Connect with us

Editorials

[Discussion] Do You Want to See Dr. Loomis in Next Year’s ‘Halloween’?

Published

on

There’s a petition that’s been circulating around the net in the wake of Blumhouse and John Carpenter announcing that a new Halloween film, penned by Danny McBride and David Gordon Green and set to be directed by Gordon Green, is headed our way next October. The petition, to date signed by well over 1,000 fans, was created in an effort to beg Blumhouse to cast Robert Englund in the role of Dr. Loomis.

The reason we haven’t shared the petition, as other sites have, is because it’s incredibly silly for a multitude of reasons. For starters, we have no idea if Dr. Loomis is even going to appear in the new Halloween film (the script hasn’t even been written, and we’ve been provided with very little insight at this time), and besides, as fun as fan casting might sometimes be, going one step further and starting a petition to beg a studio to bring YOUR vision to the screen is, well, it’s idiotic. Besides, didn’t Englund basically already play Dr. Loomis in Behind the Mask, ten years ago?!

Now I can only assume the petition was started in the wake of Danny McBride revealing that next year’s Halloween reboot will continue the story told in the original versions of Halloween and Halloween 2 – the assumption from many fans is that this means the new film will be set in the 1980s, and that Dr. Loomis will once again find himself going toe-to-toe with Michael Myers. Of course, we have no idea if it’ll actually be set in the ’80s or jump forward to the present day, but even if it does take place directly after the events of Halloween 2, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Loomis would have died in that hospital explosion? After all, that was Carpenter’s vision… until Halloween 4 came along.

Which brings me to the question I thought worthy of discussing here today. Do you want to see Dr. Loomis in McBride and Gordon Green’s Halloween? Or is Loomis, at this point, better off dead?

Some fans would argue, perhaps rightfully so, that a Halloween film just isn’t a Halloween film without Dr. Loomis – he is, after all, the Ahab to Michael’s Moby Dick – but personally speaking, my number one hope from the new Halloween movie is that it provides a fresh new vision for the franchise. I already wrote a lengthy article about why I think we should all be excited that McBride and Gordon Green are the men in charge, but the gist was essentially this: I’m ready for something new and different.

At this point, we’ve seen two actors play Loomis across seven movies, and I’m just not sure there’s anything left to explore in regards to that doctor-patient relationship. Furthermore, if Gordon Green’s Halloween is set right after the other two, it’d be incredibly jarring to see a new actor trying to be Donald Pleasence; and that’s honestly just not something I have any desire to see.

Robert Englund? He deserves better than playing a character another actor already nailed.

The Halloween franchise no longer needs Dr. Loomis. It doesn’t even need Laurie Strode. It needs only one person, and that person is Michael Myers. I don’t know about you, but I’m ready to see him interact with new characters. To do things we haven’t already seen him do. I’m ready, simply put, for the Halloween franchise to break free from nostalgia and bring us something fresh.

Sorry, but there’s just nothing fresh about Robert Englund as Dr. Loomis.

Again, we’ve already seen it…

Writer in the horror community since 2008. Editor in Chief of Bloody Disgusting. Owns Eli Roth's prop corpse from Piranha 3D. Has four awesome cats. Still plays with toys.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading