Category: Horror Movies (Page 89 of 96)

Why exactly is Rob Zombie re-making “Halloween”…

…when he seems intent on removing so many of the things that made John Carpenter’s “Halloween” such a definitive horror film?

In a recent interview with MTV, Zombie indicates that “I have free reign to do whatever” with the flick, admitting that he loves the original movie but wants to expand on it. Unfortunately, in this expansion, he’s removing Michael Myers’ ability to drive…which means sayonara to Myers is in the station wagon…and he’s not of a mind to use Carpenter’s theme song in any capacity. What…? That’s like remaking “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” but ignoring Ennio Morricone’s score. He’s also going with a different Myers house, rewriting the character of Dr. Loomis to a considerable degree, and, basically, removing everything but the character names, the very general premise, and the fact that it takes place on Halloween.

And, yet, I can’t ignore the sheer coolness of having Malcolm McDowell playing Dr. Loomis…

…so I remain curious enough to consider checking out the flick.

A belated discussion about “An American Haunting” on DVD

My wife’s a bigger horror film fan than I am, so when I get in a flick from that particular genre in to review, she’s been known to go watch the DVD before I get around to it. In the case of “An American Haunting,” she started watching it…but she said that it started to get so scary that she decided she wanted to stop watching it until I could watch it with her.

Fair enough…except that I kept setting it aside, we both got busy, and, basically, we forgot about it…until this week.

So we finally watched it, and, yes, the film does have some scary moments. It doesn’t necessary scale the heights of horror greatness throughout its 90 minutes – when your film’s about a relatively young girl who’s haunted by a mysterious spirit, it’s hard to get past the inevitable similarities to “The Exorcist” – but it’s an enjoyable enough, good-looking horror flick, made more interesting by the fact that it’s a period piece (it takes place during the 1800s) and aided immeasurably by a solid cast that’s top-lined by Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek. Unfortunately, what’s painted as a ghost story throughout the majority of its run time suddenly changes gears dramatically at the end…and while I’m not looking to give it away, I’m guessing the conclusion will have you reacting in the same way my wife and I did: by asking, “Are you kidding me…?”

But, then, as a critic, my opinion doesn’t count for much, apparently (even though, mind you, it’s precisely the same as my wife, who isn’t a critic), based on a rant by the film’s writer / director, Courtney Solomon, on the DVD.

Solomon opts out of doing a proper commentary; he starts off doing an in-screen video commentary, but he quickly gets bored and, instead, decides to hop in his car and drive around to the various places involved in the film’s creation. After talking about all the online promotion done for the film and how it helped its box office peformance immeasurably, he starts talking about critics; he understands why they have to exist but that he doesn’t have to read what they have to say, that a director needs to know when he himself is happy with his work and not change it based on the opinions of others. Fair enough…but, then, he starts into an attack on the entire profession of film criticism that’s like a snowball rolling down a hill, growing in vicious intensity with each passing moment.

Dare you read the transcription?

Continue reading »

File under: Remakes we don’t need

Okay, pop quiz:

Which of these classic movies, each perfect in its own way, is currently undergoing a completely unnecessary remake, “re-imagining,” or revisiting of the original story in order to “update” the film for modern audiences?

A. “The Wizard of Oz”
B. “Poltergeist”
C. “The Untouchables”
D. “Se7en”

The answer?

Actually, it’s a trick question: remakes are currently in the works for both “The Wizard of Oz” and “Poltergeist,” while “The Untouchables” and “Se7en” are being subjected to ill-advised prequel treatments. Hollywood is officially out of ideas.

Box Office Roudup: Eddie Murphy sells soul for $33.7 million

Based on Sunday’s estimates, courtesy of boxofficemojo.com:

1) Norbit: $33.7 million (owner: David Medsker, Republicans for Voldemort)
Several league members came up to me after the screening and said, “I hope you’re proud of yourself.” Bill Clark’s new studio name, “Norbit Will Tank,” has been reduced to wishful thinking.
2) Hannibal Rising: $13.3 million (owner: Kristin Dreyer Kramer, Nights and Weekends)
At last, we learn the awful truth: the Nazis are to blame for Hannibal Lecter. Sweet Jesus.
3) Because I Said So: $9 million, $25.6 million to date (Will Harris, What’s All This, Then?)
Kristin claims that the Diane Keaton character is a lot like her mother. I wanted to hug her after she told me that. Poor, poor girl.
4) The Messengers: $7.2 million$24.7 million to date (owner: Kevin Carr, But I Liked ‘Lady in the Water’)
Kevin’s fifth-round pick has racked up a phenomenal amount of money. My fifth-round pick, “Balls of Fury,” was moved to September.
5) Night at the Museum: $5.7 million, $232.1 million to date
This might be the worst top five in movie history.

This week: Rom-com goddess Drew Barrymore drops “Music & Lyrics,” and Chris Cooper makes a welcome return in the spy thriller “Breach.”

Bullz-Eye.com’s Directors Hall of Fame

One of the most repeated show-business punchlines of all time involves someone rich, powerful or famous being praised for their myriad of achievements, only to respond by saying, “Well, yes, but what I really want to do is direct.” It’s such a cliché, in fact, that you really can’t help but laugh when you hear it…and, yet, the ability to direct a good film is not something that comes naturally, nor is something that one can necessarily learn, even if they’ve worked in front of the camera for decades. An exemplary director has to be able to look at a scene and sense what’s going to work and what isn’t. They need to have their own style, their own vision, and the ability to present that vision to an audience in such a manner that, upon leaving the theater, they’ll say, “Oh, you could totally tell that was one of their films.”

As such, Bullz-Eye’s inaugural inductees into the Directors Hall of Fame are…ah, but that would be too easy.

First, at least try to guess which five directors were included by reading the following quotes:

1. “Once a month the sky falls on my head, I come to and I see another movie I want to make.”
2. “Because of the movies I make, people get nervous, because they think of me as difficult and angry. I am difficult and angry, but they don’t expect a sense of humor. And the only thing that gets me through is a sense of humor.”
3. “I am a typed director. If I made ‘Cinderella,’ the audience would immediately be looking for a body in the coach.”
4. “People call me a perfectionist, but I’m not. I’m a rightist. I do something until it’s right, and then I move on to the next thing.”
5. “I don’t need a happy ending. I feel much happier coming out of a movie like ‘Sid and Nancy’ than I do ‘Ghost’ or something.”

If you’ve given up, click here…and when you’re done reading the histories of the various inductees, don’t forget to come back here to offer your praise, complaints, or anything in-between…

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Premium Hollywood

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