Doc, it sounds like you're talking about the Antichrist.
Remaking such a classic is such a touchy subject. And in a lot of viewer's eyes, Zombie's remake completely butchered the original. Which I definitely understand. I was not around when the original came out. I am also a fairly young viewer, meaning I am more susceptible to enjoying modern movies. However, with that said, I am also a huge fan of all horror films, including the "classics" and ones from the 70's and 80's. But I have an open mind, and I felt Zombie's vision did not butcher the classic at all. It just was expanding the series, and I feel that Zombie's remake makes a lot more sense than Carpenter's original. Let's just say all those sequels that tried to explain Michael's past did not exist. With that, the original film makes no logical sense whatsoever. Why would Michael kill anyone? Why is he attracted to Laurie so bad? There is so much mystery behind that film, it almost simply feels more poorly written than mystery. Here, in Zombie's remake, instead of being against Michael, you are more feeling sorry for the poor guy. You see he has a horrible home life as a kid. And with a stripper for a mom, kids make fun of him at school. Michael even gets teased by his sister at home; the poor kid has no escape. This builds a great character, and the sympathy stays with you even after the brutal killings.
Rob Zombie has not made a ton of movies; he's mostly known for his disturbing films House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. You can definitely tell this is a Rob Zombie film, just by seeing those two films. His directing style is not just mindless violence, but extreme violence that will damage you on an emotional scale, rather than just hacking limbs up or doing depraved acts on the screen like director Tom Six, of the Human Centipede films does. Rob Zombie makes his massive violence intriguing, and it hurts your soul watching it sometimes. I must say I watched both of Zombie's Halloween films back to back the other day, and I was emotionally drained after wards (Here's to Halloween III, sadly in development hell as of now).
Scout Taylor-Compton plays Laurie Strode. Now, here is my problem with the remake. Zombie completely changed Laurie's character from a shy bookworm to a much more modern, and average girl. You get the feeling she's no slut, but you also don't get that "Laurie" vibe from her at all. This is not Scout Taylor-Compton's fault, I can tell it's just Zombie telling her how to act, but honestly it took away from the "Halloween" feel to it the originals had. On top of that, Zombie also changed Dr. Loomis' character. He goes from quiet, to a more unlikable character. Which I honestly hate saying because he is played by the great Malcom McDowell. But I did not enjoy his character as much as the original series. And finally a return from Danielle Harris! Of course she is no longer playing Jamie, from Halloween 4 and 5, but she is playing Annie, one of Laurie's close friends. It was so cool to see her return. She is such a great, underrated and beautiful actress, that sadly really only has a name to indie horror films. Which I'm fine with, since I love movies like that. And even Brad Douriff has a role as Annie's father. Douriff is most known for playing the voice of Chucky in the Child's Play series, but it was also cool to see him amongst the horror-star-studded cast, also including Dee Wallace.
The movie has some great camerawork. Most noteworthy is in some intense scenes, the camera is shaky. Not like it's a handheld shot shaky, but it's shaky to prove a point and add intensity. This was one of the cooler directing techniques I've seen lately. Amongst cool angles, the gore and blood looked very realistic, with some great editing.
This is not butchering a classic at all, but I understand the hate for this film, because it is nothing like the original series. I recommend seeing this movie, but only if you have an open mind about it.