The Rob Zombie ouvre
I want to talk about THE DEVIL'S REJECTS but after watching HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES I feel I need to discuss them both. They do walk hand-in-hand but let's face it, one arm is longer than the other. REJECTS, I would almost venture, is something of a masterpiece. But I wonder --- is it because its predecessor was such a stupid piece of shit that it just looks good in comparison? And is it really keeping in character for me to actually criticize a movie for being shitty? I could chase my tail for days on this topic.
REJECTS is just a damn fine piece of drive-in filmmaking, and is so good in fact that I find myself at a loss to really want to write about it. There are already countless favorable reviews out there to be had, and what can I say even remotely witty or original that would add to the already-deafening praise? Wait, I know! A knuckleheaded comment from IMDB! I DID NOT WRITE THIS! IT'S JUST SOME POORLY-RAISED INBRED PUKE OF A KID WITH INTERNET ACCESS:
"Inapropriate for children under 15, and it is NOT a horror movie! "
Okay. I am staying with my Aunt and Uncle in MA, and we decide to go see a movie. My two younger cousins go to see "Must Love Dogs," and me and my other cousin (13) want to see "The Devil's Rejects." We go into the theatre and the lady says that we need an adult to go into the showing room for "The Devil's Rejects." My Uncle decides to stay so that we can watch this movie. I told him the rating it got on this website and we went into the theatre expecting a "horror" movie. Before we went, I went on iMDB to check the rating. However, I made a mistake, I did not check the content and what it was about. I read the very brief description which said about the people that go on a killing spree. I figured it was a horror movie about some "devil's rejects" that went on a killing spree, and they would be like "scarily" killing people not just going around like a gang. That said, we see the very beginning and think that it is kind of inapropriate, but we stay thinking that it will turn into a "horror movie." After 40 minutes, we decide to leave as it starts to get VERY inapropriate. In this 40 minutes, it said "****" (not sure about the censoring rules on this site) about 100 times, along with many other curses, very strong sexual language, a lot of nudity, a sex scene, and the violence. The violence can be handled, along with some nudity and some cursing, however, EVERY OTHER LINE HAS THE "F WORD." And in this short time, there was not just some nudity, but a good quality time of it. About the "R" rating. This says "Under 17 requires accompaniment of an adult." What does this solve? I am still seeing the same thing? What is he/she supposed to do? Cover our eyes and ears whenever there is inappropriate content? My 11 year old cousin was going to watch this movie with us... It is NOT okay for an 11 year old to see what I saw. I believe that this should be rated "NC-17" simply because the "R" rating simply does not solve anything. Technically, a 7-year old could watch this movie, as long as her mom came in with her. Young children are very influential, and would copy a lot of what she saw in this movie. Since this was a "horror" movie, I figured the worst would be some language, and a lot of violence since it was rated "R." But this movie went overboard. I believe that there should be a rating where you must be 14 to see a movie, none of this "accompanying" business. It does not help. If this was not a "horror" movie and was rated "R," I would have looked into detail and to what extent and why it was rated "R." Now to the horror part -- I was not scared ONCE (in the 40 minutes). Aren't you supposed to be scared in a HORROR movie. What is horror? A gang going around killing people? Usually in horror movies, there is some tension and fright. This should be defined as an action movie. I do not care if it got somewhat "scary" after the 40 minutes. If in the 40 minutes there was no horror, it is NOT a horror movie. Well, I have learned to always check WHY it is rated "R," and if a movie says "horror," it doesn't have to be. Always check what a movie REALLY is.
... Which all reminds me of how flummoxed I am that this movie exists, much less secured wide release to major theatres. I mean, it is just plain evil. The snotnosed punk above, and most especially his "11 year old cousin," have NO BUSINESS seeing this movie, not becuase it is violent (although that's a good enough reason for me), not because it has "the F-word" (again, reason enough for him to suffer through Snow Dogs or Herbie or some other such drivel instead), or even that it has a lot of nudity (come to think of it, what the bloody hell was his uncle even thinking). The true reason that kids should not see this movie (and conversely why it is a work of genius) is that it celebrates and deifies vicious psychotic murderers and simultaneously encourages the audience to do the same, all the while condemning (sorta; I hope) any reasonably intelligent viewer for being a sick enough fuck to do so. Its seriously just one of the most God-damned things I have ever seen (and that comment may indeed be literal for all I know). I guess to sum it all up, the reason this ain't for kids is that it never actually feels "ambiguous." If it even *has* a moral compass, Zombie has stuck a magnet underneath it. The movie is overtly on the side of the killers and celebrates their "freedom," even though this freedom seems to be from law, morality, and even humanity. So basically it is a love song for psychopaths and, loathe as I am to agree with Dingleberry above ... Its kinda inappropriate for 11-year-old girls I guess.
