Rue Morgue Podcast
RUE MORGUE PODCAST – THE HORROR COURT
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Welcome to the first installment of The Horror Court.
The film on trial is Rob Zombie’s highly divisive 2005 sophomoric effort The Devil’s Rejects.
I was immensely critical of the movie upon its original release and my fondness for it has not grown much in the interim.
Valiantly defending the flick is Mr. Charlie Lawton from the Toronto Underground Cinema, one of Toronto’s grooviest repertory cinemas.
So here’s how it works: we were both allowed three clips from the film to present as evidence in support of our respective cases but ultimately, it’s up to YOU the listeners (i.e. the judge, jury and executioners) to decide whether or not Rob Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY of being a load of RUBBISH!
So listen carefully to the evidence at hand, deliberate conscientiously and post your verdicts and reasons right here on the Rue Morgue Blog then using the latest in advanced mathematical algorithms we will add up the results and read the entries and announce the final VERDICT on an upcoming episode of the Rue Morgue Podcast.
So choose wisely my friends.
:- FDBK
To listen to the episode, use the embedded player or click HERE
(or ‘Right Click’ to save to your hard drive).
To subscribe in iTunes, use the following URL:
http://www.ruemorgueradio.com/RMpodcast/rss.xml.
I can honestly say I have a big dislike to Rob Zombie films in a whole, the Halloween remakes was enough to have put me in the position to despise his cinematic ventures. I know that The Devil’s Rejects was made before the Halloween remakes, but even then I didn’t enjoy it. It’s sadistic and brutal, indeed, but it’s hardly a classic film that tried something original. My thoughts on this film was that Rob Zombie was trying to bring French horror and that type of gore to the table, but he hardly succeeded. I enjoyed House of a 1000 Corpses a lot more, because he was trying to push the boundaries with his directing, rather than trying to shock people with senseless scriptwriting and meaningless gore.
My verdict is:
15 years behind the metaphorical bars of horror jail, with the possibility of parole after 10 years for good behaviour.
For the record, I vote GUILTY! (For all the reasons stated.)
A harsh sentence Monique…but I can’t say I disagree.
AWESOME show! And hopefully this DOES become a series, because I love a good debate about these types of films.
Now then,,,With all due respect to Charlie, who seems like a good bloke and who gets credit for having the cajones to go toe to toe with the critical force of nature that is Feedback….I have to vote GUILTY AS CHARGED.
Now, truth be told, I was on the fence about this film. Though I have never reviled it at the level that Feedback does, I did find it a problematic film at best. There are, however, some things that I (slightly and begrudgingly) admire about the film. I can understand some of the points Charlie was trying to make, particularly in regards to the tone and overall mise en scene that Zombie was aiming for. There are a few brief glimmers of a much darker, more satirical film hiding somewhere in here. And the majority of the cast, though hampered by Zombie’s now-trademarked base, vulgarity-infested dialogue, have to at least be given credit for 1 or 2 scenes wherein they give it their all and pull off some semblance of a memorable performance.
But I’m afraid that Feedback hit the nail on the head with a lot of the points he made. Zombie seems to be way too preoccupied with trying to resurrect the style and feel of the classic ’70s drive-in fare he grew up loving without really having anything at all new or interesting to say within the genre. The casting DOES veer wildly into “stunt casting” territory, and all the references he piles on in scene after scene are handled in such a showy yet ham-fisted manner that you’re constantly taken right out of the film (I really HATE that Marx Bros. bit). It’s almost as if Rob is so obssessed with showing off his deep-track knowledge of the types of films he’s trading on that he completely forgot (or didn’t even care to bother) to give the film something, ANYTHING unique to stand on its own.
Say what you will about Tarantino (and you’d be wrong), but he at least knows how to take his many influences and shape them into something totally and completely his own. And if you’re going to accuse HIM of “stunt casting”, at least give him credit for not MIS-casting the performers he chooses in roles that they are ill-suited to play or bring anything interesting to. (In JACKIE BROWN, Pam Grier is there because she’s perfect for the role. In DEVIL’S REJECTS, Ken Foree is there because…well, he’s Ken Foree from DAWN OF THE DEAD, remember, kids?!)
Anyway, I dig Charlie. I loved hearing his articulate and well-thought out comments. But, as I was always ambivalent about this film anyway, I’m afraid that Stuart crystallized quite a bit of what I felt were the major demerits of this one and swayed me with his prosecutions.
