Rob Zombie "Done with making Horror Movies"

[Toby]

Rob Zombie Announces He’s Done Making Horror Movies
Herner Klenthur May 14th, 2013 22 Comments Rob Zombie you either love his horror movies or you hate them. Rarely does there seem to be much middle ground on this topic. This morning one of our readers alerted me to the fact that Rob Zombie seems to have had his fill of doing horror movies. Thats right he is throwing in the towel…. at least for now.

The Pheonix New Times did an interview with Rob Zombie asking if he would be interested in doing a monster movie next and his answer was pretty shocking declaring the Lords of Salem will be his last horror flick;

"No. I’m not really thinking of doing anything . . . Lords of Salem is my last sort of horror-genre related film for a really long time."

Rob Zombie has gotten plenty of heat over the years and some scorn from horror fans. He had the balls to step up to remake one of the greatest horror movies of all time, Halloween and then followed that up with a sequel to a remake. I thought his remake was pretty solid but the sequel was so bad it just made me brain hemmorage.

http://www.horror-movies.ca/2013/05/...horror-movies/

Poor Rob... I honestly think this is a huge loss for all of us horror fans. I don't know about you, but I loved House of 1000 Corpses, I loved Devil's Rejects, I pretend the Halloween remakes don't exist, El Superbeasto was funny, and I loved Lords of Salem.

He's one of the greats as far as filmmaking in the mainstream goes, and for people who don't give great constructive criticism as to why it sucked to know as to why their opinions would matter in the first place, I'm sorry but those kinds of lame-ass quick-opinion take-downs on movies like this that have quality in them and for haters to not see it really sucks for the future of mainstream filmmmaking.

The more people keep supporting blockbusters that don't always have quality in them when they SHOULD have some kind of substance in them, the more great visionary filmmakers like Rob Zombie will always get shelved by executives because they rely more on the box office to decifer what people want to see, not the quality of how films are made, and that's NOT bullshit.

The smart answer is that no one will ever know what everyone wants, it's impossible, unless it's a huge fanbased property, a book, a game, a cereal, whatever that's known by many that's where the money goes and that's how they'll get it. It's a safe bet and with safe bets come great consequences.

See this is why we hardly if ever get any good movies in the mainstream that is NOT a based-property, and I thought the mainstream would be open to a lot of movies with creative ideas, but instead we get more of the same, stupid, cynical thing and my favorite or your favorite filmmaker will always get the shaft because they want to make something different.

I understand if some people hate the movies if they think and realize there is something wrong with them that I could agree to when it turns out to be a problem of quality, however I DO NOT agree and will shoot-down any criticism that has no constructive things to say other than "This movie was a stupid piece of shit! Rob stop putting Sherri in your movies! The story was crap, the characters and acting are stupid, the editing is super lame!"

Yeah, I don't deem any opinions like those with any ounce of respect, then when you ask them why they don't go out and make their own movie and make it better then you realize these are the same people that look down or scorn independent movies, where in that case makes me feel ashamed that these said people can't accept these things or look at something with an open mind.

It's a battle us creators are fighting to this very day, because if people continue to shun creativity due to lack of budgets, lack of acting, and granted lack of writing creativity will always get shot down and never given a chance to the masses in the mainstream or not, and for people to tell other people to keep away from independent movies because of said stupid reasons (because let's face it, mainstream films that have bigger budgets, better acting, or better writing does not mean they're always going to be great or good, ergo: Die Hard 5, Iron Man 2, Ang Lee's HULK, The Hunger Games) is the most rotten, ignorant mass of people that need to be open about things that have a place in the history of filmmaking.

I hope you return with more great ideas, Rob, I'll always be rooting for you!

[FrighT MasteR]

Read about that a while back. All I can say is, GOOD.

[Red]

You make a convincing argument, but im going to have to disagree.

And Halloween, and Halloween 2 are the perfect examples of the two different ways I view Zombie as a filmmaker.

Halloween itself wasn't that bad actually. The motive for Michael was cliche at best, but the first half execution of the movie was in a whole, very refreshing for the Halloween franchise itself. The second half does bog a bit, but the movie itself I have no problem with. It made some changes on the original without being so careless to totally abandon what the original was.