The cast is uniformly on FIRE! Zombie has filled his frame with the most impressive roster of old character actors I have ever seen. I think this movie stars everyone EXCEPT Dick Miller ( a shame really --- what, was he in Aruba that month?). Bill Mosely turns in his best performance since TX CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (coinfession time: that's all I know him from), and is maybe the scariest, most demonic presence in memory, while freakishly being able to sell a joke with the best of them ("Yknow, I do believe I can still smell your wife's pussy stink on my gun! Hope it don't rust the barrell."). My God. Between Bill Mosely and Helmut Berger, I feel like my life has changed this month.
William Forsythe delivers a DeNiro-calibre grindhouse performance, all creased-brow and heavy-breathing, while somehow restrained by, of all people, Rob Zombie. Sid Haig is, well, Sid Haig. God bless his pockmarked greasy little heart, he's not exactly a good actor, but he more than makes up for it with commitment, enthusiasm, and presence, and a willingness to do ANYTHING to sell the moment (although I suppose more credit is due to Ginger Lynn Allen for being willing to fuck Sid Haig than to Sid Haig being willing to go nude for a sex scene). Sheri Moon Zombie'c chief asset is on display throughout the picture. Let's just say that after seeing said asset about 1/2 dozen times, I don't think her character "Baby" is too fond of undergarmentry.
The movie is filled with indelible, memorable sequences. and very often manages to hit notes of such visual clarity and power as to almost approach "beauty" status. Its poetry, written in bruises, punctuated by screams.
HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES is another animal entirely. Probably its most impressive achievement is that it inspired a better movie a few years later. Its not uniformly bad; in fact, after having seen REJECTS, I found myself utterly glued to the screen as CORPSES spooled out. The characters are all there, but the performances haven't quite gelled yet. Well, except Sid Haig, who has been gelled for about 30 years now I guess. Mosely is present, as is Moon, but Zombie hasn't quite made up his mind what movie he is making at this early point. This is CORPSES chief failure, as it attempts to be about 8 movies at once, and as such has no focus or unity or consistency. Part slasher, part camp pastiche, part haunted house, part zombie, part monster, part dark character study ... All crammed into 90 minutes. It doesn't feel efficient; it feels truncated, like a recap of a season of TALES FROM THE CRYPT.
It works for me, but only in terms of a post-REJECTS viewing experience. Kinda like STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE is only enjoyable because it shows what led up to STAR TREK THE WRATH OF KHAN. Its not so hot in itself; but intertexturally its damn compelling, akin to reading the flawed first draft of your favorite novel.
The seeds are planted here. Lingering, slomo shots ratchet up the tension as the camera cranes into the sky ... Stock shifts and format changes keep the viewer off-balance but visually engaged ... The characters manage a mordant sense of humor that, when not veering into parody or camp, is genuinely funny.
But the movie goes too far, too often. Filled with explicit gore, little is left to imagine, which is a strength exhibited by REJECTS. CORPSES revels in showing you the exposed scalp or rendered flesh of the victim, while REJECTS leaves you to ponder just what effects that slashing razor are really having. Performances are rarely reeled in. The travelling teens at the beginning are a bunch of stupid, hammy dolts, punched out of a paper doll book called "Stereotypical Jackasses." Not once did I feel a single note of sympathy for their pain (which could very well be tre point; I *wanted* them gone). The script feel like the love child of a first time director ... Oooooops! But I just can't stand it when characters quote poems or Bible verse as they kill a victim. Who does that?! I know I don't.
Still, virtually all of this criticism would be less acute were it not for the final act of the movie. This thing doesn't just derail; it smashes through the screen and kills the audience. Events start to pile up that have no relationship to each other; characters appear that are unidentified but seem to have some relevance to the plot that is never specified. Apparently the last 10 minutes involves a major villain (or two) chasing the final survivor, but we are never quite sure if the villain is who he appears to be, what his relationship is to our, ahem, MAIN CHARACTERS, where he came from, what he wants or is doing ... Nothing. We get a couple of, let's face it, MONSTERS chasing a girl around. Hell, there's even some reanimated zombies in one scene, but they are quickly forgotten about. Its messier than Otis Driftwood's last 5 victims combined.
But still, I am happy for the existence of HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I may even buy the DVD! There is spirit to be had, and enthusiasm, and love of film. Its kinda like seeing your new child take a few lovely first steps, then crash to his knees. In broken glass. You're like, wow, that was great for a minute, I wonder how far he'll get next time. I can't wait to find out. With DEVIL'S REJECTS, those scars are well-healed, and the child not only walks, but thunders around on a riding lawnmower with a bottle of whiskey in both hands, looking for squirrels and woodchucks to fertilize the lawn with.
