What? You say it's the summertime and you don't want to think about horrible things that go slash in the night? Bah! Any time is the right time to talk Halloween, if you ask me, and soon we'll be awash in the stuff anyway. A six-disk Halloween: 30th Anniversary box set is on its way, according to Shock Til You Drop. This will be, unofficially, the one millionth edition / repackaging of John Carpenter's horror classic.

The set will include the restored original 1978 version, the extended edition (I'm assuming with the extra footage added for broadcast on TV), "25 Years of Terror," Halloween 4 DiviMax and Halloween 5 DiviMax ("DiviMax" meaning remastered in high definition), and Halloween on Blu-ray (?!). As further incentive, a miniature Michael Myers mask will be included. With this edition, we can safely call Anchor Bay the "masters of repackaging." DVD Active has the box set art, release date (October 7), suggested retail price ($89.97) and a few details on the extensive marketing campaign planned to celebrate the 30th anniversary.

But wait, there's more! If you're one of the dozen or so people who actually prefer Rob Zombie's "vision" of Halloween, you'll be able to bask in all the gory goodness to your bloody heart's content on the same day. Fangoria has details of Zombie's three-disk "Unrated Collector's Edition," which will include a FOUR AND A HALF HOUR making of doc. That's as far as I read, but you check out the rest at Fangoria.

Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween was disturbing on several levels -- mostly because he brought nothing really new to his "reimagining" -- but if nothing else, it reawakened interest in John Carpenter's highly influential original film. Dozens of pictures borrowed the basic premise of a slasher stalking sex-crazed teens, but few ever captured the creepy atmosphere of small-town innocence overwhelmed by fear like Carpenter did. (Matt Bradshaw wrote a good Retro Cinema on the original recently.)

Carpenter himself has been absent from the big screen for nearly seven years, ever since Ghosts of Mars, though he directed two episodes of the Masters of Horror television series. While his recent work hasn't been at the same level as the highs he once achieved -- my personal faves include Assault on Precint 13, The Thing, Christine and They Live -- he's built up too much horror goodwill over the decades to be silenced forever.

Now Shock Till You Drop brings us news that Carpenter has begun casting a new movie entitled L.A. Gothic, which is comprised of "five interwoven stories of high-octane horror centering on a vengeful ex-priest's efforts to protect his teenage daughter from the supernatural evils of L.A.'s dark side." The script was written by Jim Agnew and Sean Keller, the team that also wrote Giallo, which Dario Argento will begin filming next month.

Last time I saw a vengeful ex-priest trying to protect a young girl, it was in Danish director Anders Morgenthaler's amazing, disturbing, animated Princess, so I'd love to see if Carpenter can deliver some jolting shocks mixed in with the family story. I'm also curious to see which supernatural evils will be battled, since there are so many to choose from, especially in Los Angeles!

I come to John Carpenter's 1978 classic Halloween from an odd perspective. I'm a horror buff, and I've been getting the crap scared out of me at the cinema and on video for several decades now. Whether it be current stuff like the Saw films, classics like the Universal Monsters, or mondo obscuro delights like Paul Naschy werewolf flicks from Spain or Messiah of Evil (which I did a Retro Cinema review on a few weeks ago), I've seen it all. Well, not quite all. Despite my status as a hardcore horror junkie I only recently watched Halloween for the first time in its entirety. I've seen bits and pieces here and there over the years, but this was my first time taking in the whole thing from start to finish (and if you just said "that's what she said," then shame on me for handing you such an obvious straight line).

Having been raised on a steady diet of Famous Monsters of Filmland magazines, the idea of a guy going around killing people with a big knife wasn't my idea of a scary movie. I preferred a supernatural angle to my horror, thank you very much, and Halloween just didn't appeal to me upon its initial release. Over the years my prejudice against non-supernatural horror has faded, but having seen many of the films that Halloween inspired -- whether they be sequels, homages or knock offs -- I've developed a deep dislike for slasher films, so I never saw any reason to check out the one that started it all.

Once again, I'm going to pretend like I made something happen. Two days ago, on this very Cinematical program, I declared that there can be only one Snake Plissken in movieland, and he shall be forever played by Kurt Russell. Well, perhaps Gerard Butler agrees with me, because he's now dropped out of the remake of Escape from New York, according to Variety. The trade says the decision was due to creative differences, which could very well mean that New Line wants to go with the Snake Plissken name, while Butler sided with me in saying that was a bad idea. Of course, I don't want to be responsible for Butler quitting a gig; after all, I implied that it was okay for the 300 star to do the remake, just that he needed another, less-iconic character name. Regardless, though, Butler's departure follows news that Brett Ratner is no longer or was never attached to direct the movie, which had followed news that Len Wiseman was also not involved. And suddenly the project is empty of talent. But for those three of you who are looking forward to it, the remake is not dead yet. New Line has hired Jonathan Mostow to script a rewrite and has apparently offered him the option to direct as well.