The sequel on the other hand represents everything I find wrong with Zombie as a filmmaker.

Just over the top really.

[Macready]

http://www.horror-movies.ca/2013/05/...horror-movies/

Poor Rob... I honestly think this is a huge loss for all of us horror fans. I don't know about you, but I loved House of 1000 Corpses, I loved Devil's Rejects, I pretend the Halloween remakes don't exist, El Superbeasto was funny, and I loved Lords of Salem.

He's one of the greats as far as filmmaking in the mainstream goes, and for people who don't give great constructive criticism as to why it sucked to to know as to why their opinions would matter in the first place, I'm sorry but those kinds of lame-ass quick-opinion take-downs on movies like this that have quality in them and for haters to not see it really sucks for the future of mainstream filmmmaking.

Wow, really!? Here is some constructive criticism...he can't write a script better than a 1st grader! I can take my five year old and have him write a script to rival that of RZ. All he has to do is put to paper whatever he thinks up and make a movie of it. It would be a mix of trucks, firemen, Spiderman, and a Happy Meal. I know that sounds like it makes no sense at all but it does to him and that is the exact problem with RZ.

This is not a "lame ass takedown" it is gospel. Even most of those who like RZ films know they aren't getting anything special but enjoy it because they don't mind shit that doesn't make sense. Granted he can film some beautiful shots but to call him "one of the greats" is crazy IMO, but hey...you are entitled to your opinion.

The more people keep supporting blockbusters that don't always have quality in them when they SHOULD have some kind of substance in them, the more great visionary filmmakers like Rob Zombie will always get shelved by executives because they rely more on the box office to decifer what people want to see, not the quality of how films are made, and that's NOT bullshit.

Some but not all "blockbusters" lack quality. However just as you have a right to back RZ, those who like and enjoy those movies have every right to. It just so happens there are much, much more of them than those who support RZ the box office numbers prove that. It's not even close. To go even further and take the box office conspiracy theory out of it just compare some Metacritic user reviews, which for all of RZ's movies aren't favorable. I'll even keep the Halloween's out of it.

The Lords of Salem 6.2
House of 1000 Corpses 5.9
The Devil's Rejects 6.9




The smart answer is that no one will ever know what everyone wants, it's impossible, unless it's a huge fanbased property, a book, a game, a cereal, whatever that's known by many that's where the money goes and that's how they'll get it. It's a safe bet and with safe bets come great consequences.

See this is why we hardly if ever get any good movies in the mainstream that is NOT a based-property, and I thought the mainstream would be open to a lot of movies with creative ideas, but instead we get more of the same, stupid, cynical thing and my favorite or your favorite filmmaker will always get the shaft because they want to make something different.

The Place Beyond The Pines
Drive
Mud
The Pact
The Raid

Just to name a few. All mainstream (multiple genre's) and non-property based. I think this statement is ludicrous!

I understand if some people hate the movies if they think and realize there is something wrong with them that I could agree to when it turns out to be a problem of quality, however I DO NOT agree and will shoot-down any criticism that has no constructive things to say other than "This movie was a stupid piece of shit! Rob stop putting Sherri in your movies! The story was crap, the characters and acting are stupid, the editing is super lame!"

Other than some great imagery sorry they do suck. Really that's the criticism from me whether you like it or not. He can't write, his ideas are all over the place. His editing is barely competent. He does get props for doing what he wants but at this point there has to be someone to tell him what he wants simply isn't good.


Yeah, I don't deem any opinions like those with any ounce of respect, then when you ask them why they don't go out and make their own movie and make it better then you realize these are the same people that look down or scorn independent movies, where in that case makes me feel ashamed that these said people can't accept these things or look at something with an open mind.

It's a battle us creators are fighting to this very day, because if people continue to shun creativity due to lack of budgets, lack of acting, and granted lack of writing creativity will always get shot down and never given a chance to the masses in the mainstream or not, and for people to tell other people to keep away from independent movies because of said stupid reasons (because let's face it, mainstream films that have bigger budgets, better acting, or better writing does not mean they're always going to be great or good, ergo: Die Hard 5, Iron Man 2, Ang Lee's HULK, The Hunger Games) is the most rotten, ignorant mass of people that need to be open about things that have a place in the history of filmmaking.