REJECTS is just a damn fine piece of drive-in filmmaking, and is so good in fact that I find myself at a loss to really want to write about it. There are already countless favorable reviews out there to be had, and what can I say even remotely witty or original that would add to the already-deafening praise? Wait, I know! A knuckleheaded comment from IMDB! I DID NOT WRITE THIS! IT'S JUST SOME POORLY-RAISED INBRED PUKE OF A KID WITH INTERNET ACCESS:
"Inapropriate for children under 15, and it is NOT a horror movie! "
Okay. I am staying with my Aunt and Uncle in MA, and we decide to go see a movie. My two younger cousins go to see "Must Love Dogs," and me and my other cousin (13) want to see "The Devil's Rejects." We go into the theatre and the lady says that we need an adult to go into the showing room for "The Devil's Rejects." My Uncle decides to stay so that we can watch this movie. I told him the rating it got on this website and we went into the theatre expecting a "horror" movie. Before we went, I went on iMDB to check the rating. However, I made a mistake, I did not check the content and what it was about. I read the very brief description which said about the people that go on a killing spree. I figured it was a horror movie about some "devil's rejects" that went on a killing spree, and they would be like "scarily" killing people not just going around like a gang. That said, we see the very beginning and think that it is kind of inapropriate, but we stay thinking that it will turn into a "horror movie." After 40 minutes, we decide to leave as it starts to get VERY inapropriate. In this 40 minutes, it said "****" (not sure about the censoring rules on this site) about 100 times, along with many other curses, very strong sexual language, a lot of nudity, a sex scene, and the violence. The violence can be handled, along with some nudity and some cursing, however, EVERY OTHER LINE HAS THE "F WORD." And in this short time, there was not just some nudity, but a good quality time of it. About the "R" rating. This says "Under 17 requires accompaniment of an adult." What does this solve? I am still seeing the same thing? What is he/she supposed to do? Cover our eyes and ears whenever there is inappropriate content? My 11 year old cousin was going to watch this movie with us... It is NOT okay for an 11 year old to see what I saw. I believe that this should be rated "NC-17" simply because the "R" rating simply does not solve anything. Technically, a 7-year old could watch this movie, as long as her mom came in with her. Young children are very influential, and would copy a lot of what she saw in this movie. Since this was a "horror" movie, I figured the worst would be some language, and a lot of violence since it was rated "R." But this movie went overboard. I believe that there should be a rating where you must be 14 to see a movie, none of this "accompanying" business. It does not help. If this was not a "horror" movie and was rated "R," I would have looked into detail and to what extent and why it was rated "R." Now to the horror part -- I was not scared ONCE (in the 40 minutes). Aren't you supposed to be scared in a HORROR movie. What is horror? A gang going around killing people? Usually in horror movies, there is some tension and fright. This should be defined as an action movie. I do not care if it got somewhat "scary" after the 40 minutes. If in the 40 minutes there was no horror, it is NOT a horror movie. Well, I have learned to always check WHY it is rated "R," and if a movie says "horror," it doesn't have to be. Always check what a movie REALLY is.
... Which all reminds me of how flummoxed I am that this movie exists, much less secured wide release to major theatres. I mean, it is just plain evil. The snotnosed punk above, and most especially his "11 year old cousin," have NO BUSINESS seeing this movie, not becuase it is violent (although that's a good enough reason for me), not because it has "the F-word" (again, reason enough for him to suffer through Snow Dogs or Herbie or some other such drivel instead), or even that it has a lot of nudity (come to think of it, what the bloody hell was his uncle even thinking). The true reason that kids should not see this movie (and conversely why it is a work of genius) is that it celebrates and deifies vicious psychotic murderers and simultaneously encourages the audience to do the same, all the while condemning (sorta; I hope) any reasonably intelligent viewer for being a sick enough fuck to do so. Its seriously just one of the most God-damned things I have ever seen (and that comment may indeed be literal for all I know). I guess to sum it all up, the reason this ain't for kids is that it never actually feels "ambiguous." If it even *has* a moral compass, Zombie has stuck a magnet underneath it. The movie is overtly on the side of the killers and celebrates their "freedom," even though this freedom seems to be from law, morality, and even humanity. So basically it is a love song for psychopaths and, loathe as I am to agree with Dingleberry above ... Its kinda inappropriate for 11-year-old girls I guess.
The cast is uniformly on FIRE! Zombie has filled his frame with the most impressive roster of old character actors I have ever seen. I think this movie stars everyone EXCEPT Dick Miller ( a shame really --- what, was he in Aruba that month?). Bill Mosely turns in his best performance since TX CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (coinfession time: that's all I know him from), and is maybe the scariest, most demonic presence in memory, while freakishly being able to sell a joke with the best of them ("Yknow, I do believe I can still smell your wife's pussy stink on my gun! Hope it don't rust the barrell."). My God. Between Bill Mosely and Helmut Berger, I feel like my life has changed this month.