Mostow, who interestingly enough directed Russell in Breakdown, will be revising the current script penned by Ken Nolan. Back in July, Aint it Cool News posted a review of the earlier draft; revealing that it was relatively faithful to John Carpenter's original while also being modernized with timely relevance to the Middle East conflicts. The script also was said to feature flashbacks to Snake's military career in order to show background for his imprisonment. We'll have to wait and see if Mostow changes much of the details from that version, but I think we can trust the project in his hands. Sure, he's been known to play with history, substituting Americans for British in significant WWII plots, and he seemed to piss off a lot of fans with his direction of Terminator 3: Rise o the Machines (not me, though; I enjoyed it), but Mostow is a heck of a lot better than Wiseman and Ratner. So, should he direct? Is it like choosing the lesser of evils? Do you wish New Line would just scrap the whole thing altogether (they won't -- they paid too much for it)? And most importantly, who should play Snake, or "guy who isn't called Snake" as I suggested the character to be named, now that Butler is out?

Fire up the flame war, because I'm about to admit to another crazy opinion: John Carpenter's Escape from New York is boring. It's a great concept -- that of Manhattan being a maximum security prison in which a military prisoner must seek and rescue the President of the United States in order to receive a pardon. The movie is even relatively impressive considering its low budget, regardless of how dated it now looks. But it just doesn't have enough going on to garner as much praise as it receives. Maybe if I'd seen it 25 years ago I would have the same fondness that its fans have, but I saw it this year and was seriously disappointed; and yes, I was extremely bored. Because of this crazy opinion, I actually wouldn't mind seeing a well-done remake. Unfortunately, I don't believe I will get to see such a thing considering the directors so far linked to the job. First there was Len Wiseman (I still haven't seen Live Free or Die Hard, so I can't judge him completely). Then there was the much worse news that Brett Ratner was taking the helm. Fortunately, we can count him out too, as Aint it Cool News has relayed an email claiming Ratner himself denied his involvement.

I'll admit one other thing, that may save me from too many flames: Kurt Russell is the only Snake Plissken. No matter who New Line gets to direct the EFNY redo, the studio might as well save themselves some pain by changing the main character's name. Technically there's no reason to do this, but for those of us who associate Russell with Snake, it would be a wonderful, narratively insignificant change (I even have a suggestion for a "new" name: Ben Richards). Yeah, I know I just saw the movie for the first time within twelve months, but even without sitting through the thing, I spent the last 25 years with the image of Russell with the eyepatch in my head. That means he's a part of the pop-cultural consciousness. Giving us a new Snake, at least by name, is like trying to re-introduce Mickey Mouse as a rat. Or Ronald McDonald as a bearded lady. Or Willy Wonka as Michael Jackson. Anyway, that is my invitation for scrutiny for the day, and I'm sticking by it. The Escape from New York remake, hopefully starring Gerard Butler as "some other dude with an eye patch," is due in 2009.

You know how people try and make you feel better by saying things could always be worse? Well, if Ain't it Cool News is right, then things have officially gotten worse with regards to the remake of Escape From New York. According to AICN's Merrick (via one of their ultra hip scoopers), a rumor has been making the rounds that claims Brett Ratner in in talks (or in the running) to take over directing duties on the remake of John Carpenter's classic. Now, to be fair, AICN is not confirming the news to be true, but you could probably already hear the collective groans from fans of the original film at the thought of Ratner ruining a cult favorite. Len Wiseman was officially attached to the project back in August, but according to AICN's source, Wiseman is off the project for good.

Released in 1981, the original film starred Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken; a mercenary soldier turned convict who is forced into service to rescue the daughter of the president in the apocalyptic wasteland formerly known as New York. Ryan had reported back in May that Gerard Butler (300) would be taking over the lead -- much to the dismay of the original Snake Plissken . Changes seem to be the order of the day when it comes to the remake, since there had been talk that the script would be getting an update as well. Since the original film was a comment on Watergate and political corruption, it has been assumed that the new film would be working in some Iraq war commentary. Although if Ratner does take over, this will probably be some pretty ham-fisted discourse. But before anyone gets too upset; just remember that so far this is all just speculation. So keep your fingers crossed that this is all just someone's idea of a cruel joke.

UPDATE: IESB claims this rumor is 100% true, and that Brett Ratner has indeed replaced Len Wiseman as director of the Escape from New York remake.

There are films that fall from our view -- after the initial heat-rush of their release, they quickly cool and fade, their flash of incandescence dimming like a dying ember until they disappear. There are other films, however, that do not fall from view, or fade, but rather shine constantly, unceasing and unwavering in their quality. These enduring films are not all high art; some of them (indeed, many of them) are excellent trash, casual masterpieces. Their enduring glow is like the sickly undimming light of radioactivity; their tenacity is like that of the cockroach. Many of these films were made on a shoestring with a legion of low-level actors and without a single original bone in their bodies -- and yet, something in them reaches us, resonates, tapping -- deliberately or accidentally -- into some primal aspect of our psyches to endure as dreams or visions or, in some cases, nightmares. John Carpenter's The Thing, released in 1982, endures even though we might not want it to, much the same way we'd try to shake off a bad dream -- it's a remake of a d-grade b-movie that rises head and shoulders above the source material and still sends both wet, visceral disgust and cold, clinical terror keening through you 25 years later. As Stephen King points out in his genre study Danse Macabre, there's a difference between revulsion and fear, between shock and suspense. But The Thing has all of those: the bloody terrors of sudden death, the terrible quiet in the icy halls as our heroes are eliminated one by one; the existential nightmare of the other replacing you and the more immediate concern of the other in the room with you, snarling and slashing and hungry.

And you'd be hard-pressed to imagine The Thing enduring at the time of its release; it was conceived as a mid-level moneymaker, with a $10 million budget and (with the exception of Kurt Russell and director Carpenter) completely devoid of marquee value. Screenwriter Bill Lancaster's previous credits were for the Bad News Bears films -- which hardly suggest that sci-fi horror was his forte or his passion. The Thing was a flop at the box office; in a cruel twist of fate, Steven Spielberg's E.T. opened two weeks before The Thing made its debut, and Spielberg's kinder, gentler visitor from beyond went on to rake in money hand over fist. And yet, there's a reason why we remember bitter nightmares more fiercely than sweet dreams. ...

Stephen King was a pretty hot commodity back in 1983. That year saw the publication of the novels Christine and Pet Semetary, as well as the release of John Carpenter's film adaptation of the former. I myself was a big fan of King's work, having read all of his novels and many of his short stories, and news that Christine was being directed by John Carpenter of The Fog and The Thing (I hadn't yet seen Halloween) fame was exciting news indeed. John Carpenter teaming up with Stephen King? How could we lose? I saw the film during its theatrical run and it proved to be a bitter disappointment. I hadn't seen the film since, so when I watched Christine again for this review it was my first viewing in twenty-four years.

Christine is a '58 Plymouth Fury, and since most of the film takes place in 1978, the car has just passed the 20-year mark, making it an antique car. The film actually opens in the 1950s as Christine is coming down the assembly line. Even at that tender age this is one bad ass machine, and the fact that "Bad to the Bone" is playing on the soundtrack is no coincidence. One worker has his hand smashed by Christine's hood, giving the appearance that the car has bitten him, while another dies mysteriously inside the car after having the audacity to drop cigar ashes on her newly minted seats.

This week, slasher legend Michael Myers will be resurrected once again, this time in a total page one remake of John Carpenter's 1978 classic. It's been a long, strange road for Myers -- at one point, I think his mind was being controlled by Druids? -- but Rob Zombie's remake attempts to go somewhere new with the character by focusing almost the entire first hour on Myers' messed-up childhood -- Carpenter devoted comparatively little time to the origin story -- showing us his torment at the hands of school bullies, his disgust at his slovenly couch potato step-father and promiscuous sister, and tracking his slow degradation into a mute nutjob. This first section of Halloween, which strongly echoes the grotesque, white-trash circus atmosphere that surrounds Zombie's first two films, House of 1000 Corpses and its sequel, The Devil's Rejects, is where you'll most easily see the director's fingerprints. A couple of weeks ago, I got a call from Rob to talk about the film, what he wanted to accomplish with it, and what other irons he's got in the fire.

RS: So have you seen the film with an audience yet?

RZ: I've seen the film twice, two different versions with an audience, but I have not seen the final, finished version yet.

RS: How was the reaction in those early screenings?