I already gave a small list of films that are off the radar and something RZ couldn't duplicate...period. RZ is no. Nicolas Winding Refn. That's not a typing mistake. I simply couldn't put Nicolas in the same sentence as RZ. I have morals.

I hope you return with more great ideas, Rob, I'll always be rooting for you!

[BooBerry]

No big waste here. I liked Halloween... that was it.

[Toby]

Wow, really!? Here is some constructive criticism...he can't write a script better than a 1st grader! I can take my five year old and have him write a script to rival that of RZ. All he has to do is put to paper whatever he thinks up and make a movie of it. It would be a mix of trucks, firemen, Spiderman, and a Happy Meal. I know that sounds like it makes no sense at all but it does to him and that is the exact problem with RZ.

This is not a "lame ass takedown" it is gospel. Even most of those who like RZ films know they aren't getting anything special but enjoy it because they don't mind shit that doesn't make sense. Granted he can film some beautiful shots but to call him "one of the greats" is crazy IMO, but hey...you are entitled to your opinion.

See it's lame excuses like your "constructive criticism" that I'm talking about. Unless you can come up with something other than "my five-year-old can write a better script than RZ ever could!" then that opinion is just a complete and utter waste of filler that is just more of a slap-on comment than criticism.

Yes, that means it HAS to make sense in order for your opinion to be taken seriously. How would you have made the movie? What different things would you have done and why? What could've been done better? These are things you need to THINK about than just plain hate for certain movies you seem to have a lack for seeing substance in them, that is if you care for any substance at all. Though it's my opinion.

Some but not all "blockbusters" lack quality. However just as you have a right to back RZ, those who like and enjoy those movies have every right to. It just so happens there are much, much more of them than those who support RZ the box office numbers prove that. It's not even close. To go even further and take the box office conspiracy theory out of it just compare some Metacritic user reviews, which for all of RZ's movies aren't favorable. I'll even keep the Halloween's out of it.

The Lords of Salem 6.2
House of 1000 Corpses 5.9
The Devil's Rejects 6.9

If you're saying that "quality" in a movie ONLY matters because of how much money it makes, that's a terrible, awful, ignorant way to describe the quality of a movie! Then again it can be a little debateable, but come on, did you REALLY think The Avengers was very good ONLY because it made so much damn money?

Of course not, it was about the character development in the script details of the movie: Captain America's time dis-placement, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner becoming a buddy team, Thor being the serious one, how all those characters with their own abilities fight each other and against each other but in the end learn to become team players.

Yes, the effects were great, yes it was a fanbase property, yes it was awesome to see all our favorite superheroes fighting on screen together on a rather short-story of a plot that totally works to its advantage. But could you imagine how if that movie had none of those character qualities or rich directing it probably would've made a lot less at the box office? Granted that's a debatable statement, after all we ARE talking about Marvel Comics...okay...let's say if the previous movies before Avengers, that Iron Man wouldn't be such a colossal hit if it didn't give Tony Stark a character for us to love and root for? What if Captain America was douched up to where instead of fighting in World War II he was fighting in Iraq to qualify on being supportive of right-winged douchebags? What if the Hulk never got a reboot? What if Thor turned out to be a "Green Lantern" movie?

Without any depth or flaw to a character, or if they stand up for something that a broader audience can relate to or support, asking questions, then all movies in the mainstream would always be long, cynical, stupid franchises of the same damn thing that just makes everyone of us more bitter, more cynical and more hardened than to be open and have fun with something or to experience something new and unique. Again, though on a broader opinion, it's still just my opinion.

The Place Beyond The Pines
Drive
Mud
The Pact
The Raid

Just to name a few. All mainstream (multiple genre's) and non-property based. I think this statement is ludicrous!

You may think it's a ludicrous statement, but you've pretty much summed up what I was talking about. You found some good quality movies here that are non-property based, granted, but do you see how little numbers those are? It's not that there is never any originality in the mainstream...BUT!!!! BUT, But, but! That does not exclude that fact that originality is just a dirty word in the mainstream and is almost never marketed unless they have big-name directors at the helm to drive said marketing for mainstream films.

