HALLOWEEN - WP (2007)

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Sep 2007, 03:49

Halloween (2007) -- Workprint.

**

Runs 106m without end credits.

Normally I wouldn't bother with a workprint, but there's been much talk of how this edit not only differs significantly from the theatrical cut (which was re-edited and its ending re-shot based on studio mandate) but that the quality of the WP itself is DVD quality. True enough the WP is 2.35 and crystal clear; you can forget any ideas of timecoded blur-o-visions. This must've come from a studio source. Rumours are that Zombie leaked it himself, unhappy with the changes he was forced to make, but I can't see that being true.

The list of changes can be found on forums, and since I've not seen the TC I won't bother going into them here. Suffice to say quite a few scenes have been added to the TC, and a few taken out. The BBFC list the TC as 110m so I'd say they roughly run the same length give or take.

As to the film --

Well, it's not a disaster, which is something, but the critics in the US have been very unkind so perhaps the TC is worse; that seems to be the fan reaction. Not that the WP is a good movie. The best I can say is that in its first half it's different than Carpenter's. Zombie has his own ideas, and whilst the fleshing out of Michael's childhood doesn't entirely work (the writing is inconsistant and shallow) it's worth a few marks for the effort.

The second half, however, slavishly follows the original, but with added tits and blood-letting. A poor substitute for suspense. This new take is more intense, but feels mechanical and the longer it went on the less I cared. The characters are very thin, and Malcolm MacDowell has some really awkward dialogue to chew on. Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee have nothing to worry about.

In some ways the biggest disappointment is how little screen time Danielle Harris has. She played a leading role in Parts 4 & 5 when she was a kid (and did a great job) but here is on screen for barely less than 10 mins, much of which sees her bloodied and topless. She should sue her agent. Hers like pretty much all the characters is a sketch at best. And thus what should've been a cool link to the original series seems like a missed opportunity instead.

The film is bloody, with some sexualised violence (reportedly a rape has been omitted/changed in the TC) and deserves its '18'.

I can't think of anything more to say at the moment so if you've any questions just ask...

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 11 Sep 2007, 06:37

Hey Mark, I have the same version downloaded

True enough the WP is 2.35 and crystal clear; you can forget any ideas of timecoded blur-o-visions.

The blurriness is on the top, it is slightly noticeable when you pan over the myers house, other that that is a great quality.

whilst the fleshing out of Michael's childhood doesn't entirely work (the writing is inconsistant and shallow) it's worth a few marks for the effort.

I think it should have began similar to the original halloween movie, with michael killing the family, then the movie show what happens in the asylum, so it is a mystery way micheal killed his own family. Don't need no, its because he is trailer trash or something like that.

Malcolm MacDowell has some really awkward dialogue to chew on. Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee have nothing to worry about.

Agreed, it was a shame with Malcolm.

In some ways the biggest disappointment is how little screen time Danielle Harris has. She played a leading role in Parts 4 & 5 when she was a kid (and did a great job) but here is on screen for barely less than 10 mins, much of which sees her bloodied and topless.

I was quite stunned by this, I remember Danielle Harris in 4 and 5 and she became a bit part in the movie, it was a cameo if anything which is a shame. Def stunned that she was topless in this movie

Yup the cinema version or TC have changed the way how Michael escapes, it is not a rape scene, its simply I believe someone forgot to close the door

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Sep 2007, 11:44

slasher13 wrote:The blurriness is on the top, it is slightly noticeable when you pan over the myers house, other that that is a great quality.

Right, but I took that as deliberate, so it couldn't be passed off as legit product. Compared to the Hard Target WP, for example, it's Blu-Ray and HD rolled into one, lol.

I think it should have began similar to the original halloween movie, with michael killing the family, then the movie show what happens in the asylum, so it is a mystery way micheal killed his own family. Don't need no, its because he is trailer trash or something like that.

I agree, the trailer trash element seemed obvious and unsatisfactory. Also the character of young Michael seemed inconsistant, and I never felt the transition from young Michael to hulking wrestler psycho properly explained. And by spending half the movie on 'the before' everything that happens later in Haddonfield seems like a fast-forward of the original. We don't get to know the victims, they just ARE.

