OAO Devils Rejects Thread

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

We're a rare breed, mang. The lovers of b-grade, grindhouse exploitation horror. I think it's down to vivisecti and a few others now, when almost everybody here was all about it a while ago.

[RedJed 0]

Does anyone know what all had to get cut to make it a R rated version? Just curious....

[Gary Floyd 0]

We're a rare breed, mang. The lovers of b-grade, grindhouse exploitation horror. I think it's down to vivisecti and a few others now, when almost everybody here was all about it a while ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Count me in that league of lovers of grindhouse films.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

We're a rare breed, mang. The lovers of b-grade, grindhouse exploitation horror. I think it's down to vivisecti and a few others now, when almost everybody here was all about it a while ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Count me in that league of lovers of grindhouse films.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And me. But... a million times hotter? I can't get on board with that. Sorry but no. Everything else? Yeah.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Count me as a grindhouse fanboy as well ... up to and including the Sherri Moon Zombie >>>> Scarlet Johanssen declaration as well.

 

Damaramu, I only hate, and I'm talking truly hate, films that I sincerely believe are complete piles of horseshit. I'm talking about films like Devil's Rejects, The Village, The Day After Tomorrow, The Forgotten, The Grudge, and on and on and on.

Downhome, my only complaint with your list there is that one of those movies wasn't taking itself so damn seriously like the others were ... I don't think Zombie had any intention of Devil's Rejects being a respectable, mainstream movie ... the other horrid flicks you mention were intended to achieve mainstream popularity and be taken seriously.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

I really hope people didn't go into this film expecting to find some oscar worthy performances or whatever.

[Downhome 0]

Downhome, my only complaint with your list there is that one of those movies wasn't taking itself so damn seriously like the others were ... I don't think Zombie had any intention of Devil's Rejects being a respectable, mainstream movie ... the other horrid flicks you mention were intended to achieve mainstream popularity and be taken seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I just didn't see it like that. I looked at House, and now Rejects, in a different way. To me it was like Zombie wanted to bust onto the scene with something new, something fresh, something truly shocking and horrifying...and to me he meant for the heart of both films to be taken very seriously. I don't think he meant for the films to exactly be a total throwback to films like TCM (even comparing that to his two films is a sin in my eyes) and then all of those shocking exploitation flicks.

 

Yes there was intentional comedy tossed in, most of which I actually did enjoy, but at the heart of it it looked to me like he meant for it to be a serious story.

 

Now if I'm wrong, and he's actually stated in an interview or something that he never meant for the film to really be fantastic, and he never meant it to be serious, show me that and I'll lessen my stand on it. Even if I saw something like that though, I'd still have to sit back and look at this one as a very flawed film. While I'm tougher on films that are meant to be taken seriously, like the other previously mentioned piles of shit, I still can't stand it when bad b-movies are...well, "bad". It all comes down to the heart of the film, no matter what type we're talking about, the overall story.

 

Then there is another level for me. I can understand why people would like this flick, but only as a guilty pleasure. God knows I have my own personal list of horrible, very bad films, that are guilty pleasures for whatever reason. I wouldn't think to take up for the films faults though, no matter if I did enjoy it for some weird reason.

 

Let's get back down to the real issue at hand: hot pieces of ass.

 

I do think Sheri Moon is hot, but she's not even close to being the hottest piece in Hollywood. If I had her on my list, she'd be way down from the top. She doesn't even come close to touching Scarlett Johansen in my eyes. Not in looks, not in voice, not in talent, and for the love of God most certainly not in terms of hotness.

 

I really hope people didn't go into this film expecting to find some oscar worthy performances or whatever.

 

Same here. You should never go into a film like this expecting anything like that. Though, from time to time, you do get a surprise.

 

I didn't expect Oscar worthy performances. I just expected, and hoped for: something decent to good.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Downhome, I personally think that Miike's films are a good example of what Zombie was intending to emulate, more than standard Hollywood films. Miike's flicks aren't supposed to be a joke, but they're also not competing with mainstream Japanese cinematic releases. I don't have any real proof to back up that theory (e.g. I haven't heard him or anyone else state Miike as an influence, nor have I heard that RZ was intending for this to be taken as anything less than serious) ... it's just my guess.

 

I do think Sheri Moon is hot, but she's not even close to being the hottest piece in Hollywood. If I had her on my list, she'd be way down from the top. She doesn't even come close to touching Scarlett Johansen in my eyes. Not in looks, not in voice, not in talent, and for the love of God most certainly not in terms of hotness.

Since this part of our disagreement is full-on opinion, obviously neither of us are right or wrong. But I do have to say if given the chance to watch one of the two, or be with one of the two, or anything comparable, I'd take Sherri Moon Zombie over Scarlett Johansen 7 days a week ... I'll give you that SJ is probably the better actress ... but I don't think she could have played that role as well as SMZ.

[Downhome 0]

Since this part of our disagreement is full-on opinion, obviously neither of us are right or wrong.  But I do have to say if given the chance to watch one of the two, or be with one of the two, or anything comparable, I'd take Sherri Moon Zombie over Scarlett Johansen 7 days a week ... I'll give you that SJ is probably the better actress ... but I don't think she could have played that role as well as SMZ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bah, I think most actresses, even those that I know personally, could have done a better job than Sherri in the acting department. She is perfectly fine until she tries to showcase some sort of emotion or speaks. She is one of the worst at spoken words in film than most actrsses or actors that I can remember.

 

Truth be told, the absolute ONLY reason she was in this film, and the other one, is because of her ties to Zombie, that and she's a hottie. I'd like to see if she could even get a main role in a film that isn't a Zombie flick, or wasn't because of her relationship with him.

 

Downhome, I personally think that Miike's films are a good example of what Zombie was intending to emulate, more than standard Hollywood films.

 

I highly doubt Zombie was going for that type of thing. For one, I seem to remember Zombie trying like hell to get House to be released in as many theaters as possible. He wanted that film to be just as mainstream as any other horror flicks of today, while trying to emulate the classics like TCM and the such, as well as adding a bit of his own style to it. I will admit that he did do just that. House had a very TCM feel to it, but he also had a mix of his own style tossed in, and that hurt it in the end. It exposed his weaknesses as a filmmaker. Not to mention that he really needs to improve his writing, dialogue, and character development.

 

However, even if he WAS trying to emulate someone or something like Miike, he still failed. At least Miike's films are "good", in my eyes at least.

 

If Rob Zombie did anything at all right with his first two films, it's this:

 

House - He achieved the the same feel as the gritty 70's horror films like TCM.

 

Rejects - He achieved the same feel as the 70's exploitation films like Last House on the Left.

 

Where he screwed up, is by adding his own personal touch to these two flicks. I honestly do feel that he could direct a pretty solid film with the feel of one of his previous two. However, as of right now, for him to do so I think he needs to bring on someone else to write the screenplay (or at least co-write it with him), and possibly have someone else on board with him to act as something of a filter for his directorial ideas along with the creative ideas.

 

I think you can see that he cares for 70's film, there is no doubt about that here. He just needs to take that care, and do these genres justice in the future. Not just put out films that look to be mere parodies and full of cliches.

 

Does he have the ability to do this: I think so.

 

Will he do this: I highly doubt it.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

I don't see how Rejects was a parody of 70's exploitation. If anything, the TCM remake was a parody of 70's exploitation. Please explain.

[Downhome 0]

What do you want me to expalin? Both films obviously, OBVIOUSLY are trying to take on the feel of both genres, House went for one of them and Rejects went for the other. If it was any more obvious, Rob Zombie would have had to slap you in the face screaming it over and over.

 

If you mean why did I use the word parody, that's easy. Both of the films tried to emulate a certain feel so much, that it got to the point that it was just funny to me, in a very bad way.

[RedJed 0]

Although some may disagreee, I think there is a fine line between calling something a parody v. a homage to a certain genre, etc. While I dont think Rejects is a parody, I think Zombie paid homage to some elements of the 70's gritty, dirty, Spit on your Grave/Last House on the Left type films. But calling it a parody of the genres or whatever you are trying to say is invalid if you ask me.

 

Calling something a parody would be the director/producer/whatever blatantly, intentionally, and directly making fun of their film at the expense of whatever they are doing a take on. Here is a weird case in point but Gremlins 2 is a parody of the first Gremlins.

[Downhome 0]

Calling something a parody would be the director/producer/whatever blatantly, intentionally, and directly making fun of their film at the expense of whatever they are doing a take on. Here is a weird case in point but Gremlins 2 is a parody of the first Gremlins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, so it was an unintentional parody.

 

Also, you are way right about Gremlins 2 being a parody of the first one.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Exactly. It's an homage, not a parody. And not an unintentional parody either, Downhome, since most exploitation/grindhouse films are actually WORSE than what Haverhill's Favorite Son (my personal name for Rob, since he grew up about an hour's drive from me in Haverhill, MA) has presented to us.

 

Also, please remember that these are his FIRST two films, and everything else he's directed has been music videos for projects he's been involved in (White Zombie, his solo career, and I believe he did some of his brother's videos in PowerMan 5000, but I'm not too sure). I expect his next film, assuming he's going to make another one, will be better than this, and to a lot of us (everybody but Downhome and AndrewTS, essentially), that's saying something.

[Jingus 0]

The main reason I didn't like this movie was that I simply didn't understand what about this movie I was supposed to like in the first place. Yeah, it was definitely an homage to the 70s exploitation flicks like Last House on the Left and I Spit On Your Grave, but at least those movies had someone to cheer for. I didn't like one single character in The Devil's Rejects, and aside from the various helpless innocent victims I thought the whole cast of characters pretty much deserved nothing but a bullet in the brain. At least in House I could laugh at all the goofy shenanigans going on, but this one ditched the humor and tried to take everything seriously, which killed my enjoyment in the whole process.

 

What pissed me off the most was the way the movie seemed to want me to SYMPATHIZE with the killers at the end of the flick when the sherriff was going all crazy. Are you fucking kidding me? These sick sonsabitches are so violent and amoral that even Charles Manson wouldn't have accepted them as family members. They deserved every single bad thing that ever happened to them, and I was damn near offended that Zombie seemed like he was trying to get me to feel otherwise.

 

Also, major plot hole: what the fuck happened to Dr. Satan? He had like ten times the number of victims and dead bodies that the farmhouse did, but somehow the cops never even heard of him. You'd think that his underground lair would've been a perfect place for the family to hide, but they never even considered going there. In fact, the good Doctor was never even mentioned once in this flick, as if he never existed.

[Downhome 0]

Don't give me shit. I admitted that he possibly has the talent to put together a solid flick. He has has a mind for this sort of thing, I can see that. He just needs some sort of filter, someone to work with to straighten his shit out.

 

And once again, I agree with Jingus.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

Yeah, a lot of spoilers in this post, so if you're reading this and haven't seen the movie yet...just skip it or shut up about it.

 

 

 

Jingus, I don't think you're necessarily supposed to feel sympathy for them when the Sheriff is fucking them up, but I think the scene is supposed to show that neither side is "right." We'd all be cheering for the Sheriff wholeheartedly if he didn't torture Baby like he did (that was the one part that ruined my sympathy for the Sheriff's character), because Otis and Spaulding DEFINITELY got what they deserved (not fully, but to an extent they did).

It's an antihero movie. You're not supposed to feel sympathy for the ones doing the gruesome killing, but in a weird, sick and fucking twisted way, you do. I think some critic used the line "a combination of Natural Born Killers and Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to describe this movie, and that's actually a perfect description, because in NBK you start to like Mickey and Mallory, despite their being serial killers, because those after them are just as evil - if not moreso, because at least Mickey and Mallory lived up to their crimes - as they are. That's what I get out of The Devil's Rejects, anyway: you can at least respect Otis, Spaulding, and Baby because they're open about being sick and twisted pricks, while Sheriff Wydell is sick and twisted and tries to pretend he isn't.

PLUS, in the end, justice was served as the Texas Rangers completely hollowed out Otis, Spaulding, and Baby as they tried to make their getaway. So there was retribution, but just not for Wydell because he let himself get too lost in vengeance as opposed to doing his job and getting justice.

 

And Downhome, I wasn't trying to start shit with you. I just don't think Rob needs as much of a filter as you do (though this could be because I like this AND House), and I think that it's too early into his film career to really judge whether or not he does. I'd like to see the script he wrote for the third Crow film, the one that was rejected, because I'd like to see how he would have handled the mythology of it and see if it was just a bunch of action/revenge clichés thrown together (like the third Crow ended up being) or if there was some semblance of heart in it.

[RedJed 0]

Not to sway too off topic, but has anyone seen the new Crow movie? It just came out on DVD. Needless to say I was VERY dissapointed. Have a feeling the franchise is pretty much fucked after that one.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

The franchise has been fucked since City of Angels, so no biggie.

[Guest Biggles]

After seeing House of a 1000 Corpses I really didn't want to see this one but was talked into going by my friends. Once I saw it I was a bit suprised at how much better it was than House. I think Zombie realized who his audience was and pumped up the action and violence in this one.

[Jingus 0]

Jingus, I don't think you're necessarily supposed to feel sympathy for them when the Sheriff is fucking them up, but I think the scene is supposed to show that neither side is "right." We'd all be cheering for the Sheriff wholeheartedly if he didn't torture Baby like he did (that was the one part that ruined my sympathy for the Sheriff's character), because Otis and Spaulding DEFINITELY got what they deserved (not fully, but to an extent they did).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why? Baby is just as much of a psycho murderer as any of them, we've seen her stab two people to death, are we supposed to sympathize with her just because she happens to be a hot chick as well as a serial killer?

[Crimson Platypus 0]

I was still cheering wholeheartedly for the Sheriff whilst he was torturing Baby. Sick fucks like Baby, Otis, and Spaulding deserve shit like that.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

It's more along the lines of the Sheriff knowing Baby was the weakest one (and compared to Otis and Spaulding, she was the most innocent of the three too; also a complete fucking psycho serial killer, but less brutal than they were), and him relishing in the fact that she had no chance. The Sheriff's dementia is what drove the little sympathy heat out of Baby, to use a wrestling term, that she had in her.

[Anya 0]

I thought it was boring. I didn't care about the characters, it wasn't scary or suspenseful. It just didn't seem to have much of a point. Being a homage to 70's films or whatever is fine but it doesn't mean anything to me.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

And that's alright. This may sound a bit prickish, but the movie wasn't made for you. It was made for fans of 70's horror and exploitation films, which is what Rob Zombie loves.

[dpac 0]

Finally saw the the flick, and I have to say I liked it. Not as gruesome as I was led to believe by the reviews I read. The music and the gunfights added some nice flavor. I will surely continue to check out what Rob puts out.