It’s strange. I’m a big fan of Rob Zombie the GUY. He’s funny, personable, and very articulate in person. I just can’t figure out why he seems to get in his own way as a filmmaker.
But all of this aside, what’s even stranger is that…and I feel like I’m coming out of the closet here in the midst of enemy territory by admitting this….but I WOULD actually defend Rob’s HALLOWEEN films as valid works by him, for reasons that I won’t get into here. But I seem to be very, very ALONE on that one. And that’s an argument for another time.
Great show! Keep ‘em coming!
Great post, Mike (but have you ever heard of a line space? They go real good after paragraphs….)
“There are a few brief glimmers of a much darker, more satirical film hiding somewhere in here.”
And that’s perhaps the most maddening aspect of the flick. There’s SOMETHING hiding behind all of that rubbish that desperately wants to come out and play.
Like the giant faces in SUPERMAN, I say, “Guilty.”
So here are my two cents:
I’m voting Not Guilty, and I know this is a purely subjective discussion, but I’ll try and articulate why I think The Devil’s Rejects is a very good film. All of this is ‘in my opinion’, I know that, but I’m trying to be objective here:
1. I hated House of 1000 Corpses. I thought it was trite, and lacked any identifiable directorial signature. It ran through a standard: establishing shot, medium shot, shot-reverse-shot format. It was like a TV movie. Watching Devil’s Rejects made me feel that I’d watched Zombie’s evolution as a film-maker, that he suddenly found his own style. He wasn’t scared of starting a new scene with an extreme close-up, dizzying and disorienting the viewer. He took the camera off the god-damn tripod and gave the film energy. In Devil’s Rejects he found his own identifiable style of camera and mise-en-scene, and he ran with it.
2. Zombie’s doing the 70′s thing, and people knock him for it. They say his films are exercises in cruelty, that the dialogue is bad, that the characterisation is bad. I seriously think people should go back and watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, et al, and pin-point where Devil’s Rejects differs. Those films were exactly the same. The killers are flat, the dialogue is unrefined, the cruelty is endless. It’s also really not necessary to like anyone in a horror film. It’s a horror film. What does this guy mean about a ‘one note mentality’ or a lack of ‘traces of mercy’ amongst the killers? Why is he unable to get on board with a heartless horror film, and why is he unable to see the very strong connection to 70′s horror, which a lot of people regard as a golden age for the genre?
3. Zombie is doing something new. He puts you with the killers. He doesn’t put you with the survivors. House of 1000 Corpses started off following the kids, but with Devil’s Rejects the audience is immediately thrown in with a bunch of ragtag misfits who are utterly nauseating. We have no anchor, no character representing normality. It’s an unnerving experience to say the least. He doesn’t ask you to sympathise with the killers or even like them, he asks you to be witness to the horror that they are: merciless, mindless killers. With that in mind, Devil’s Rejects really works for me.
So that’s what I think. Go ahead. Tear me apart.
Mr. White. If it turns out it’s GUILTY, I’m DEFINITELY using that clip!
Ben.
“I seriously think people should go back and watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House on the Left, I Spit on Your Grave, et al, and pin-point where Devil’s Rejects differs. Those films were exactly the same.”
You kinda argued my point for me. Thanks!
But seriously. I appreciate your comments. The difference is though….
TCM is TRULY nightmarish. Those killers are merciless, horrifying, disturbing, brutal without any shred of mercy. And that’s fine.
Where TDR goes off the rails for me is, the killers are diluted with all their bullshit, pontifications, pop culture references and holiday home movies.
Zombie wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Ahem…
I like how you pick up on the TCM characters, but ignore my mention of the far more real world (and similar to Devil’s Rejects) characters from I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left.
That’s thinking like a lawyer.
In the end I think this boils down to ‘I think, you think’.
I also think that someone saying they’d go back and watch it with an open mind, and then saying that they ‘thankfully’ missed the first 30 minutes, says it all for objectivity really.
Well, Ben…..
First of all, not only did I see the final 1 hour in the theatre but then I watched the entire thing on DVD the next night at home. So in fact….I watched it one and a half times. How’s that for an open mind? So to date…I’ve watched TDR almost THREE times….(1 and a half in the theatre.)
And I’m sorry I’m not being as thorough in my retorts on here as you would like.