I was quite stunned by this, I remember Danielle Harris in 4 and 5 and she became a bit part in the movie, it was a cameo if anything which is a shame. Def stunned that she was topless in this movie

I remember being impressed by her acting as a child, where she played a major role, so to see her as an adult reduced to a bit part that any actress willing to go topless could've played is a real shame. She deserves better. Frankly, I think she did it as a means to kick start her career as an adult, and going topless says "hey look I'm not a kid anymore". It can't be easy when everything you're remembered for was done when you were a kid.

Yup the cinema version or TC have changed the way how Michael escapes, it is not a rape scene, its simply I believe someone forgot to close the door

I read about it on a forum, I'll see if I can find out.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Sep 2007, 12:52

All the differences are detailed here:

http://www.ohmb.net/showthread.php?t=12297

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:17

What about "Scout Taylor-Compton"? Laurie Strode was the main part in Halloween, isn't she any more? I'm surprised you guys haven't mentioned her.

So Michael in the WP rapes somebody right? That is definitely very different to how he was portrayed in Halloween and brings another level of evilness to the character. Michael was a psycho but he was no rapist, that's a big difference.

The people who got killed were barely fleshed out in Halloween if you remember and that had it's fair share of tits, although it sounds like that's been upped a fair bit here.

I am interested in seeing this. So the WP is the way to go then? Does it feature any of the cool camera angles from the original? The one where Michael bends his neck in the shadows is excellent.

It's such a shame that thanks to the crappy sequels Halloween is now considered just another teen slasher flick when really it's a proper horror film in the same vein as The Exorcist. I happen to prefer it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:23

When is Halloween released in the UK anyway?

There is a nice comparison review here: http://www.dreadcentral.com/index.php?n ... nt&id=1610

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:34

bradavon wrote:What about "Scout Taylor-Compton"? Laurie Strode was the main part in Halloween, isn't she any more? I'm surprised you guys haven't mentioned her.

Don't know about Mark, but I reckon she is okay, kinda prefer Jamie Lee Curtis to be honest in the original Halloween, maybe it because I seen it loads of time.

So Michael in the WP rapes somebody right? That is definitely very different to how he was portrayed in Halloween and brings another level of evilness to the character. Michael was a psycho but he was no rapist, that's a big difference.

Nope

, it is the orderly who rape a inmate in the hospital/alsyum, kinda disturbing, but if you seen Devil Reject then it is fine. They think that Michael Myers is a big old softy who is just likes to play with masks.

I am interested in seeing this. So the WP is the way to go then? Does it feature any of the cool camera angles from the original? The one where Michael bends his neck in the shadows is excellent.

The WP gives you one version, and I will prob save this version, as it may not appear on the dvd/hd/bd, you never know Rob Zombie may do a hybrid, but check it out. Camera angle, i didn't notice them, Rob Zombie filmed it normally as he does with his other movie, but you could say on a bigger budget

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Sep 2007, 14:04

Cheers Slasher.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 11 Sep 2007, 14:22

the first 40 minutes of this are pretty good,then it becomes a virtual (at times) rushed scene-for-scene inferior remake of the original. Malcolm Mcdowell is poor in this.i liked the cameos by genre stalwarts like Sybil Danning,Brad Dourif, Udo Kier etc.no doubt the dvd will be different version again,apparently Zombie wants to incorporate deleted stuff with the likes of Adrienne Barbeau back into the movie.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:44

bradavon wrote:What about "Scout Taylor-Compton"? Laurie Strode was the main part in Halloween, isn't she any more? I'm surprised you guys haven't mentioned her.

She has less to do than Jamie Lee Curtis and her character is poorly defined compared to the 1978 movie where we care about Laurie. Here she's just anon teen. I don't want to judge any actor too harshly because the fault lies with the script. Worth mentioning that unlike Danielle Harris she's actually 18 so there's a 12 year gap between the actresses playing the same age.

So Michael in the WP rapes somebody right? That is definitely very different to how he was portrayed in Halloween and brings another level of evilness to the character. Michael was a psycho but he was no rapist, that's a big difference.

No. The rape is committed by two scummy guards in Michael's cell. When one of them starts playing with Michael's mask he goes apeshit and kills the guards. He doesn't pay any attention to he girl whatsoever. Just leaves her there whilst he escapes. He doesn't seem to have any sexual motive in the film. Just mindless killing. The rape isn't explicit in detail, but might've given the censors something to think about.