You know? "From the Directer of" or "The Producers that brought you The Dark Knight Trilogy"...sure those can be good if the original movies are made by no-names, it's marketing of course they'll use that to reel in more audiences to see it, mostly because (with all due respect) general audiences can be stupid enough to think just because this or that original movie has a director or writer they like attached to a movie obviously they'll throw up their hands, never do the research, and pay to see it because they think those names will rub-off their awesomeness on said movies...and in the end will get pissed off and feel jipped because said movie wasn't the same-ol'-shit and it was a movie trying to be different.

That's one reason I hate about marketing in mainstream movies, but what're you gonna do? The fact remains that there are not enough original non-property based movies coming out that I would like to see in any given genre. I'm okay with adaptations if they're really good, but if I want to see some new stories being told I'll have to go into the indie movie bin to find a gem, which is not bad I LOVE indie films and know they're severely over-looked by many and that's seriously lame, but I said that already. But when you find good ideas hidden in the piles of independent flicks and are not well-known by everyone, that's a very sad thing and it only shines more light of the stupidity of summer blockbusters being the only movies that matter. My opinion though, though also more broadly agreed with by those that stand up for indie flicks.

He does get props for doing what he wants but at this point there has to be someone to tell him what he wants simply isn't good.

See that right there is the WORST opinion that you or ANYONE can ever agree with or support in any given artistic medium and to any artist in those fields! I was about to play fair as I was reading the beginning of that statement, but screw it I'm going to give it to you straight in explaining why that kind of additude ruins and destroys anything with good quality in them.

Focus groups and the MPAA are the WORST things to ever happen to the mainstream AND independent film industry. See here's the thing about those two evils: Focus groups are the people that the H-wood studios bring in for a test-screening of their films, after the movie is over they ask for audiences' opinions on what they thought about the movie, and you can bet your ass that while a majority of the audience will agree it's a good movie, the exects will ALWAYS listen and pander to the negative opinions and will ultimately fuck-up the movie they showed them to make it "better for broader" in the wrong sense thus taking away the artistic and creative control the filmmakers worked their asses off to make for themselves and others that appreciate the stories they make.

Remember "I Am Legend"? Yeah, the CGI vampire zombies were stupid in my opinion and I vary on Will Smith as a "serious actor", but rewatching the movie it was pretty okay until the ending, if you saw the alternate ending to the movie of where the vampires come into the lab and Smith tries to protect himself from them but they were really there on a rescue mission to get back the vampire girl he was torturing and working on to find a cure to which in their eyes he was the monster all along. Deep and thoughtful stuff that follows the end of the original book, but focus groups thought that ending was too sad and thus the studio wanted to go with a shittier "happy" bullshit ending.

MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America aka "The Ratings System") will ALWAYS fuck over any filmmaker with a rating to keep their films from being seen by the general public if it's too sexual, too violent, too much taboo (to put it short, the MPAA is a group of people that think they know what audiences want and are told by the Catholic Church, the clergy, to make decisions on what should or should not be shown to the public, see the movie "This Film is Not Yet Rated" it's on Netflix) themes that are kept away from the mainstream unless it's cut down or cut out all together, if the film studios or filmmakers don't abide by said rules they'll get an NC-17 which totally fucks them out of marketing and thus their films which could've been the most amazing thing anyone ever saw never sees the light of day.

Usually with mainstream movies, they more than likely just get a slap on the wrist and can bend rules. So who do you think gets fucked the worst? INDEPENDENT MOVIES! Yeah, you know that movie Matt and Trey did called "Orgasmo"? Funny movie over-all, I mean we ARE talking about the geniuses of South Park, but that movie was never widely seen on the grounds that it was being too pornographic for movie-going audiences, when there wasn't a lick of porn in it but they said "We don't care, cut it or NC-17". Still, that's how MPAA works and how movies that need a rating to be apart of the marketing system will get fucked unless it's on a "moral value" of mass audiences of America, which the rating system has absolutely NO RIGHT TO DO IN ANY GIVEN MATTER.

