HOME TRAILERS 2022 SCHEDULE 2023 SCHEDULE SHORT FILMS REVIEWS PODCAST INTERVIEWS NEWS FEEDS ABOUT US

LATEST NEWS

Patrick Lussier to Continue the Horror in Halloween 3-D

by Ethan Anderton
September 7, 2009

Just last week we threw a rumor your way stating that Halloween franchise veteran director Steve Miner might be returning to the director's chair for a continuation of the series reboot started by Rob Zombie. All the more interesting was the mention that the third installment would bring Michael Myers back to the cinema in glorious 3-D this time. Well it turns out we were half right. Halloween 3-D will indeed be hitting theaters next year, but Variety reports it will be My Bloody Valentine 3-D director Patrick Lussier writing and directing another night of fright with Michael Myers instead of Rob Zombie or Steve Miner.

While, personally, I think that Steve Miner could've potentially brought the real Michael Myers back from the trainwreck that Rob Zombie steered him into with Halloween II, Lussier probably isn't a terrible choice either. Almost all of his experience (both as a director and more extensively as an editor) has been in the horror genre. And as an editor I'm sure he picked up a trick or two while working with Wes Craven on the Scream trilogy or with Guillermo Del Toro on Mimic.

Much of my reservation now comes from the use of 3-D in an established franchise. I can understand using it to bring a new audience to a horror remake (My Bloody Valentine), but here it seems like even more of a gimmick and I'm not sure that horror films will ever be able to use 3-D in a way that immerses you the way something like Coraline or Avatar does. But obviously with The Final Destination in 3-D taking the box office two weeks in a row (with arguably weak competition), I'm sure The Weinstein Company is hoping that 3-D will help fill seats again and make up for the lackluster performance of Rob Zombie's Halloween II.

Find more posts: Movie News, Opinions

10 Comments

I hope he can atleast fix what has been broken by Zombie!

j teezee likes it easy on Sep 7, 2009

Yeah...Inglorious Basterds is some crap competition along with Gamer........... ........ ............. ....................... ... .......... ........ ETHAN!!! AVATAR HASN'T BEEN RELEASED GENIUS!!! So how can we be submersed in some great movie that doesn't exist? Exactly. Why can't they just stop with these movies? And also, horror stories are the best for 3D idiot. They have all the jumps, throws, and out there effects to take advantage of. Where this guy come from? I sadly want Alex back.

Tra la la la la di da on Sep 8, 2009

^ I think he was talking about the way Avatar will eventually immerse us... Give him a chance, he's a new writer for us, contributing often, just let him warm up to things!

Alex Billington on Sep 8, 2009

wow imgine that , another series gets a new director and sequeled to death ,so bad . Zombie finished it ,end of story .

mark on Sep 8, 2009

I've seen plenty of people on here that could write for you with a bit more in depth ideas and comparisons that make sense. while firstshowing is obviously being bought by Cameron (called sarcasm) Avatar does not exist to speak of it is ridiculous in teams that it has done something it hasn't. Will it? Maybe, who knows? Horror doesn't have what it takes to fulfill 3D entertainment? Where did you find this kid, high school? Horror and Sci-fi have the campiest, most thrown at, in your face, randomness for 3D. No plot, simple killings, and fun action or did we forget the ringer of Valentine with the axe being thrown? FD4 was quite awesome for 3D and showed what 3D is all about, in your face fun. UP was subpar and an enjoyment but the 2D version was just fine. I recently saw Coraline and yes, it was awesome in 3D and Ethan is right, that it changes the world of it but it is also animated and a fantasy story. Acker's 9 would be great as well. Animation follows the same idea of live-action in that it must be in your face. FD4 played it smart with little transition and kept the ball rolling with stuff flying at you and people dying. Avatar on the other hand will be like most films and maybe an 60-90 minutes of non-continuous action (by this I mean there's action but sometimes in the background while they try for a plot) and the rest will be static plot continuous. Yes, Titanic was great and possibly in 3D awesome, ya know, when the ship finally sinks and all that jazz, but what till then? Could you imagine your eyes staring at that!?! Here's a test, go get one of those hidden puzzle books and stare at them for 2 hours or play Guitar Hero straight for two hours. Although the nuisance of that is the after affect when everything looks like it's scrolling up and it doesn't hurt really. Still, as said, FD4 was great for what it was but I was equally relieved in taking the glasses off and resting my eyes.

Tra la la la la di da on Sep 8, 2009

Tra la la la la di da... First, Inglourious Basterds isn't as friendly to all audiences as The Final Destination. Tarantino's most recent is a smart film, and it's also lengthy, and that just turns people off more than a mindless sequel, so yes, weak competition. And clearly Gamer wasn't a force to be reckoned with in the least if you look at the numbers. Second, yes I realize that Avatar hasn't been released yet, but I also was able to see the 16 minutes of preview footage shown in 3-D and while it was only a few scenes from the flick, the digital 3-D certainly immerses you in the world. Personally, I don't know why you criticize me for praising Avatar's use of 3-D having not seen the film and then you yourself say very matter-of-factly that Avatar "will be like most films and maybe an 60-90 minutes of non-continuous action (by this I mean there's action but sometimes in the background while they try for a plot) and the rest will be static plot continuous." Did you see a special screening of the ENTIRE film? Finally...my comments about horror and 3-D: What I mean there is that horror films use 3-D technology just like filmmakers did when 3-D was first introduced: as a gimmick. I don't want the 3-D to be all about stuff just flying at me from the screen and into my face. It's not the 80's and it's just a waste. Pictures like Coraline and Up (and yes, what I have seen so far from Avatar) make you feel like you're looking into a window that actually has real depth and it literally adds a new dimension to the motion picture experience. But I don't get that feeling from 3-D horror. That may be just because horror films that really captivate me are few and far between, but there ya go. It's a personal opinion about how I think 3-D should best be used, but thank you for calling me an idiot. I appreciate your candor, sir.

Ethan Anderton on Sep 8, 2009

I think porn is probably the best genre for 3-D.

DavidI3 on Sep 8, 2009

Shouldn't it be a remake of Halloween III: Season of the Witch then, in 3-D? "Two more weeks 'til Halloween! Halloween! Halloween! Two more weeks 'til Halloween! Silver Shamrock!"

Seanny on Sep 8, 2009

Im happy that they rnt just remaking Season of the witch(good horror movie, not a Halloween film tho). However, Im a huge fan of the direction Zombie took the series. Michael himself in H2 was the closest ever to the pure brutalness of the 1978 original. Ive seen My Bloody Valentine 3D. Quite frankly, it sucked ass. The writing sucked, saw the ending coming from a mile away and I wasnt impressed by the directing. However, I defnitely prefer a new take on the franchise rather than bringing Miner back for the thrid time. Im not going to be pissed off yet, but honestly, Halloween 2 ended it all in a fantastic way. The final scene with Laurie in the mental institute was absolutely fantastic, but I knew this would happen. You can't end a film with a somewhat open door to a new villain and just leave it, becuz Hollywood is not built on respect and morals. They should have just waited a year or so and Zombie wud have been wanting to do a third installment himself.

Will on Sep 12, 2009

Am I the only one who liked Rob Zombie's Michael??? Finally we have a realistic depiction of what the psychopathic behemoth would look like - dirty, animalistic, bearded, and fucking huge - and everyone hates it. Does it really suck that bad having a Michael Myers who can actually stand a chance against Jason in a fist fight?

Rchrdkrrgn on Apr 7, 2011

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.