How Rob Zombie Destroyed The "HALLOWEEN" Franchise

[strtfghtr]

Devil's Rejects

Ok this movie has a lot going on in it, and I'm not referring to plot. This has themes, character arks, visual styles, and dare I say it...solid acting.

Some people may compare this to a Tarantino movie because of dialog, but I see it as RZ's homage to 70s exploitation movies, something that would star David Hess and have a gang of villains on the run. Kidnapping, murdering, stealing, raping, all sorts of vile stuff, but throughout it you actually start to feel for the villains, you actually start to like them. This is where Devil's Rejects exceeds expectations.

Let's talk a little bit about pacing, in house of 1k it starts slow and ominous and the tension slowly build as we meet all of the family and then BOOM it's balls to the wall until the credits. DR takes a different approach, right from the beginning it's full speed action and violence and it continues right up until we get our 3 main characters together and then it slows into an entire act of character building and growing tension with the cops on their trail. It then picks back up with the return to the farmstead and the final violent and deserved goodbye. The back and forth up and down of the pace of the movie keeps you riveted, you don't know where it's going to go next and that makes for quite an entertaining ride.

Throughout this whole ride the overarching theme of family is constantly woven. Interactions between our 3 main characters, Mother Firefly refusing to give them up, the reunion with Ken Foree, the sheriff avenging his brother, and even the heart wrenching return of Tiny (which still brings a tear to my eye) are all anchored in the concept and importance of family whether they're the ones you're born into or the ones you build around you.

Aside from those Grand themes, the movie is a visual feast from the dreary depressing motel, to the fun over the top Charlie's place, to the dank holding cell, and the wide open roads of Texas you never get bored or worn out. The set design really stands out and you get enough time in each setting to really enjoy it. It's also shot very well with sensible use of Shakey cams in deserving situations and close shots for tense or fun dialogue.

Speaking of fun, the perverse humor that was hinted at in House is expanded upon here and used as a character building device. This is necessary as these aren't the simple one sided characters from the previous movie, now the have emotions and desires. Each one is so much improved that even the weakest link (Sherri) doesn't come off as annoying as she was in the previous one.

Mosely and Haig absolutely kill it with what I would argue their best performances in any movie. For long time character actors they were finally able to stretch their legs and bit into juicy in depth roles.

Other things: soundtrack is awesome, the dialog fits the insane world RZ as created, and the ending is one of my favorites in cinematic (not just horror) history.

9/10

What did Rob Zombie give the horror world? The fucking Devil's Rejects that's what. Tutti fuckin frutti.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[El Ahrairah]

With the possible exception of High Tension, none of the movies you listed even come close to the tone of 1kcorpses. Even the Texas remake (which I like a lot) maintains the pristine sharp glossy aesthetic done in the 90s and early 2000s. House looks and feels more like a 70s movie.

And if i really wanted to im sure i could find plenty of lower budget horror movies during that time that felt exactly like 1k. But that really was not what i was attempting to do here, the point was not to highlight movies that felt exactly like 1k, rather to point out that there were tons of movies that match your original description and that the whole scream thing, was not the only thing going on.

Also, you say that RZ had a style that would be expected of him then go on to say he has no discernable style...which is it? I'll go into his style and techniques more as I get to the other movies.

That's not what i said at all.
I said with 1k he followed a very predictable style. But from movie to movie (aside from shit dialog), there is no discernible Rob Zombie style and i suspect this is because his work never seems to come from a creative place.

Try not to hurt your arm patting yourself on you back. Corman is a bad analogy. He's known for cranking out tons of movies at a low cost and adequate quality. He's also more of a producer and works with/teaches filmmakers. Zombie doesn't really relate.

Its a great analogy because with both, you seem to be working with a blank slate.
If we gave Corman the same buget and told him to figure out how to legally copy Texas, he would come up with something super similar to 1k. If we gave him the budget and told him to copy torture movies, he'd come up with 31. If we gave him the budget and told him to come up with a sequel to 1k that is a mix of Texas and late 90s independent movies, it would be Rejects.

As for your ratings, again, the things myself and others are addressing have nothing to do with if you do or do not like his work. Enjoy his work all you want, jerk off to it, who cares? The point is to address him getting this credit when its not due.

[strtfghtr]

Ok let's trim it down here. I say that House of 1000 corpses feels different than other wide release movies in it's time. You say it doesn't but provide no examples.

Fine we'll agree to disagree. How about this for a compromise:

RZ's house of 1000 corpses was ANOTHER push away from the polished clean cut horror that permiated the 90s horror scene.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[El Ahrairah]

Ok let's trim it down here. I say that House of 1000 corpses feels different than other wide release movies in it's time. You say it doesn't but provide no examples............RZ's house of 1000 corpses was ANOTHER push away from the polished clean cut horror that permiated the 90s horror scene.

You said that he gave us a dirty, sweaty, gritty horror movie that had apparently vanished for... what? 5 years?
Now if you want to create some arbitrary combination than every movie can fall into some unique category or offering to cinema. Using the descriptors you gave, i looked up popular horror between 99-04, then without moving outside of 03 i listed movies that either demonstrated one or more of the attributes you gave and/or demonstrated that the whole Scream/IKWYDLS trend, was not the only one that existed. Ringu obviously is not dirty or sweaty or anything, but does demonstrate a difference in popular horror. And was the Dawson's Creek/90210 slasher genera the most popular in years prior to 03? Absolutely, but it was already on its way out and RZ had nothing to do with it.