The people who got killed were barely fleshed out in Halloween if you remember and that had it's fair share of tits, although it sounds like that's been upped a fair bit here.

It's not quite a titfest, but the nudity seems more pronounced. Especially in the scene where Danielle as Annie is attacked. That scene might be a bit uncomfortable for some viewers even though the attack isn't sexual, which is probably why it wasn't cut for the R-rating.

I am interested in seeing this. So the WP is the way to go then?

I haven't seen the TC. Apparently it's more violent because the studio wanted extra ketchup. There's plenty in the WP already but then I'm a fan of suspense rather than gore and so that's one reason why the remake was less impressive to me. I don't think anyone will prefer the 2007 take. Curiously, if you take the nudity out of the original it could pass content-wise as a TV movie. There's little blood and no strong language. The remake is the opposite. There's a ton of swearing and sexual dialogue. Sorry Brad, but the C-word is used.

It's such a shame that thanks to the crappy sequels Halloween is now considered just another teen slasher flick when really it's a proper horror film in the same vein as The Exorcist. I happen to prefer it.

Oh, I think The Exorcist is clearly a better film, but I take your point Halloween's dismissive slasher status. The only sequel worth a shit is part 4. From memory it's surprisingly good, but the rest aren't up to much. I didn't even bother with Part 8, supposedly the worst of the lot.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:57

Thanks Mark.

I'm a big fan of suspense over gore (for gores sake) too. I'll have to check our the 2007 version some time, maybe at the cinema (even though it will be the TC).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 12 Sep 2007, 01:57

I'd probably from memory order the series as follows --

Halloween 4
Halloween (JC)
Halloween 2
Halloween 7
Halloween 5
Halloween (RZ)
Halloween 6

Haven't seen 8 and 3 is unrelated.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Sep 2007, 02:28

Wow you can actually remember them? For me it's:

Halloween
Halloween 2-8 - They're all one long meshed together film that I have no Scooby Doo if I've seen or not. I've definitely seen some of them but which only Scooby knows.

p.s - You rate 4 above 1, it must be good.

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 12 Sep 2007, 07:52

My order would be:

Halloween (Original)
Halloween 4
Halloween H20 (I just enjoyed this)
Halloween 5
Halloween Remake
Halloween 6

I have seen the producer cut and it is an interesting take, but it's not officially released on dvd - wish it was.

Haven't seen Halloween 2 and can't remember Halloween 3

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Sep 2007, 12:18

bradavon wrote:p.s - You rate 4 above 1, it must be good.

That's from memory... I haven't seen either in many years.

I just thought that Part 4 was slicker, more exciting, and, surprisingly, more involving. I think a lot of that has to do with the lead actresses, Danielle Harris and Ellie Cornell, who are sympathetic and not just Friday the 13th-style fodder. I'll need to revist Parts 1 & 4 again sometimes soon.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 13 Sep 2007, 12:24

slasher13 wrote:My order would be:

Halloween (Original)
Halloween 4
Halloween H20 (I just enjoyed this)
Halloween 5
Halloween Remake
Halloween 6

That's almost the same as mine. 8)

I have seen the producer cut and it is an interesting take, but it's not officially released on dvd - wish it was.

Never saw that, but the TC was pretty bad. Some stylish murder moments, but the plot was drivel. Druids for fuck's sake??? And having Michael rape and impregnate his niece (off-screen) was just sick.

Haven't seen Halloween 2 and can't remember Halloween 3

Part 2 is set mainly in the hospital where Laurie is taken after Part 1. It literally picks up where the original left off. It's bloodier and not as well-crafted, but is so much in tune with Part 1, that I think most fans will get something out of it.

Part 3 is unrelated to the others, it's about a psycho toymaker (I think the bad guys are aliens?) who wants to murder kids on Halloween night using deadly pumpkin masks. Carpenter wanted to take the series away from Michale Myers - the fans disagreed. It's OK for what it is.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 13 Sep 2007, 15:11

Halloween
Halloween H20
Halloween 2
Halloween 4
Halloween 5
Halloween (RZ)
Halloween Resurrection
Halloween 6

for me the worst in the series is number 6,though i have a nice copy of the producer's cut and it does make it a better movie.The rob zombie version when it hits dvd i will reassess as i've only seen the WP. special mention to Season Of The Witch,not a very well liked movie but at least it tried to do something different and Tom Atkins improves anything he's in.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 14 Sep 2007, 16:29

Hey Guys,

All this Halloween talk has made wanna revisit the original.

