Loomis, and Laurie. Her characterization is more outgoing than the original Laurie, and her friends are perhaps a bit more crude, but let's not forget that in the original film, Annie and Lynda weren't exactly prim and proper and pristine either. They had no problem drinking and having sex and doing drugs. Even Laurie took a hit on a joint while she was riding along with Annie.

Rob's take on Dr. Loomis is, I think, the key to understanding the whole point of the film. In a strange way, there's actually a stronger sense that Loomis genuinely cared about Michael as a patient in this film than there ever was in the Carpenter film or its sequels, and yet this Loomis betrays the compassionate part of himself by becoming self-absorbed and smug and unlikable. He becomes someone who would rather exploit Michael than help him. It's a rather clever twist when you really think about it. In the original film, Loomis talks about Michael in very mythic, supernatural terms, building him up like some sort of eldritch terror that is beyond human comprehension. Indeed, that is how most of us think of Michael Myers, and most of us would rather Myers was depicted this way as well. In Rob's remake, however, such talk seems exploitative and nasty and cruel, because the film's central intent is to remind us that no matter how much we may mythologize and worship such killers as Michael Myers, deep down they are all to human.

And that is the point of the movie. If Michael Myers is the ultimate symbol of serial killers and psychopaths being morphed by pop culture into an otherworldly monster meant to be exploited for our benefit, Rob's remake of Halloween is a strongly-worded rejection of that. Occasionally worded too strongly, but the intent to criticize pop culture's exploitation of human evil, of our morbid fascination with damaged human beings whom we seek to imagine as supernatural creatures for our own entertainment, is to be commended. It's a scathing reminder that the likes of Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, and all the other killers we've turned into popular legends and icons, were not in fact pure evil.

The whole point of the film is to reject the last lines of the original film. Laurie says, "It was the boogeyman," to which Dr. Loomis replies, "As a matter of fact, it was." Rob Zombie's Halloween is a film that strongly responds, "No, it wasn't." That's compelling to me, and it elevates the film rather well in my mind.

I understand if it didn't have the same effect for you, but given that you could only watch about 25 minutes out of a two hour film and then openly call for its censorship, I can't say I find your opinion to be a particularly valid one.

After trying to watch this abomination, I immediately popped-in my two favorite horror films of all time, Pumpkinhead and Halloween III: Season of the Witch, to help lighten my mood.

As I started reading this sentence, somehow I knew I'd be able to guess how it ended. I was right.

[Anton Phibes]

I personally hate every movie that has Rob Zombie's name on it. That's it for me. Buh bye,lol.

[Chakor Channing]

You were right that you wouldn't like it, but as I must remind you for what feels like the billionth time, your opinion is not a fact, and you needn't condescend to people who do like the film ("I'm not sure if I should feel happy or sad for those of you who can actually watch this"). It's getting exhausting. And yes, I said film. Not "film".
Yes, actually, it is a Halloween remake. That doesn't change just because you didn't like it. It's also a horror movie. No need to "sell itself off" as one. Your boasting about signing a contract, about the TV screen breaking, about the laughably absurd feeling that Jamie Lee Curtis should actually sue Rob Zombie, it's not doing you any favors. It's extreme hyperbole, it's tasteless, and it's deeply offensive to me, as I'm someone who values the freedom of artistic expression and will stand for that freedom no matter what film or book or comic or video game is being discussed.

But I won't dwell on you or your superiority complex (which, like Michael Myers himself, stubbornly refuses to die) any further. I'd rather discuss the film.

Having given them a re-watch recently, I actually feel better about both of his Halloween films now than I did the previous time I spoke of them. They're still not perfect, of course. I have to wonder which cut of the film you actually watched. The uncut version actually does the film a bit of a disservice by drastically changing the escape scene, which I felt was much better in the theatrical version.

I disagree with you that there are no sympathetic characters. Michael's mother is a stripper, yes, but she isn't a cartoon of a person. She seemed to me like someone who would much rather have a nicer life than the one she has, and so did Michael to be honest. There's a key line of dialogue from Judith when she talks to her boyfriend about how Ronnie is not her father, or even a father figure to her, because her real father is dead. Seems you missed that detail since you referred to him as "Myers' father" but of course, you admitted you fast-forwarded through it so I shouldn't expect you to have a solid grasp of the film's full content.

I've long theorized that this loss of a real father is a primary motivating factor for the fragile emotional state Michael is in at first, a state through which he eventually descends into darkness. When Michael lashes out, even kills, in this film there seem to be three motivating factors.

One, the easiest to pick up on, is that he's lashing out at people who are actively cruel to him, the first such murder in this train of thought being the school bully and then stepfather later on.