The thing im having a hard time with is what i said before, where is the credit here? I totally agree with your compromise, but i think that compromise highlights that he simply participated in something that was already taking place and to expand on a negative mentioned before, he seemed to do so by copying (not homage, a copy) nearly every aspect of another movie.... from content, to tone, to visual style, everything. In this instance with these specifics, it would be like saying Gus Van Sant deserves some kind of credit for the return of slasher movies because he made Psycho after the trend already started or when movies were headed in this direction anyway, and then to top it off its simply a carbon copy of the original.

[strtfghtr]

So you agree with the compromise that House of 1000 corpses helped move the horror genre away from the cookie cutter 90s slashers but you don't think it deserves credit for helping to move the genre away from cookie cutter 90s slashers?

Is that right?

Also I mentioned in my discussion of house that it's a reimagining/remake of Texas, we're on the same page with that, no need to beat a dead horse.

I'm trying to meet you somewhere we can agree but you seem to be fighting the whole way. The movie has flaws but I still like it despite it's flaws, you don't. You seem to be able to only see the flaws and no positives, this seems dishonest to me unless you truly don't see anything you like in it.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[DMHead777]

I tend to agree with Brave here

I don't think Rob Zombie did anything for the genre. I sure as hell don't think he helped get the horror genre away from the "cookie cutter 90s slashers". As Brave said, by that time those flicks were already becoming dated and getting shoved aside.

Early 2000s ushered in the popularity of "zombie" films like 28 days later, Resident Evil, Shaun of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead remake. You had ultra violent slasher remakes like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Final Destinations, Jeepers Creepers and the Wrong Turns. Vampires were becoming a thing again with Blade II and Underworld. Ghost movies like The Grudge, The Others, The Devil's Backbone..plus PLENTY of other films that came out that were extremely creative like Frailty, Creep, Open Water, Scary Movie (which were parodying 90s slashers because it was already dated), Cabin Fever, The Village, American Psycho, etc.

Not saying every one of those movies are gems, but come on. What was the marketing like on House of 1k Corpses? 'From musician Rob Zombie comes his first horror film'. And he delivered a copy/paste from Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It appealed to the kids because they never seen the original and they loved to Rob Zombie already.

I don't see how anyone can pin point Rob Zombie and say, "That man helped the genre". He didn't. He made a horror movie when horror was evolving from 90s slashers. That's it

[UzumakiW]

I absolutely have to agree with DM. There's no way I can give Zombie any credit for helping move the genre away from the CW version of slasher flicks from the 90s as the genre was already moving forward, with or without him.

I mean, I'm not so much a Zombie hater like some here seem to be. I enjoy some of his solo music work, and the last time I watched it, I remember enjoying The Devil's Rejects. In general, though, I can't say he's that great at making movies.

But again, with all the movies DM mentioned that were coming out and being made, the genre was already moving past what was popular in the 90s. Zombie wasn't helping push that train. He just jumped on it as it was moving by.

[El Ahrairah]

So you agree with the compromise that House of 1000 corpses helped move the horror genre away from the cookie cutter 90s slashers but you don't think it deserves credit for helping to move the genre away from cookie cutter 90s slashers?

Is that right?

No.
He made a movie that was not the teenie slasher you mentioned, but it was long after that tide had already been turned. It didnt "help" anything, there is no reason for us to think that movies would have gone a different direction had ti never existed.

[koolmike]

Do you actually want one or would you just like to ignore it and continue ranting? I can tell you why I liked most of his movies (they're for different reasons in each one) and I can also tell you what I think he brings to the genre as a whole. But if you don't want to have an actual discussion I won't bother.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I 'm glad you cleared it up....dirty and sweaty cemented new horror characters that replaced shiny ones. Thanx Rob Z. lol

[Macready]

I absolutely have to agree with DM. There's no way I can give Zombie any credit for helping move the genre away from the CW version of slasher flicks from the 90s as the genre was already moving forward, with or without him.

I mean, I'm not so much a Zombie hater like some here seem to be. I enjoy some of his solo music work, and the last time I watched it, I remember enjoying The Devil's Rejects. In general, though, I can't say he's that great at making movies.

But again, with all the movies DM mentioned that were coming out and being made, the genre was already moving past what was popular in the 90s. Zombie wasn't helping push that train. He just jumped on it as it was moving by.

This. I don't hate the guy, I actually enjoy some of his music. With that said he is not a good movie maker, he pretty much sucks. He can do good cinematography but so can thousands of
others out there. A cinematographer is not billed as a "Visionary" within the horror genre as somehow RZ gets labelled. Seriously, how did that happen?!

His movies are a hit with the younger audience because of the language and gore, it makes it feel edgy. Kids eat that shit up. Edgy does not equal good.
Also not to beat a dead ghost horse but giving MM a backstory is unforgivable in the anals of horror lore. It's up there with Busta going Bruce Lee on MM.

There are way to many other extremely talented, up and coming directors in horror to keep playing this RZ game. More attention should be on them than
debating if RZ is good or not. He hasn't done anything worthwhile for the genre or himself to separate him from the mediocre/hack horror film makers.

If there is any chance this can change (highly doubtful TBH) the first step is he has to stop writing...period.

[koolmike]

Nicely done Mac...as usual.

...and as for those who were looking for my to write an in depth novella of why I hate RZ....I have done it before...been here a long long time and in the glory days of UHM very few posted as much, created new threads as much, and certainly responded with huge passages with my opinions guiding them. That being said...there is nothing more I would love than for a breakthrough in the horror genre. Reviews on RZ's films have claimed that he is responsible for being "fresh" and "new" .... a "breakthrough" in a genre that has been napping for a long while relying on remakes and reimagining of past classics. He clearly has relied and is still relying on the new and uneducated horror fan demographic to cash in on ideas that horror veterans like myself and many others have seen already (MANY TIMES) He is a fucking hack. Don't like his ways....his wife is annoying....The clown is weak...F him and everything he represents.