Happy Halloween!

Truthfully, even though the original Halloween is ostensibly the superior version by a long shot, there are a few notable traits with Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake. For one thing, especially considering the monumental source material the remake was produced from, Rob Zombie definitely puts forth an interesting effort.

Myers’ stalking nature is handled fairly efficiently, and there is an extreme, animalistic aggression that’s attributed to the new Myers as opposed to the exclusively stalking, slithery nature of the original. Laurie Strode isn’t completely one-dimensional and is presented as more of a typical teenaged girl as opposed to different Laurie Strode that stood out from the crowd in the original.

Strangely, the best part of the film is what anyone predicted would be the worst part of the film, which was Sam Loomis as portrayed by Malcolm McDowell as opposed to the original’s Donald Pleasance.

Not only is McDowell’s performance impeccable, but there are notable changes to the character, transforming him from a reserved, stand-offish horror hero into more of a cooler, sympathetic character who we witness gradually change from a caring child psychologist to a person that Myers’ nature has affected.

But, generally, as a reimagining, Rob Zombie’s Halloween seems to misinterpret the themes and concepts of the original as opposed to an honest and different interpretation. So, where did it go wrong?

First, of all, the nature of Michael Myers’ backstory was a lousy, lazy choice. It isn’t an inherently bad idea to choose to give Myers’ nature an explanation considering this is a non-canon reimagining that won’t touch the original, either way.

Yes, the absence of an explanation to the original character added to the senselessness of evil, but, perhaps providing an explanation in a new interpretation could help us to see the character in a different way.

The problem is that the explanation isn’t the least bit interesting. Zombie simply writes Myers as originating from a white-trash and neglectful home with his mother as a stripper and a patriarch that is abusive, aggressive, and scummy. Rather than a different interpretation, Michael Myers’s explanation is lazy and oversimplified.

Secondly, what happened to Haddonfield? In the original film, Haddonfield was an innocent town in which the only things the parents had to worry about was teenaged sex and underage drinking.

This is what the return of Michael Myers was so frightening, and why we sympathized with the town for the terror that Myers reigned down. This is why the phrase, “The Night He Came Home,” was so powerful because home can be your hometown. It was a happy, innocuous town with a darkness in its past that’s returned home.

In Rob Zombie’s version, almost every character introduced to represent the town is totally unlikeable, and, truthfully, it’s a wonder that Michael Myers is the only one of his kind in the new version. It’s a wonder why everyone who came from this town isn’t at least somewhat messed up in his or her own way.

Thirdly, Zombie can’t decide what movie he’s looking to make. Michael Myers was perfect in the original, so, although there’s no reason to attempt to copy him, there is definitely room to portray the character in a different manner to rejuvenate the terror of the character lost in translation over the tired and stale sequels.

At times, Zombie successfully reinterprets the Myers stalker characteristics. Slow-moving, constantly staring, random quirks of his body to display a shadow. This makes me feel uneasy. At other times, however, Myers kill scenes are extreme, over-the-top, incredibly violent, and honestly depraved.

That, in itself, isn’t a criticism. If Rob Zombie wanted to interpret the killer as an animalistic killing machine as opposed to the demonic stalker of the original, that would be acceptable.

Because Zombie chooses to emphasize his stalker qualities for a great chunk of the film, however, Myers’ violent and intense kill scenes are more off-putting and less threatening or intense. Zombie should have gone all the way.

So, now that I’ve laid down the law on some of the examples of how Rob Zombie’s remake went wrong, how would I have fixed it? First of all, I would have mad Myers’ backstory less derivative and more interesting.

Why must it be a white-trash family with an abusive father figure? What if the story had have called for his older sister to be abusive or manipulative? The original film initiates with Myers killing his older sister, so what if there was a reason in the new film? Since Zombie’s version portrays Myers as desiring a relationship with his younger sister, perhaps he was seeking to care for his younger sister in a way that his sister didn’t for him?

Secondly, portray Haddonfield as innocent and innocuous. If you’re wanting to portray a community like the Haddonfield portrayed in the remake, vile, depraved, etc, then have Michael come from a different community. One could play with some intense concepts.

Possibly, Laurie Strode was moved to Haddonfield, where she was welcome to a warm and loving home that Michael didn’t enjoy in his childhood. One could incorporate a “the bad guy comes from a bad town” trope and compare cultures. Lastly, when portraying Michael’s backstory, leave some mystery.

In the discussion of “nature vs. nurture,” the original film seemed to strongly imply that Michael Myers’ evil qualities were purely natural, and he wasn’t nurtured into what he became. In the remake, it seems that the implication is that Michael Myers’ evil qualities were purely nurtured.

Incorporate some mystery as to exactly what caused him to become the monstrous force of nature as an adult. The mystery to the original is that there’s nothing to understand. He’s genuine evil, purely by nature, and his presence in our world doesn’t make sense.

Although implying that it was pure nurture that instilled this evil in him would ruin the point of the character, if you wanted to tweak it, make it a question of nature vs. nurture, and allow the viewer to be conflicted as to how to make sense of the terror on screen.

Ultimately, Zombie’s remake ails in comparison to the original in almost every way, imaginable, however, everything that Zombie did wrong could have been done right, in which case, it could have been a decent or even above-average reinterpretation.

Portraying a backstory is a good idea, but completely undermining the mystery of the original character is a bad one. Changing Michael’s characteristic from less demonic and stalker-esque to more animalistic and aggressive could have been a great reinterpretation, but failing to go all the way just feels confused.

Exploring the environment in which Michael Myers was raised outside his home is an excellent idea, but portraying it as vile and depraved before asking us to feel sympathetic for the town is a bad one.

Zombie painted a perfect, convenient picture of a killer’s evolution despite, but he failed to challenge the audience regarding what went wrong in Michael Myers’ life that led him to become a monster.

Either way, Zombie’s remake is worth the discussion, and, if nothing else, it assisted in highlighting many of the brilliant elements of the original film that we failed to realize until watching the new one, such as the innocence of Haddonfield and the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate regarding the character.