Two, he's lashing out at people who are cruel to him in a more passive way through abandoning him, either literally (in the case of Loomis who ends his visitation and treatment with Michael) or in the abstract (his sister Judith who abandons him by becoming more emotionally distant, though she's arguably also actively cruel to him in a minor way that older siblings often are). Michael has severe abandonment issues and this is the primary motivating factor beneath everything else, indeed I believe the death of his real father may have been the start of these issues.

The third motivating factor for Michael's attacks is a feeling of power and control over others. This is why he kills even those who were friendly to him, like the orderly played by Danny Trejo. This is a more common issue among serial killers, but it's all connected to his issues of abandonment.

Personally I think it's a very interesting interpretation of Michael Myers, and there's a key reason for this I'll get into in a moment.

As for Laurie, I'm not so sure she is the protagonist, really. We don't even meet her until about an hour into the film. Honestly I'd say Michael Myers is the closest thing to a real protagonist, with other characters revolving around him almost as secondary protagonists for brief periods of time, those characters being Michael's mother, Dr. Loomis, and Laurie. Her characterization is more outgoing than the original Laurie, and her friends are perhaps a bit more crude, but let's not forget that in the original film, Annie and Lynda weren't exactly prim and proper and pristine either. They had no problem drinking and having sex and doing drugs. Even Laurie took a hit on a joint while she was riding along with Annie.

Rob's take on Dr. Loomis is, I think, the key to understanding the whole point of the film. In a strange way, there's actually a stronger sense that Loomis genuinely cared about Michael as a patient in this film than there ever was in the Carpenter film or its sequels, and yet this Loomis betrays the compassionate part of himself by becoming self-absorbed and smug and unlikable. He becomes someone who would rather exploit Michael than help him. It's a rather clever twist when you really think about it. In the original film, Loomis talks about Michael in very mythic, supernatural terms, building him up like some sort of eldritch terror that is beyond human comprehension. Indeed, that is how most of us think of Michael Myers, and most of us would rather Myers was depicted this way as well. In Rob's remake, however, such talk seems exploitative and nasty and cruel, because the film's central intent is to remind us that no matter how much we may mythologize and worship such killers as Michael Myers, deep down they are all to human.

And that is the point of the movie. If Michael Myers is the ultimate symbol of serial killers and psychopaths being morphed by pop culture into an otherworldly monster meant to be exploited for our benefit, Rob's remake of Halloween is a strongly-worded rejection of that. Occasionally worded too strongly, but the intent to criticize pop culture's exploitation of human evil, of our morbid fascination with damaged human beings whom we seek to imagine as supernatural creatures for our own entertainment, is to be commended. It's a scathing reminder that the likes of Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Jack the Ripper, and all the other killers we've turned into popular legends and icons, were not in fact pure evil.

The whole point of the film is to reject the last lines of the original film. Laurie says, "It was the boogeyman," to which Dr. Loomis replies, "As a matter of fact, it was." Rob Zombie's Halloween is a film that strongly responds, "No, it wasn't." That's compelling to me, and it elevates the film rather well in my mind.

I understand if it didn't have the same effect for you, but given that you could only watch about 25 minutes out of a two hour film and then openly call for its censorship, I can't say I find your opinion to be a particularly valid one.
As I started reading this sentence, somehow I knew I'd be able to guess how it ended. I was right.

BBW...  I would read EVERYTHING you just wrote if it weren't for one thing: You've been calling me out on almost every single post that I've made in this section for the past 3-4 days.  I get that you want to defend Rob, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I seem to be the only person who doesn't like Rob's films who you call out on for not liking them.  For example, Anton expressed his opinion about Rob's films in a thread here a few months ago by posting a picture of a boot covered in turd to describe his "films" (and yes, he also wrote "films" instead of films), but I didn't see you call him out for it.  Meanwhile, you call me out pretty much every time I express an honest opinion about Rob's films.  And it's not just that, you also called me out for asking HH a simple question about the GB reboot and called it "cute hyperbole".  I'm not reading anything you just wrote past the first paragraph until I get an explanation as to why I'm the only person who you call out on these things, and until I see you call out Anton and every other person on this board who doesn't like Rob's films.  Anton already said that he hates every film that has come from Rob on this thread, that should be a good start.

[Chakor Channing]

I personally hate every movie that has Rob Zombie's name on it. That's it for me. Buh bye,lol.

Normally I'd agree to this, but I haven't seen any of his other stuff aside from this monstrosity.  But it wouldn't surprise me at all if I actually watched all of his stuff and wanted to sue the guy for taking hours out of my life.

[Anton Phibes]

Hey, now Chakor....don't cause Big Bad to come blowin' my house down.  I think people can understand guys like me who say "Nope. I hate it",the same way I can understand people who squeel with delight over RZ (or whatever). What they get miffed about is language that  inflammatory or condescending. Even if it's done camouflaged. 

