Michael being a killer that seems to have no real motive and simply wants to see his family dead and all those that try to stop him is a scary thing because that's inhuman. It's monstrous. It makes Michael seem so detached from humanity that he becomes nothing but an embodiment of evil with but a single goal.
The problem with that is that I was likewise detached from Michael and the rest of the film. Humanizing Michael made him more real, and made the films events seem like they could actually happen. Besides, a mute giant who shrugs off gunshot wounds with the power of psychotic determination is plenty inhuman.
Frankly, I thought Silence of the Lamb's Dr Hannibal Lecter was a far, far better example of someone being evil for no discernible reason. (I'll admit, the "origin" prequel did ruin that
character. Then again, it wasn't a good movie overall) The original Michael Myers was just lazy writing in comparison. Which segues to my next counter-point...
Dr. Loomis in the first movie saying that he was never able to connect with Michael, never able to find a shred of humanity behind his eyes and seeing nothing but pure evil was a lot more frightening than "He had a bad childhood". It broke the movie rule of "Show, don't tell" but it did it right because in his exposition Loomis displays nothing but absolute fear that Michael is loose.
I disagree about that "working." The original Michael and Loomis were one-note stock characters. Again, this didn't make Michael seem as detached as I felt watching that film.
The movie was too
simple for its own good. The victims, the "typical teenagers," were the most interesting characters by default. Partly because of that, the build-up half of the film felt less like building-up and more like filler more often than not. Then again, maybe there were some subtleties I missed while I was watching the clock. I dunno. It needed a character arc, or some kind of sub-plot. Something, anything
to make the slower-paced parts feel like a pace rather than a stall.
Halloween helped define a genre, but not in the sense you
would probably mean it. I see it as more of a historical note. A step in how horror films evolved over time. I frankly believe that it has otherwise been rendered obsolete by other movies since. In other words, I believe people are reviewing the original Halloween today through rose-tinted nostalgia lenses.
Not that I'm saying the 2007 Halloween was great. No, it was just good. Its a freaking Rob Zombie film. "Just good" is the most you can hope for. That IMO reinforces how the original didn't
fare the test of time so well.
But rather than be 100% argumentative contrarian, I'll extend this olive branch: an indispensable caveat to liking Rob Zombie's Halloween is pretending the sequel never happened. (unfocused writing + far slower pace than John Carpenter's original Halloween + more generic death scenes compared to the 2007 film + drop in acting quality amongst returning actors + bait-&-switch trailers = ugh!)