So yeah, you or anyone saying that artists in the mainstream or independent need to be told or forced to abide by something YOU or OTHERS would call "good" is the the most ignorant thing you could ever agree with in terms of art, in terms of morals for society, in terms of freedom. It's that kind of thinking that leads us all into stagnation, the more that artists are constantly kicked in the balls to just work for the audiences that say "To hell with your vision, make me something better!" the more we will always cease to progress in life and that it'll put an eternal cap on creativity in any medium because people couldn't accept certain things and to punish them for being different.

That right there is NOT just an opinion, that is a FACT.

If anything, if the haters hate these movies, why can't the haters go out and make their own movies? Why can't they just "do it better"? Sure, it's the haters' faults for shooting down independent cinema thus making them think it would be a waste of time to even both making an independent movie to express a certain vision they'd always want to see in a movie. But the good thing about this is that it's not too late, it's never too late to bring things back to life like indie films to be embraced for their cool and new ideas than just the same ol' blockbuster crap.

I already gave a small list of films that are off the radar and something RZ couldn't duplicate...period. RZ is no. Nicolas Winding Refn. That's not a typing mistake. I simply couldn't put Nicolas in the same sentence as RZ. I have morals.

Wow, someone who has less balls to put someone they dislike between a period gap of someone they like. Internet morals like that are rather childish and also destroying the good use of the internet as well. But that's just my opinion.

[BooBerry]

See it's lame excuses like your "constructive criticism" that I'm talking about. Unless you can come up with something other than "my five-year-old can write a better script than RZ ever could!" then that opinion is just a complete and utter waste of filler that is just more of a slap-on comment than criticism.

Yes, that means it HAS to make sense in order for your opinion to be taken seriously. How would you have made the movie? What different things would you have done and why? What could've been done better? These are things you need to THINK about than just plain hate for certain movies you seem to have a lack for seeing substance in them, that is if you care for any substance at all. Though it's my opinion.

This is the only part of your long winded reply I read, but I figured I'd give you what you want, which is actual complaints about his films.

1) His characters are unlikeable (not in the villain way, but in the "i don't want to see them on the screen anymore way). Baby, Laurie in H2, Loomis in H2, and his horde of background hillbilly rednecks. They come across more annoying and over the top than interesting.

2) The horde of hillbilly rednecks is my major gripe. All his films have these characters which use fuck/shit/cunt/pussy/faggot in continuous sentences. They're extreme character cliches and don't provide anything more except killer filler (The orderlies, ambulance drivers, Michael's stepdad in Halloween).

3) His dialogue sucks. Exaggerated and profanity laced to the point of dumbness.

4) He keeps giving Sheri roles. And she's a terrible actress.

5) He tries too hard to be "visionary" (his word actually), but it comes across as lame. You call it art, or something approximate to it, and so do I. But it's the kind of art you look at in a gallery and just think to yourself, "He's trying too hard." Things don't make sense and I usually don't get beyond asking myself "Why?"

6) He's not that original. House of 1000 Corpses and Devil's Rejects were both heavily influenced by 1970s grindhouse "family" slashers and Halloween and H2 were remakes.

[koolmike]

2 words: Thank God! All he ever did was waste film.

[koolmike]

Source: CC2K

This made me laugh

Rob Zombie doesn't like to be called "sir."

While living in Chicago one fall, I once stopped at a pumpkin patch by the side of the road to choose a jack-o-lantern. Like most pumpkin patches around Halloween, this one was temporary: a swath of hay surrounded by chicken wire, covered with dozens of pumpkins – and most important, presided over by a wizened, white-trash eccentric.

I picked out my pumpkin and went over to pay. The redneck running the patch had stepped out of a hundred down-home dive bars, juke joints and bait shops. His hairline crept back from his brow, leaving his wrinkly forehead to glint in the sun. What was left of his hair sprouted from the back of his head like a mullet of dried old straw. He wore an old, blue vinyl jacket and tight, faded jeans. One of his front teeth – no bullshit – was missing.



I opened my wallet to pay him and saw I only had a 20-dollar bill.

"Can you change a twenty, sir?" I asked.