I give my opinion....I never follow it up with 'If you like this you are a poopy head!". So, yeah....keep the fight betwixt thee and BB. I don't get into flame warring stuff,lol. Peace out bro.

[Chakor Channing]

The fact that he hasn't blown your house down yet is probably proof enough that he just has some hidden vendetta against me, I guess.   Either that or it's just something that I said.  I never called him a "poopy head" for liking Rob's stuff anyway.

[the_horror_man]

I loved The Devil's Rejects. It cracked my top 10 all time favorite horror films. Well, actually, it is a more violent film than horror. However, I watched it a few times before it became a favorite. Every time I watched it, I liked it more and more. I liked the way he used classic songs in the film. Actually, after the watching the film, I think I might like the songs better than I used to. I would suggest watching Devil's Rejects a couple/few times. You never know, you might have the same experience of growing to like it more and more each time you watch it.

thm

[Anton Phibes]

The fact that he hasn't blown your house down yet is probably proof enough that he just has some hidden vendetta against me, I guess.   Either that or it's just something that I said.  I never called him a "poopy head" for liking Rob's stuff anyway.

That was my attempt at humor. I know you didn't call him a poopy head,lol. But he pointed out, rather pointedly, some of the language you used that he found....distasteful. 

[Anton Phibes]

I loved The Devil's Rejects. It cracked my top 10 all time favorite horror films. Well, actually, it is a more violent film than horror. However, I watched it a few times before it became a favorite. Every time I watched it, I liked it more and more. I liked the way he used classic songs in the film. Actually, after the watching the film, I think I might like the songs better than I used to. I would suggest watching Devil's Rejects a couple/few times. You never know, you might have the same experience of growing to like it more and more each time you watch it.

thm

Hey Rob---multiple choice. Guess my response. Ready! GO!

a. I hate it
b. I hate it
c. I would rather have my blood sucked out by leaches than watch it
d. all of the above

[Chakor Channing]

Hey Rob---multiple choice. Guess my response. Ready! GO!

a. I hate it
b. I hate it
c. I would rather have my blood sucked out by leaches than watch it
d. all of the above

Anton, you just made my day... er, I mean night, with that post.  We should forward this to Rob's Facebook page!

[Mord]

Hey Rob---multiple choice. Guess my response. Ready! GO!

a. I hate it
b. I hate it
c. I would rather have my blood sucked out by leaches than watch it
d. all of the above

D...right? Just a guess.

[AlwaysWitty]

BBW...  I would read EVERYTHING you just wrote if it weren't for one thing: You've been calling me out on almost every single post that I've made in this section for the past 3-4 days.  I get that you want to defend Rob, and I have no problem with that whatsoever, but I seem to be the only person who doesn't like Rob's films who you call out on for not liking them.  For example, Anton expressed his opinion about Rob's films in a thread here a few months ago by posting a picture of a boot covered in turd to describe his "films" (and yes, he also wrote "films" instead of films), but I didn't see you call him out for it.  Meanwhile, you call me out pretty much every time I express an honest opinion about Rob's films.  And it's not just that, you also called me out for asking HH a simple question about the GB reboot and called it "cute hyperbole".  I'm not reading anything you just wrote past the first paragraph until I get an explanation as to why I'm the only person who you call out on these things, and until I see you call out Anton and every other person on this board who doesn't like Rob's films.  Anton already said that he hates every film that has come from Rob on this thread, that should be a good start.

Actually within the past 3-4 days, aside from today, I'd say you weren't saying anything worth calling out. As for "cute hyperbole" you absolutely do engage in that in this very thread, but the post I was referring to was his, not yours. His response was thoughtful enough that I didn't engage him directly after that.

Now, if you'd bother to read what I said at all you'd know that I'm not really calling you out for your opinion, I'm calling you out for your rhetoric, and your constant holier-than-thou attitude. Sure, Anton used a boot covered in crap to convey his opinion, but that's...just his opinion. I wasn't personally insulted by that. What does insult me is that you began this thread saying, "For those of you who didn't like the idea of me bashing the RZ remake without having actually seen it first, I can now honestly say that I was right all along," as though you had a score to settle, and then despite your admission that you have only seen roughly 25 minutes of it, you railed against it anyway as if you were thoroughly familiar with it, you continued to disrespect the film as a work of artistic expression and indeed implied your wish to see it censored ("If I were Dr. Brown, I'd be traveling back in time to stop this from ever being made") and you continued to insult people who enjoy the film, which you know well by now includes myself and others.

THAT is what I have a problem with, and if I do call you out a lot, it's because in spite of your insistence that you don't consider your opinion to be fact, that you don't see yourself as better than anyone else, you continue to exhibit behavior that suggests otherwise. At this point I can't figure out if you really are unaware of how you come off or if you're doing it on purpose.