The ridiculously gruesome 9th entry in a blood-splattered franchise somehow scores more praise than its OG predecessor

If there’s one unbridled certainty about the horror genre, it’s that the oversaturation of gore has the tendency to drive a large portion of moviegoers away. From grisly storytelling to specific moments that could force those with weak stomachs to absolutely hurl, it comes as no surprise at this point that an overabundance of gore is an acquired taste that must connect with the right audience. With that said, horror filmmaker Rob Zombie has experienced heaps of criticism over the years because of his overuse of gore. As it turns out, however, perhaps his Halloween (2007) remake is actually safe from said criticism.

Discussion about the horror remake initially began a few years after the success of Freddy vs. Jason (2003), with Zombie holding the Halloween franchise in high regard and hoping to place his own spin upon the triumphant film series. And with underground treasures like House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects layered as the foundation for his filmmaking career, it only took a little elbow grease (and lots of blood) for the aforementioned feature to be brought to life on the big screen.

Flash forward 16 years later, and Zombie’s eye-numbing adaptation is still no stranger when it comes to plenty of ridicule and distaste. And yet, there are still a handful of gorehounds that appreciate the 58-year-old director’s filmmaking formula. In fact, one Redditor even took to the r/horror platform to deliver the hottest take by insisting that Zombie’s remake is miles better than John Carpenter’s “boring” Halloween (1978). Their words, not ours.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of Redditors in the comment section shot down that theory and declared that Carpenter’s OG project is a cinematic masterpiece that doesn’t hold a candle to Zombie’s ghastly mess. But hey, that’s the beauty of opinions.