Generally, I’m not a HUGE fan of ISPOYG or LHOTL either, although neither of those two films asks us to empathise with the villians to the absurd level that REJECTS does.
You can’t present us with an inhuman, cartoonishly cruel and crude gang of knuckleheads and then expect we’re gonna feel a deep sadness at their passing simply by showing us some super 8 home movies over FREEBIRD.
And actually, I DO feel more empathy with the killers in the flicks you mentioned than in any of the villains in DEVIL’S REJECTS, despite Zombie’s wonky efforts to humanize them.
For instance, LEATHERFACE, while utterly horrifying is actually far more empathetic and endearing than any of the characters in TDR and that’s in large part to the qualities Gunnar Hansen imbued the character with. He found a human tangent in the monster.
I don’t think Zombie does. These characters are brutish and crude and his attempts to humanize them are clumsy. Ultimately, he lacks the necessary sensitivity to find the humanity in them.
Sherri Moon aside, I don’t take issues with Sid Haig’s or Bill Molesley’s performances per se but as written, the characters are charmless.
I vote NOT GUILTY, but I agree on several points made by both parties.
I like the film overall, stylistically it is pretty solid, some of the performances are good (Forsythe is menacing) and the music is well integrated (this movie introduced me and my younger brother to Free Bird which is awesome).
Even though I dislike Zombie’s casting choices generally (putting actors in there as a wink to genre fans, sometimes in utterly useless parts – you would never know Mary Woronov is in The Devil’s Rejects if you didn’t pay attention to the credits), I liked Foree and Berryman and wish some of their lighter hearted traits were carried over to the Firefly family, because like Feedback I had a hard time sympathizing with them.
Speaking of hard times, I wish I could unsee Sid Haigs testicles. I would also like to unsee Halloween, but fortunately there’s Halloween 2, which is dare I say a pretty fun slasher movie?
This was sorta of disgusting to me. Films existed before Quentin Tarantino. Feedback’s statement on Zombie’s film being un-original is a bit overstated. There is little originality in filmmaking of today. The Devil’s Rejects — It’s certainly an homage to a particular genre and style of a different cinematic period. Why is it unacceptable for Rob Zombie to attempt such, but it’s Ok for Tarantino to do it? Tarantino has yet to produce a truly original film on any level. Jackie Brown is QT’s best film. Feedback states, that his (Zombie’s) ‘infuences scream at the viewer’ and Tarantino’s don’t? Tarantino has made an entire career of producing fan films — essentially remaking a film and taking credit for – it’s concept, and his own. Without going into this idea much more due to time, why is it that people continue to debate, trash discuss the work of Rob Zombie? Usually the sign of interesting art is for it to be continually discussed and debated. Good or bad, it’s all into the viewer’s opinion, but the fact that this film remains to be discussed is a testament to the art of Rob Zombie. Lastly, if you follow the time line, given when Zombie’s film ‘House Of A 1000 Corpses’ was produced and then finally released, it’s style context and ‘influences’ did not exist in contemporary horror films. If anything that film was a sort of ahead of it’s time in terms of the statement on the current of horror. It was ‘Scream’, and ‘I Know What You Did Last Summer’, then to House Of A 1000 Corpses, and now with contemporary horror is nothing put shock and awe. Sigh. Boring debate. Feedback why do you continue to watch the cinema of Rob Zombie if he has nothing to contribute to the horror genre?
NOT GUILTY.
REGARDING EXHIBIT A. What insight were you hoping for into the character of Otis? He is cruel. He is nuts. Every soul is not prescribed a counter nor do people fit protagonist or antagonist respectively. I feel this movie blends those ideas realistically. Why a need to connect with the victims? They are much more real than the sorority row femmes and too-popular jocks that are normally slaughtered in horror movies.
REGARDING EXHIBIT B. I feel that Mr. Zombie took the quickest route to build characters using ‘regurgitated’ dialogue. I found the character mirrored the annoying but effective Jack Scagnetti cop stereotype from Natural Born Killers. No shame in taking a proven shortcut.
REGARDING EXHIBIT C. I don’t think the Groucho thing was supposed to be funny or a name-drop session. It was to build Wydell as a sentimental country boy that is perhaps a little too hard-boiled. I agree with Mr. Lawton.
REGARDING EXHIBIT D. Perhaps, again, having limited time, Mr. Zombie used a shortcut to portray some sociopathic cliches that are fairly hard to articulate on any given day.
REGARDING EXHIBIT E. Again, I don’t think is supposed to be funny. Why would we want funny in this thing? My radar was not tuned to Comedy while watching REJECTS, so I did not share the same level of disappointment that this scene was not hilarious. I think it helped build the idea that even those that the criminals are in bed with – the thieves with no honour among them – have others they look down on. Namely, chicken fuckers.
REGARDING EXHIBIT F. At the end of the film, I was pretty much galvanized. I hate that song. I felt ripped off that the villains were not going to make it. I felt ripped off that the cops caught up with them in such force. But: loved it. It matters very very very little who he is riffing on, it matters less what the scene was reminding you of, it does not even matter if you connected with them or not. Again, I agree with Mr. Lawton.
Had to comment. During the last Ottawa Horror meeting, we began debating this film versus 1000 CORPSES and it turned into a half-hour conversation about which movie was better and why which was a hard conversation at times. If other Horror Court projects are this long to listen to though, I may skip it. Listening to the whole podcast was tortuous in it’s length. Tighten this up to 20 minutes, tops, and it’s a great idea.
Guilty. Super Guilty.
When I watch a Rob Zombie movie, I feel like there are two or more movies playing at once. The first movie is the pile of poorly written shit on the screen. The other movie is the one inside my head, where I can see what Rob Zombie was TRYING to accomplish and imagining how a talented and intelligent writer director, such as Quentin Tarantino, Tobe Hooper, John Waters, Oliver Stone or John Carpenter might have gone about doing it correctly.
Guilty as charged.
Though he makes a bold effort to defend this reprehensible rubbish, the Right Honourable Mr Lawton really didn’t have a leg to stand on and by the climax of the proceedings it was obvious he knew this. Cummings is a failure as a writer and his self indulgent revelling in soulless degradation requires the skills of a far greater talent to carry off his conceits.
Guilty.
Brutality, depravity and gore are simply not enough to carry a film in this day and age and it wasn’t enough to save this movie. To be honest, it has been a long time since I last saw it and I wondered if it was even fair to cast a verdict, but the clips provided reminded me why the movie was so forgettable.
First off, I enjoyed House of 1000 Corpses very much, mostly because it was GARISH in addition to being gruesome. The Firefly family is chilling when seen through the terrified eyes of captive teenagers, but outside of their funhouse, the Firefly family is dull at best, at worst, irritating. Out of their ominous element and imbued with copious amounts of southern twang, they’re just a bunch of hicks on a killing spree. What happened to Otis’ fucked up human-animal taxidermy from the first film? And Baby’s penchant for dressing up her victims like real life dolls? After this GOLD, all we get from Devil’s Rejects is… rejecting religion? Chicken-fucking jokes?? And where the CRAP is Dr. Satan?!
I agree with Feedback’s indictment of Zombie’s failed attempt to get us to sympathize with anyone; Firefly family or otherwise. Their musical blaze of glory at the end was SO cheesy and overwhelmingly Hollywood, it actually insulted me as a fan of the genre and put the final nail in its coffin. Valiently argued by both sides, but guilty as charged.
@Feedback- “Great post, Mike (but have you ever heard of a line space? They go real good after paragraphs….)”
The RM site kept shutting down on me or something, so I frantically had to copy and paste and re-post, and neglected to fix it first. Sorry.
I’m reminded of a snake being guilty for biting. The Devil’s Rejects is not a formula film interested in the parts, it is exactly as Feedback said: “a self-indulgent, sadistic revelry” more interested in the entire canvas. But one like we haven’t seen before. It’s not Badlands, but we ride with the bad guys on a long, crude solo and you either enjoy that ride, or you’re the kind of film fan who prefers a cruise with scenery from the brochure that aren’t the same old facade.
One dimensional? Yes. But so was Warhol. Shrill? Absolutely, but so is much of art, in particular, punk art. I found I laughed with them, and never sought to empathize, only to act as voyeur. But unlike conventional voyeurism, I didn’t feel dirty after.
Zombie’s biggest crime was failing to prepare the audience for what they were really going to see: a “hyper-universe” pastiche of mostly cheap moments with a technicolor label wrapped in a brown paper bag. You’re supposed to slum with it into madness. It’s gorgeous trash.
Innocent of the major charge, guilty of false advertising. Sentenced to disclaimers before every future film in a polyester, blue suit.
“Like the giant faces in SUPERMAN, I say, ‘Guilty’!” That’s hilarious! You should totally use that from here on, Fdbk.
It is interesting, that Tarantino is mentioned. The first half an hour (or so ) of Rodriguez’ From Dusk Til Dawn, Tarantino and Clooney play two utterly detestable, despicable characters to grace the screen, and then they themselves become survivors. But the characters in TDR, while uncomfortable and disgusting, had nowhere near the depth. Well, that is a quick 2 cents worth…more later.
To Jess….
I made such strong parallels to Tarantino because I see Zombie attempting many of the things I think Tarantino does so successfully. We could have a different debate on Tarantino but while he makes his influences overt, he has his own method for putting the films together.
Zombie doesn’t (at least not with D.R.). He (I argue ‘deliberately’) fumbled at a bunch of Tarantino’s aesthetic tendencies but he doesn’t have the talent to pull it off.
I think throughout the course of the debate I mentioned an entire litany of such examples so no need to list them again here.
“Feedback why do you continue to watch the cinema of Rob Zombie if he has nothing to contribute to the horror genre?”
Good question! But keep in mind, I eventually learned my lesson. I never saw H2!
(ALTHOUGH – I’ve promised my buddy SHLOGGS that I will get around to watching it soon!)
@Andrea-
“And where the CRAP is Dr. Satan?!”
At the risk of sounding like a know-it-all dork, there was a Dr. Satan scene shot for REJECTS (it featured a cameo from Rosario Dawson as an unlucky nurse/victim at a hospital where Satan has been brought for treatment), but it was cut from the finished film. I think it’s available as a deleted scene on the DVD. Zombie apparently cut it because it didn’t fit with the tone of the rest of the film…whatever that means.
Great comments so far. And Lydia. Sorry the length was trying for you – but the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly…..
And Chuck! What’s your verdict?
Not Guilty. However every other Rob Zombie film (except also Werewolf Women Of The SS) is Guilty and should be sentenced to the guillotine!!!!
Another thing. Jess? Are you voting GUILTY or NOT GUILTY?
GUILTY.
Before court was even in session I was determined I would vote NOT GUILTY, but it is impossible to ignore your arguments, Feedback.
Subissati made some great points about the Firefly clan in Ho1kC vs TDR. They were a lot more sinister and interesting in House and all that fun is taken away in this murderous road movie.
Have to agree with Scotty when he compared it to “a snake being guilty for biting” because this movie is supposed to be low-brow fun.
Still, listening to those isolated clips were cringe-inducing. I must’ve been distracted by Sheri Moon Zombie’s hot bod the first time I saw this movie to care!
GUILTY.
I think the GUILTY’s have a slight edge, especially considering that some of the NOT GUILTY crowd are so ‘disgusted’ by my comments they haven’t posted an official verdict!
Speaking of Mr. Zombie . . .
http://gawker.com/5812579/rob-zombie-has-made-a-woolite-commercial
I love a good film debate as much as the next cinephile. The films of Rob Zombie, my favorite working genre film maker, transcend debate however. The films of Zombie produce a volatile response in those that watch them. Ten minutes into the initial viewing of whatever of his films you happen to have seen first, you will have decided exactly what you think of his millieu, and your reaction will be so strong and set in stone there is likely very little he can do to change it with his subsequent films, no matter how much you revisit them.
My first viewing of House of 1,000 Corpses affected me so strongly and positively, I have been on board ever since and my appreciation only grows and solidifies with each entry into his filmography. I won’t go into my reasons as those who dislike him (no doubt vehemently) as nothing I can say will change any minds either way. If interested: http://shloggshorrorblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/rob-zombie.html
The point is, his films are confrontational, divisive and entirely his own vision. He is the most discussed and controversial Director making theatrically released horror today. To me, the worst films the genre produces are soulless exercises in greed that illicit no reaction whatsoever. The Pulse remake, the Elm Street remake, Priest 3-D, you get the idea.
I say not guilty obviously. It won’t make a bit of difference and I’m sure he will lose this judgement. The bottom line is, 30 years from now, Zombie’s films (all of them) will still be rewatched, talked about, discussed and endlessly debated. He has made a gigantic impact on the genre and regardless of all those that revile him, he will still be relevant. No more so than to the people who actively despise him. If his work weren’t monumentally important, he wouldn’t even be on trial.
Your defense is so eloquent Shloggs, I wish I was a Rob Zombie fan!
