Readers respond to our reviews of Halloween and 3:10 to Yuma.

(As always, you can respond to me at jotto@reelzchannel.com)

Halloween

I read your review of Rob Zombie's Halloween and would just like to say I completely agree with everything you said. I am a fan of the original and feel that this "remake" is completely pointless. Well written review. (BTW Nick Castle played Michael in the first movie. Tony Moran only played him after the closet scene, where Lorie removes his mask while he is choking her.)

-- Jacob S.

Hi Jacob,

Thanks for the Nick Castle correction. I'll make the fix.

Glad you agreed on my Halloween review, although considering the box office thus far, it seems as though most of America disagreed with us, ot at least they were curious enough to give it a shot.

Zombie's Halloween 2 is now an unfortunately forgone conclusion.

-- Jeff O.

!WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!

I would like to say that Jeff was right... at least about some of what he said.

However my counterpoint review of Halloween is that the movie really (just might) answer the question “how does a kid turn into Michael Myers?” And I believe this movie did a better than credible job of entertaining me while proving this conceptual questions out.

Here’s how.

First, young Michael Myers’s life is shown as a really crappy. Sure director Rob Zombie lays it on a bit thick with the white trash family but to me it’s understandable that this life growing up would warp anyone. I didn’t say it was the most original of motivations but this material isn’t Shakespeare to start with.

Second, (SPOILER ALERT) setting up Danny Trejo’s guard character to be protective of Michael as an asylum inmate and them killing him so brutally (Michael drowns him and then to make sure he’s dead drops a TV on his face!) I’m hooked and totally buy into Michael as pure evil. This really is smart writing and the suspension of disbelief is able to be sustained throughout the rest of the movie so any concern that we may sympathize with Michael is gone.

Third, the movie had a visceral feel to it which, admittedly, is different in effect from the original’s tension and thriller quality. But it works all the same. When Michael was choking one of his victims the scene kinda hit me in the gut.

Now, I’m not blind. Scenes were too long. Apparently every woman in this town has a problem not showing her breasts. I think every character who was introduced was killed or at least left bloody. Zombie’s editing and camera work was distracting at times. And putting anyone in that mask and work clothes and doing a half decent job will get you really far due to the iconic nature of what we as an audience already know of Michael Myers.

And I still enjoyed it.

My rating: 7.5

-- John B.

Hi John,

Well, I'm certainly curious to hear why people do like this movie because, to be honest, despite the strong box office, you're the first person I've spoken to with a strongly positive opinion.

I hear what you're saying regarding the character backstory, but I thought all of that was implied just fine in Carpenter's original. There's the famous adage, "less is more" and that certainly comes to mind here.

In the end, we discover that Myers is pure evil. Same result as the 1978 film. And to me, personally, it was far scarier viewing Michael Myers as a purely evil soul in a normal suburban upbringing (as is implied in the original) rather than the typical broken home this new incarnation comes from.

Thanks for your "counterpoint" review.

-- Jeff O.

3:10 to Yuma

Jeff,

I just finished reading your article regarding Oscar buzz for 2008 and I couldn't agree more!!

Yuma was an absolutely fabulous movie and is worthy of multiple nominations, including Picture, Adap. Screenplay, Actor (Bale and Crowe), Supp. Actor (Fonda and Foster) and Director.

Rarely do I feel the compulsion to write the author of any online article, but this topic, and this movie, have stirred the passions within me!

Having been active in the Academy Award buzz for the past fifteen years, I have no delusions about this movie receiving anywhere near the recognition it deserves. I do believe Ben Foster should win for his role as Charlie Prince. Not since Angel Eyes have we seen such an intelligent, cold-blooded killer.

Great article, great movie, fingers crossed………..

-- John G.

Hi John,

Thanks so much for your praise. Hope you read my full review as well. It's positively gushing. I couldn't agree with you more. Sadly, as we both know, movies with early September release dates are rarely remembered come Oscar time. It would be nice if at least Ben Foster got some praise. He's earned it and needs it more than Crowe or Bale.

I caught the movie a second time opening night and loved it just as much the second time around. It's my favorite movie in a long, long time.

Thanks for reading,

-- Jeff O.

(As always, you can respond to me at jotto@reelzchannel.com)