RZ: The reaction was awesome -- it was one of those test screenings. You actually get more information than you'd normally get. It's actually hard to judge, when you're sitting in the crowd, what people are thinking. When I watch a movie, I don't make a sound or move. The more I'm into the movie, the more bored I look. So you're sitting there, kind of panicking, like 'I can't tell if people like it!' Then afterwards, when people started talking, everyone loved it. If someone jumps or something, you can tell they react, but most of the time when they're paying close attention, there's no reaction at all.

RS: Why was it important for you to cast a big, tall guy like Tyler Mane as the adult Michael? The scary thing about Michael is that he's crazy and you have no idea what he's thinking, right?

RZ: Well, the fact that he's tall doesn't take away the part that he's crazy or any of that. None of that is lessened. Two reasons -- one is that I didn't want to make him supernatural, you know, which he had sort of been. In order for a guy, in the other films, of his size to do the things he was doing, he'd have to be supernatural and have superhuman strength. I didn't want to do that, because I thought that had been done and I wanted to take a different approach. The only way to get somebody who could physically do the things I have him do in this movie would be someone of that size. And I just thought, frankly, he's much more frightening. When he comes crashing through ... You know, people always say that to me -- 'don't you think a normal-sized guy is more frightening? And I go 'F*ck no.' If a normal-sized guy comes at me, I'm not worried. If a guy like Tyler comes at me, I'm f*ckin' worried. I wanted him to be like Frankenstein -- a total monster. And he is. Tyler's great, because he's not ... he used to be a lot bigger. He lost 100 pounds, so he's not really bulky. He's actually pretty slim, but he's just so big. I wanted him to have a physical presence that was different than, you know, the average people in the movie, and he totally does.

Time once again for our weekly Indie Film Blog Group Hug, wherein we check in with other film blogs around the internet to see what other folks are writing about. One of these days, I want to throw a big party at my house and have all the other film bloggers from around the world converge in my living room to wax eloquent about all things film-related over chips and salsa, taquitos and icy-cold margaritas. Wouldn't that be a blast? In the meantime, the Group Hug will have to suffice ...

Oh, and by the way, fellow cinephiles, if you have a film blog I don't know about (or even if you've previously submitted your blog and I haven't covered it in a while), drop me a line at kim(at)cinematical(dot)com to point me your way.

• Over on The Hot Blog, David Poland writes about whether it means anything that Fox pulled out of Comic-Con, and ponders the whole sticky-wicket issues of which critics get into sceenings when, which leads to a discussion of embargoes, which then gets into the whole kerfuffle surrounding the Baltimore Sun and NYT breaking embargo on the lastest (and last) Harry Potter tome. And somehow, he manages to tie it all together in a way that actually makes sense ...
• ... Meanwhile over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Poland's sometime-rival Jeff Wells commentates nicely (I think) on Poland's piece and offers up his own take on the whole Fox-pulls-out-of-Comic-Con-Does-That-Mean-The-Simpsons-Movie-sucks thing.
• Apparently everyone the Baltimore Sun and NYT have everyone thinking about all things Potter this week, as both Anne Thompson, Matt Dentler, and Karina Longworth ** (great minds thinking alike) have posts up about the Harry Potter embargo-breaking, too.
• Strange Culture is already thinking Oscars ... in July! That's right, RC is already positing that Roger Deakins will be nominated for an Oscar for cinematography -- and that's probably a pretty good guess. Any early bets on other Oscar noms?
• Indie Film Nation, which runs some nifty podcasts about all things indie, has a fascinating interview up with Richard Moore, the director of the Melbourne International Film Festival. Good stuff. While you're already over there, check out last week's interview with Goetz Weber, CEO and co-founder of inDPlay.
• Checking out what's going down over at Twitch, Kurt has a little post up {via just about everyone on the planet, so this is obviously old news to everyone but me -- figures) about the possibility that one of my favorite films ever, John Carpenter's They Live, might -- that's might -- be made into a series for the Sci-Fi channel. They live is great political satire wrapped up as a fun horror flick, and I agree with Kurt -- it's never been more relevant than it is now. Keep your fingers crossed -- if it does ever get made, that's one series that's getting set to record on my DVR, baby. Don't forget your special sunglasses ...

**Karina does indeed have a great mind, but that particular post was about Fox and Comic-Con, not Harry Potter. It's still a good post and worth reading, though. The moral of this story? Don't read 40 different film blogs while simultaneously writing a post and getting four kids ready to get out the door for swim lessons without double-checking that you've got it all right. Thanks for setting it straight, Karina. It's good to still have you around to keep us on our toes.