Nick….
I HATE it when directors do commercials, especially when they’re already a success. I’m very much in the BILL HICKS camp on that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgUWTquztGY&feature=related
“Here’s the deal, folks. You do a commercial – you’re off the artistic roll call, forever. End of story. Okay? You’re another whore at the capitalist gang-bang, and if you do a commercial, there’s a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink”
HOWEVER…to be fair. As far as commercials go, that was a good one. Probably Zombie’s best work to date.
It’s not a defense my friend, it’s just the truth of the situation.
Chicken fucker!
Also, I’m willing to bet this episode gets the most responses, both in terms of number and passion. And for the record, there is no scene more awful in Zombies canon than the shoehorned Larry Bishop cameo in Kill Bill 2 lol.
You calling me a chicken fucker, you motherfucking chicken fucking motherfucker, motherfucker! Fuck you! I repeat… FUCK YOU….fuckitty fuck fuck a duck…..
You mean ‘Tarantino’s Canon…’ right? (Don’t tell me Rob Zombie guest directed that cameo spot?)
It just seemed ironic that the Zombie ad came out the same day this debate was happening.
I agree the commercial is better than any of his movies. Everyone who’s commented on the Gawker page so far seems to think the same thing.
No, I mean that Zombie never has filmed a scene in his films as excruciatingly dull and dripping with needless fanboy wankery as that lifeless bit.
Well….I like the Larry Bishop scene in KILL BILL. And here’s why.
First, I’m not a big aficionado of Bishop so the cameo means little to me…BUT…there’s a dramatic context to that scene that blows me away.
Bishop unleashes a torrent of verbal abuse on Madsen, but little does he know how lethal Madsen is, that he could snap his neck like a twig without blinking.
So…Tarantino pulls a brilliant bit of misdirection here, setting us up to expect a payoff that never happens. Instead, we get a fairly profound observation of Madsen’s character: an ex-assassin who’s turned his back on the glamour, the millions, the respect and the excitement of his former life for the dull, dreary, mundane day-to-day existence of a strip club janitor.
That he endures Bishop’s taunts without retaliation speaks to the resignation of his character, that he’s prepared to accept his ‘chump’ life and all that it entails.
A lesser director would’ve had the ubiquitous revenge moment with Bishop getting a much deserved comeuppance.
Actually, I think it’s genuinely brilliant and a character detail that is LEAGUES and I mean LEAGUES beyond Zombie’s scope.
All he probably sees in that scene is…
“Wow, man. Larry Bishop! Cool. I’m gonna make a movie and put my favourite B-Movie actor in it too.”
Lydia…
Regarding this comment…
“Why a need to connect with the victims? They are much more real than the sorority row femmes and too-popular jocks that are normally slaughtered in horror movies.”
I will respond to this on an upcoming episode of the podcast, the one wherein we release the final verdict for the film. In honour of you, I’ll make it a 2 hour show!
Obviously I vote Not Guilty.
Can I be cheeky and move for a mistrial due to the fact you say that it’s “complete rubbish” and then later you say there’s at least one cut you liked, the shot with Ken Foree’s reaction.
I jest, I jest.
Yikes. Tough crowd.
Kudos Mike Tank, it was a intimidating as hell debate, but I think I held my own. thanks.
Rock on Ben. Well said points.
Thanks Marc!
Well stated Lydia, and yeah it’s overly long, we both do love to ramble on about film.
Thanks for calling me “the right honourable” Dark Mark, always wanted that title. Though I didn’t “know I had failed” at the end of the debate, I remember thinking to myself I actually did fairly well. It’s all subjective though, at the end of the day, no matter what verdict the “jury” lays down, I’m still going to like this movie, and Stuart is still going to hate it.
thanks to everyone for listening and voting!
Actually, I have to dispute Lydia’s suggestion for a 20 minute version of this. Obviously, Lydia is not a fan of the many spoken word genre-related film podcasts that are out there, which run upwards of 2 and half hours an episode.
(For instance, I just heard Profondo Cinema spend over 20 minutes discussing the various DVD and VHS releases of THERE’S ALWAYS VANILLA!)
But in 20 minutes, we couldn’t do justice to ANY film in this fashion. Maybe that would be a good format but it’s not one I’m interested in.
And anyway, this one clocks in at just over an hour with clips and while there is some repetition, I actually cut out about 20 minutes of stuff, mostly ‘retakes’ and a couple of glaring instances where we (mostly I) were repeating ourselves.