"Sir?"

When he said the word "sir," the pumpkin-patch redneck smiled with his mouth as his brow clenched and his eyes flashed at me.

It was daylight out, but there was no one else in the pumpkin patch. It occurred to me to leave. I didn't.

Rednecks believe that there's something special about being a redneck, but here's the weird thing: That's all they're proud of. They're not proud of being working people, because a lot of them are unemployed fuck-ups. They're not proud of being poor, though many of them are. They're not proud of being from the south, because rednecks exist in hulking numbers north of the Mason-Dixon line. A lot of them are proud to be white, but not even racism explains it, and this breed of pride is found in many other social and ethnic groups.

No, rednecks think there's something to be admired, respected and feared in their very essence. They think that because they're rednecks, we should respect and fear them so much that we don't even need to call them "sir." The word "sir" carries with it the condescension of the upper class, and rednecks won't have it.

I'll say this for Rob Zombie's movies: They made me think long and hard about why they suck. I'm about as forgiving and crazy a moviegoer as there is. I adore ultraviolence, and I am willing (to the point of notoriety among my friends) to embrace a sicko vision – but I have little patience for Zombie's first two movies, House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. (I'll reserve judgment on his remake of Halloween.)

My lack of patience for Zombie's movies puzzles me, because they have lots of stuff I usually like:

• A rustic setting.
• Lots of violence.
• Sex appeal.
• White trash antiheroes (a character type that appears in a lot in my own fiction).
• Walton Goggins.

But it's Zombie's redneck pride that ultimately sickens me. At the center of his freshman and sophomore efforts, he places a trio of white-trash sociopaths who go around serial-killing. The first movie follows a more standard slasher-movie formula – a bunch of hapless kids on a roadtrip get slaughtered – while part two shifts into the mode of a western and follows the three as they maraud around some podunk area before getting gunned down by cops.

Before I go on, let me pre-empt some potential straw-men that may get marched in my direction:

I am not a prude. Like I said before, I love extreme storytelling, and if a filmmaker (or an author) justifies the use of violence (or sex or profanity) of any kind, I'm there. Hell, my favorite Shakespeare play is Titus Andronicus, and three of my favorite movies are Blue Velvet, The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en.

I am not a closet conservative. I suppose this point is tied into my not being a prude, but I don't think movies have to have happy, uplifting or otherwise redeeming endings to be considered good art. I don't even think a movie has to have characters with redeeming qualities to be considered good art. I don't think a movie has to have a redemptive theme or a theme with redeeming qualities to be considered art.

In other words, a movie can be mean, cruel and charmless while still being great art. I usually file these under "Movies I Appreciate As Great Art But Never Want to Watch Again." A Clockwork Orange is an excellent example of a great movie I never want to see again.

But goddammit – Zombie's first two movies just suck, and it's because Zombie and his three antiheroes seethe with the same redneck pride as that old coot who sold me a pumpkin.

Case in point:

In The Devil's Rejects, the three psychos kidnap a random family. For some reason, one of the three rednecks ("Otis B. Driftwood" – oh, how droll) orders two of the family members (the dad and one of his sons) to go with him to where he's buried something. They do, and once the two guys dig up whatever it was, the psycho reveals he's going to kill them both. The two guys fight back, but eventually Otis bests them both. Before he kills them, he delivers this line:

"I am the devil, and I am here to do the devil's work."

Something about this scene pissed me off when I saw it, and it's taken me until now to recognize the redneck pride that powers Zombie's characters. The family that gets killed in Devil's Rejects is exceptionally harmless, flavorless and typical, but while watching them get killed, I couldn't help but think: This actually happens to people. Random, normal, happy people get killed by sociopaths for no good reason.

I myself have considered how depressing it would be to get killed by someone like Zombie's antiheroes. What if a hopped-up redneck knifed me?

The thought lights a bright rage inside me, because as morally dubious as this is to admit, I believe that some lives are worth more than others, and it pisses me off that someone like Otis would enjoy taking my life based on the deranged calculus in his mind that his life is worth more than mine based solely on the fact of his redneck pride and his status as a redneck. By contrast, my life would be worth nothing.

