To give you an idea of what kind of horror I like, I'm into the stuff that scares you, not shocks you. Which is why I'm a huge fan of the original Halloween, directed by John Carpenter, because the film cares more about creeping you out (with its themes of isolation and sense of dread throughout), then it does packing on the gore. In fact, there's very little blood in the original Halloween, which is pretty amazing considering it's widely known as one of the best horror films of all time. Which brings us to Rob Zombie's 2007 "re-imagining" of the original Halloween, simply titled Halloween. I watched this DVD with two horror junkies, and the line that spewed out of our mouths the most was: "See, now was that really necessary?" Was it necessary for his family to be a total cliche of "white trash" to the umpteenth degree? Was the whole "bullied as a kid" storyline necessary? Was it necessary to have two Smith's Grove workers raping a patient inside Myers' cell (a scene in the unrated cut)? Actually, was it necessary to abuse almost every single woman in this flick, mentally and physically? Was this entire film necessary at all?

In defense of Zombie, a lot of Halloween fanboys have always wanted to see more of the Myers mythology. More of Myers as a kid, more of Myers' relationship with Dr. Loomis at Smith's Grove -- more of Myers as a character versus Myers as a random guy in a mask who kills people. Zombie provides all that background info in this film, some of which is very successful (like Myers' obsession with making masks). But too much time is spent with Myers as a kid (played by Daeg Faerch), and while this time definitely helps build upon the Myers character (and mythology) it sort of lessens the overall scare factor -- because, in the end, do we really need to be BFF with Myers in order to watch him kill people? It's like Zombie created two films -- one a family drama, one a slasher flick -- and neither really worked.