Is this http://dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65716 the best edition??

I'm looking for original mono, uncut theatrical, anamorphic, and the DP supervised transfer.

Seems like the 25 years package has tons of extra goodies!!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 14 Sep 2007, 16:31

It's an HMV exclusive.

Here's the link.

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProd ... sku=707125

Looks like it covers all the bases and then some...

Not cheap but appears to be last word on the subject.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 14 Sep 2007, 17:01

there's been so many releases of this it's hard to keep track. i have the 2 disc region 1 which has the uncut television version as an extra.i was surprised that they shot the tv scenes in 2:35

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 14 Sep 2007, 17:09

Actually shot unmatted, but framed so that it could work either ways...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Sep 2007, 17:24

Markgway wrote:All this Halloween talk has made wanna revisit the original.

Is this http://dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=65716 the best edition??

I presume this is the same as Slasher posted here:

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=3889

If so Yes it's the best edition "for you" (it meets your requirements) BUT you're going to want the 4 Disc NOT 2 Disc version.

The New 2 Disc:

Looks like a complete waste of time. It's the same Remastered transfer (which "you don't want") but minus all the actual good extras found on the Remastered DVD. Gone is the commentary and 87 minute documentary (now exclusive to the 4 disc set) instead we get lots of extras for the sequels and silly featuress.

As for the 4 Disc version:

It's also missing the commentary in terms of extras. That release is a very odd one. It looks to contain the Original not Remastered DVD plus loads of extras for the Halloween sequels. It also oddly doesn't have the TV Cut which I'd think is of more relevance than extras for the sequels.

The problem with that release being the "Film" disc is based on the VERY old pre-Remastered edition. The original DVD crammed both the 4:3 and WS versions on to 1 disc. The contents of disc 1 are identical to the original version.

The original DVD retained the Blue but was very grainy and it's colours were very washed out. The Remastered version looks much, much better in all respects but sadly they decided to remove the Blue.

I used to own the original DVD but sold it and have kept my Remastered 2 Disc SE. I don't mind losing the blue as the Remastered version does look so much better. The 2 disc Remastered version (i.e - Divimax) has the commentary (ported from the LD) and the 87 minute documentary found on disc 2 of that set.

The DD5.1 remix is very faithful and is very front focused. I know you don't like 5.1 remixes but just thought I'd mention it.

If Anchor Bay had reused the remastered print but fixed the blue, added the commentary and included the TV Cut into that 4 Disc set it would've been definitive. It looks like a missed opportunity to me. Why re-use an old transfer when you have a remastered one? (Bar the blue it's miles better). I'm guessing Anchor Bay have realised they messed the colours up on the Remastered DVD.

They've recently released the original DVD which helps to add weight to this theory. Instead of fixing the Remastered print they're just re-using the old one.

The lack of commentary is a weird one, why they're including so many extras for the sequels is an odd one too.

I hope my ramblings make sense. You want the New 4 Disc SE or the original 1 Disc DVD (which has very few extras).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 14 Sep 2007, 17:28

bradavon wrote:The lack of commentary is a weird one, why they're including so many extras for the sequels is an odd one too.

Not odd at all, it's a DVD set of the documentary "Halloween: 25 Years of Terror" that spans the entire series. The original film is the extra.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Sep 2007, 17:39

Oh is that a documentary, my mistake. It seems strange to put it on Disc 3 then. I thought that was the original film.

Looking more into it, it looks like the New 2 Disc SE is just an excuse to use all those new extras. A waste of time IMO. Get the older 2 Disc SE.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 14 Sep 2007, 23:49

saltysam wrote:i was surprised that they shot the tv scenes in 2:35

Yeah, talk about foresight. I guess Carpenter felt that had to be for consistancy of look or the possibility of a letterbox release one day. Probably the former I would imagine. Never seen those TV scenes; at least I don't recall having seen them. To be honest I think I'd rather have all those extras from the 4-disc set than the entire TV edit. But I can see why fans would want to keep the older release.