(Side note: Maybe you're reading this and thinking, "Zombie instilled that rage in you – isn't that a redemptive quality?" Perhaps, but read on.)

Redneck pride also drives Zombie’s first movie, House of 1,000 Corpses, which I grudgingly concede is marginally more successful. Certain scenes in it work as funhouse riffs on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre formula, but redneck pride still ruins the overall experience.

To wit: Rob Zombie adores the preternaturally ugly Sid Haig, a talented actor and all-around OK guy from what I know. Haig’s chinless, pockmarked, scraggly head is the centerpiece to Zombie’s first tribute to redneck pride, and what a centerpiece it makes. Haig plays a sadistic old hick who runs a murderous roadside attraction in Bumblefuck, Texas. Zombie introduces us to this character by having him kill two bumbling armed robbers, and it is in these opening kills that we get to see one of the key features of redneck pride: dumb fearlessness.

Shouting down two armed robbers is a good example of dumb fearlessness, but rednecks have it in excess. Stop me if you’ve heard this one, but: Do you know what a redneck’s last words are?

“Hey, watch this!”

Rednecks operate under the delusion that dumb fearlessness is synonymous with courage, when it’s no different than not knowing to come in from the rain or to pull your hand away from a fire.

Soon after his introduction, Haig’s character meets the doomed road-trippers who get killed during the movie. Naturally, one of them makes a wisecrack about how funny his store is, which prompts the following exchange.



Captain Spaulding: I know what your problem is.
Bill Hudley: What's that?
Captain Spaulding: Ya'll think us folk from the country's real funny-like, dontcha?
Bill Hudley: Jerry ...
Captain Spaulding: Yeah, well saddle up the mule, ma. Slide me some grits, I's got to get me some edu-cation, uh hu hu hu.
Bill Hudley: Jerry ...
Captain Spaulding: You asshole!



This scene goes on forever, and it shows us yet another quality of redneck pride: kneejerk sensitivity. It also shows us how redneck pride is a perverse form of chivalrous honor. In other words, rednecks take courage and pervert it into dumb fearlessness, and they take honor and pervert it into kneejerk sensitivity, making them ready to fight to the death for any slight, regardless of its magnitude.

But even that doesn't nail down why I think Zombie's movies suck. There's nothing wrong with making a bunch of sociopaths your heroes. Thomas Harris managed to make Hannibal Lecter a successfully alluring figure, and Harris is a fucking hack. Why couldn't Zombie pull it off?

I submit that Zombie's own redneck pride (or at least his affinity for it) derailed his vision. Oliver Stone made a good movie with two sociopathic rednecks at its center (Natural Born Killers), but Stone does not suffer from redneck pride. Instead, Stone took Quentin Tarantino's excellent script and used it as a vehicle to explore a multitude of themes. He also made a damn entertaining movie.

Zombie spent two movies with his trio of antiheroes, and throughout them both, Zombie shows nothing but unfettered contempt for non-sociopaths and laughable affection for his three antiheroes, going so far as to play Lynyrd Skynyrd's magnificent anthem "Freebird" in its entirety as they ride to their death in a hail of bullets at the end of Devil's Rejects.

I can't stress enough what a god-awful, embarrassing choice that is. Zombie created three characters whose sole animus was redneck pride, and he made them spend two movies screaming and killing harmless people. Somehow at the end of this mess, Zombie felt like he had earned the right to play one the most soaring rock anthems in history as they died. Oh, how fucking quaint. (Remember when I considered the possibility that the rage Zombie had instilled in me was a redemptive quality? The "Freebird" choice negates that, because it exposes Zombie as a fanboy hack who probably showed his screenplay to his friends and said, "Aren't these characters awesome?! I'm a-gonna play 'Freebird' when they die!")

I don't mind that Zombie's first two movies are charmless bloodbaths that lack redeeming qualities. I don't even mind that he populated these movies with sociopaths and fueled those sociopaths with redneck pride.

I do mind that he doesn't know what a hack he is. I mind that he thinks the mere presentation of depravity equals art. It's no different than a redneck who thinks there's something funny about looking at roadkill – and who gets pissed off at you for not laughing with him.

