I saw this last night and I thought it was a worthy remake/update to the original.

Of particular significance is the film's exploration of Michael Myers' home life just prior to the infamous Halloween night in which he slays his sister (and, in this updated version, others who happen to also be in the house at the time).

This version felt more "real." There are no elements in the movie which harken to satanism or the occult as there were in the first two Halloween movies. Michael Myers is not as much a supernatural being (i.e. "The Shape") as he had been portrayed previously. He still possesses the uncanny ability to "reboot" after seemingly being taken down, but we attribute it more to him being "in another dimension" mentally speaking.

Great performances by Malcolm McDowell, Brad Douriff, Sherri Moon Zombie, Tyler Mane (who played the adult Michael) and the young man who played the 10 year old Michael especially... Daeg Faerch. Oh, and there should also be lots of kudos going out to all the nubile actresses who got naked for this movie as well.

Rob Zombie used very original and interesting camera angles and tricks in this film. Depending on your sensibilities, I'd recommend it to you. (It is a horror film, after all. That being the case, it isn't so much a matter of whether or not it was "good" but rather whether or not it was effective.)

I cherish the original, so I see no need to see this remake.

I heard they loaded more pyschobabble in as background, as if to "explain" why Michael became the killer that he did. Is that true?

Looking forward to this. Seems a prime movie for a remake.

Just saw the original Texas Chainsaw movie for the first time (I saw the remake first).

I find...horror movies are among the movies that least hold up over time.

No, there was no "psychobabble." They simply fleshed him out a little more. In the first version, little Michael just decides to kill his sister for no apparent reason. In this version, you can clearly see how his homelife was a factor. He is depicted as having killed small animals first and then kills a bully from school and then his sister, his mother's boyfriend (William Forsythe playing pretty much every character he's ever played here) and his sister's boyfriend. One of the more emotional scenes is when his mother, who is still somewhat in a state of denial over Michael even after he's been convicted of the crime, witnesses the result of his brutality when he kills a nurse at the mental hospital. At that moment, she realizes that he truly is a monster and goes home and kills herself. But as far as "psychobabble," no. They don't pummel you with a lot of big words.

That's a yes.

Sounds interesting.

Nope. Malcolm McDowell doesn't give any expositions or use any terms in order to describe Michael. The one time he comes close to doing so is a 30 second part that shows him giving a presentation after his book about Michael Myers hits it big. (That was another interesting little part of the movie. The sheriff doesn't like Loomis, and neither does most of the town, because they think he capitalized on a local tragedy of their's.)

The "yes" grows.

As he described it, that's not psychobabble. Just shows he was "always" violent, a bad seed.

Not that I mind some reason why someone is messed up, some explanation even if it doesn't completely fit.

Jay is correct. In this context, the psychobabble doesn't need to be confined to literal babble (words). This doesn't really bother me though, and I'll probably see the movie at some point.

Well, when I hear or read the word "psychobabble" I think of filler. I think of two characters who are psychologists or psychiatrists exchanging psychological theories back and forth or something akin to that. If that's what you mean, then there wasn't any present in this film to speak of.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychobabble

I never saw an occult theme in the first one. A definite link to evil for sure, maybe the devil... but to me thats what put the "fun" and scary edge in the movie. I watched the original about 3 or 4 months ago and it held up fine for me. I didn't need more of an explanation to why he did what he did or who he was. Just from your quick description about "home life" and "contributing factors" makes me kinda laugh. I've done extensive reading on serial killers (a morbid fascination for sure) and it simply sounds like a cobbled back story that could be any number of different killers from history. So to me, this takes all the "fun" out of the Halloween angle of the movie. Sounds like hes just another schmo killer out for kicks.

But in all fairness, I haven't seen both, so it's really a snap, hearsay judgment on my part. I won't be seeing the remake.

For the record; I watched it alone by myself for the night, and yes, even I who is NOT scared easily by such things did not sleep well that night. The part after she stabs him upstairs and shes telling the kids to run, when he sits straight up and turns his head in a very mechanical way to look at her just freaks me out!

That element was added in the second one.

In the first Halloween, we also didn't know that Michael was Laurie Strode's brother. In the remake, that is an integral part of the plot.

And the term is never used in reference to plot contrivances that add unnecessary psychological aspects to stories. Perhaps that's not the dictionary definition, but I've seen it used in this way many times. I'm pretty sure that's what Jay means, and I know it's what I was thinking from your descriptions.

Your arguement would appear to be with Dictionary.com at this point.

I'm that way when it comes to other films, most notably "Psycho."

But in my view, Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees (sp?) are so close in so many ways that I didn't mind a "Halloween" remake if for no other reason than to differentiate more between them.

One man's psychobabble is another mans interesting psychological wrinkle and exploration.

Babble is a judgment call in that we are basically saying "that explanation, I don't like it. It's meaningless or silly."

You remind me of someone...

I have no "argument", just opinion on what some people are not looking for in a Halloween remake, and how that is commonly expressed.

Michael Myers?

Something else that kind of threw me for a loop when I watched it was the scene where Michael first wears his iconic mask... at age 10. It was bizarre to see that brilliantly minimalistic white head on a 10 year old body. Nobody in the theater thought it was funny seeing that (as some of you who havent seen it might be thinking having read me describe it).