William Forsythe delivers a DeNiro-calibre grindhouse performance, all creased-brow and heavy-breathing, while somehow restrained by, of all people, Rob Zombie. Sid Haig is, well, Sid Haig. God bless his pockmarked greasy little heart, he's not exactly a good actor, but he more than makes up for it with commitment, enthusiasm, and presence, and a willingness to do ANYTHING to sell the moment (although I suppose more credit is due to Ginger Lynn Allen for being willing to fuck Sid Haig than to Sid Haig being willing to go nude for a sex scene). Sheri Moon Zombie'c chief asset is on display throughout the picture. Let's just say that after seeing said asset about 1/2 dozen times, I don't think her character "Baby" is too fond of undergarmentry.
The movie is filled with indelible, memorable sequences. and very often manages to hit notes of such visual clarity and power as to almost approach "beauty" status. Its poetry, written in bruises, punctuated by screams.
HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES is another animal entirely. Probably its most impressive achievement is that it inspired a better movie a few years later. Its not uniformly bad; in fact, after having seen REJECTS, I found myself utterly glued to the screen as CORPSES spooled out. The characters are all there, but the performances haven't quite gelled yet. Well, except Sid Haig, who has been gelled for about 30 years now I guess. Mosely is present, as is Moon, but Zombie hasn't quite made up his mind what movie he is making at this early point. This is CORPSES chief failure, as it attempts to be about 8 movies at once, and as such has no focus or unity or consistency. Part slasher, part camp pastiche, part haunted house, part zombie, part monster, part dark character study ... All crammed into 90 minutes. It doesn't feel efficient; it feels truncated, like a recap of a season of TALES FROM THE CRYPT.
It works for me, but only in terms of a post-REJECTS viewing experience. Kinda like STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE is only enjoyable because it shows what led up to STAR TREK THE WRATH OF KHAN. Its not so hot in itself; but intertexturally its damn compelling, akin to reading the flawed first draft of your favorite novel.
The seeds are planted here. Lingering, slomo shots ratchet up the tension as the camera cranes into the sky ... Stock shifts and format changes keep the viewer off-balance but visually engaged ... The characters manage a mordant sense of humor that, when not veering into parody or camp, is genuinely funny.
But the movie goes too far, too often. Filled with explicit gore, little is left to imagine, which is a strength exhibited by REJECTS. CORPSES revels in showing you the exposed scalp or rendered flesh of the victim, while REJECTS leaves you to ponder just what effects that slashing razor are really having. Performances are rarely reeled in. The travelling teens at the beginning are a bunch of stupid, hammy dolts, punched out of a paper doll book called "Stereotypical Jackasses." Not once did I feel a single note of sympathy for their pain (which could very well be tre point; I *wanted* them gone). The script feel like the love child of a first time director ... Oooooops! But I just can't stand it when characters quote poems or Bible verse as they kill a victim. Who does that?! I know I don't.
Still, virtually all of this criticism would be less acute were it not for the final act of the movie. This thing doesn't just derail; it smashes through the screen and kills the audience. Events start to pile up that have no relationship to each other; characters appear that are unidentified but seem to have some relevance to the plot that is never specified. Apparently the last 10 minutes involves a major villain (or two) chasing the final survivor, but we are never quite sure if the villain is who he appears to be, what his relationship is to our, ahem, MAIN CHARACTERS, where he came from, what he wants or is doing ... Nothing. We get a couple of, let's face it, MONSTERS chasing a girl around. Hell, there's even some reanimated zombies in one scene, but they are quickly forgotten about. Its messier than Otis Driftwood's last 5 victims combined.
But still, I am happy for the existence of HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I may even buy the DVD! There is spirit to be had, and enthusiasm, and love of film. Its kinda like seeing your new child take a few lovely first steps, then crash to his knees. In broken glass. You're like, wow, that was great for a minute, I wonder how far he'll get next time. I can't wait to find out. With DEVIL'S REJECTS, those scars are well-healed, and the child not only walks, but thunders around on a riding lawnmower with a bottle of whiskey in both hands, looking for squirrels and woodchucks to fertilize the lawn with.
posted by figurebuilder at 8:48 AM
1 Comments:
You've made me regret passing up the chance to see REJECTS with you, though being able to read your witty & enthused writing ("poetry, written in bruises, punctuated by screams," right on! ETC.) is great consolation. And I probably would've been creeped out by the eeeevil, anyway.
Post a Comment
<< Home