That's redneck pride.

======================================================= ======

Agreed on every point.

[Macready]

Jesus Toby, do you know how to read and understand what you read? I said nothing about how a film making money determines if it is good or not, in fact what I said is completely opposite. What I said was if people like RZ obviously his movies would benefit from the box office. I used those examples on user ratings only, thus the Metacritic scores. I did not compare money and never said a film is good because it makes a lot of money. To go even further the examples I provided as amazing mainstream movies did hardly ANY box office.

And sorry, my complaint is just as BooBerry has summed up...practically to a "T". If that is hard for you to swallow so be it.

Just as you proclaim that there are people simply hating on RZ you are obviously just hating on the mainstream films and the success they generate. A little of the pot calling the kettle black don't ya think?

What different things would I have done? Hmm, for starters not include Sheri. Completely avoid remaking Halloween. I refuse to watch Lords because I have frankly seen enough of his "art" to dedicate my time to it. His characters are awful and the dialogue he provides compounds the issue.

I find it hilarious your opinion "vary's" on Will Smith as a serious actor but you are perfectly fine with Sheri Moon

I applaud your passion but you are absolutely closed-minded when it comes to this.

[DMHead777]

Hate to say this but Rob Zombie is a complete bitch

This may have nothing to do with the thread at hand, but I'm going to say this anyway. Rob Zombie has a Facebook account. He overlooks it most of the time because he comments to other people's comments, but only the negative ones. Legions of people will praise him and he says nothing, but the one moment someone says negative about his movies or music, he takes away their right to post comments on his page. It happened to me. All of these people were praising Lords of Salem (and I couldn't figure out why there were no negative comments) so I threw down some knowledge and said the movie could be better by "x, x, x", but it was still decent in the first half. He commented going, "well this is why you don't make movies and just sit behind your computer."

From then on I can't post anything on Zombie's Facebook. I know it's him because he refers to himself in a lot of the comments going, "I" and "Me" and "my wife" ect. Looks like he doesn't take too kindly to negative reviews of his films. That alone makes him a shitty director. I thought he didn't care what people thought of his stuff, but apparently he does.

[Macready]

To bad we just cant stop him from making movies like he can stop you from posting on his Facebook page

[Primetimeloser]

Read the whole thing but saying this:

I am not a prude. Like I said before, I love extreme storytelling, and if a filmmaker (or an author) justifies the use of violence (or sex or profanity) of any kind, I'm there. Hell, my favorite Shakespeare play is Titus Andronicus, and three of my favorite movies are Blue Velvet, The Silence of the Lambs and Se7en.

After they professes a notorious love for ultra violence makes me question a lot of things in here. They make some valid ponts but seem to just want to harp on "redneck pride"

[JHar888]

This is the best news I've heard in awhile.

[strtfghtr]

It's the popular thing in horror communities to shit on Rob Zombie and while I agree the majority of his films have been poor in quality I for one am sad to see him go. It's my opinion that the more people making horror the better.

[DMHead777]

It's the popular thing in horror communities to shit on Rob Zombie and while I agree the majority of his films have been poor in quality I for one am sad to see him go. It's my opinion that the more people making horror the better.

Agreed. I do give LoS a lot of shit, but at least it was original.

[Macready]

The problem with going out and trying to be original is you best pull it off and not be inept about it. Also if the audience you are creating your stuff for dislikes it and voices that opinion you don't shit on them like DM has said about his Facebook. He certainly comes off as unprofessional and a crybaby.

[Chief Falling Rock]

don't blame him. The horror fans ran him off. God forbid come along and atleast attempt to make a good horror movie. The only dud he made IMO was Halloween 2. I haven't seen Lords of Salem yet. Let them have there Hollywood horror movies they can't live without bitching about. They'd die without them.

[Halcon Loco]

About damn time. This made my week.

[Darkgod]

It's the popular thing in horror communities to shit on Rob Zombie and while I agree the majority of his films have been poor in quality I for one am sad to see him go. It's my opinion that the more people making horror the better.

I agree with you a hundred percent, atleast he tries to do something he likes instead of clinging to a film he made 30 years ago and trying to duplicate it and failing....