But an hour of intense debate over a contentious movie replete with clips up the wazoo….is not an unrealistic amount of time.
But no matter what the final verdict is, Charlie was a worthy opponent and it was a tremendous amount of fun squaring off against him in the Horror Court!
Well said Feedback. It was a pleasure sir, you were a worthy adversary. Till next time!
First off I would like to say to Mr Feedback- THANK YOU ! THANK YOU ! THANK YOU ! You thoroughly (and quite eloquently I might add) dragged every single argument I’ve ever had with anyone about this movie out into the open and debased the defense of it being a worthy film. From the casting choices down to the “who am I supposed to identify with ?” retort, you clearly put TDR in it’s proper place.
The difference between this and TCM/LHOTL/ISOYG is there were HUMAN victims dragged into the madness and you empathize with them. The situation that the TDR gang find themselves in is of their own doing. Am I supposed to feel badly that they are being hunted by the sheriff for the unspeakable crimes we were introduced to in H1KC ? I certainly hope that was not Zombie’s intention because this movie fails even more if that was his intent. It was purely a dragged out rock n roll, adolescent exercise in sadism without consequence. The ‘Freebird’ ending in the closing few minutes attempting to erase all the feelings of disgust for these characters only made me wish the song itself was shorter to put them down.
Great show btw. I hope to hear more like this in the future.
Verdict: GUILTY
Not guilty.
Sorry FEEDBACK. I hate Rob Zombie as much as any self-respecting horror fan should…but, he gets a pass on this one.
Not going to bother going into it though as you are very much set in your ways.
Christopher! Excellent.
OJ. Don’t be a spoilsport! Tell us what you think! (Plus, I didn’t know they let you on the internet in prison.)
Oh, I get the context of the scene. I understand that he’s a run down, ex-tough guy resigned to his sorry lot in life. I just think the scene is boring as all get out and contains no dynamic. It’s just a rambling monologue that could have been about 1/4 as long as it was and still got the job done.
For the record, I love Tarantino’s films a great deal and will admit that the elements of his films that frustrate me so much (Death Proof, Kill Bill 2) are also indicative of his importance and singularity of vision.
In any case, I always love hearing you talk film FEEDBACK!
First I thought the Devil’s Rejects was a good movie. The first time I watched it I felt it was highly depressing but it grew on me. But I don’t think Rob Zombie is a bad director. But I think if one thinks of it as Fan Films, cause in a way Rob Zombie’s movies are a homage to the films he loves.
I vote not guilty, and now that I have listened to the podcast, I am even more in the not guilty section…(at the risk of being blocked from any further mayhem and madness by Feedback)
I still stand by my comment earlier about the depth of the characters, but on the flip side, how deep are sadistic soulless murderers anyway? I cannot say, I have never truly met one (That I know of.
Now, if you are trying to review this as an Art Film, by all means tear it a part and call it a pile of shit. However, it is a HORROR movie…meant to be an escape. And let us not forget those amazing words that were given to us (if we were lucky) in high school…SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.
And one last thought: To Andrea: “Brutality, depravity and gore are simply not enough to carry a film in this day and age” If that is the case, please explain the success of films such as Inside, and other recent films out of France, and also the Japanese revenge films.
Thank you Feedback, keep it up, and don’t you dare shorten it to 20 minutes.
Chuck. Your last sentence redeems you!
And Shloggs. Like it or loathe it, the Larry Bishop scene has a compelling, innovative and stereotype-defying DRAMATIC context. As for DR, I’m at a loss to find one in the Ken Foree / Michael Berrymen Chicken Fucking scene.
But if anyone can make a case for it…it’s YOU! So let’s hear it…..
Guilty.
I like the idea of horror court, but with all due respect to Mr. Lawton, I think you need a more worthy opponent, Feedback.
Bear in mind I don’t think I would have done any better, but you simply EVISCERATED this guy.
If this were a debate club contest they would have mercy killed Lawton in the first 20 minutes.
With your encyclopedic knowledge of and scholarly approach to film, it felt like Lawton had brought a butter knife to a chainsaw fight.
He stammered, he struggled and in the end, his argument seemed to boil down to the simple fact that he just liked this movie.
Again, no disrespect to Mr. Lawton. You’d probably have ripped me apart, too. (Except for the fact that I’d have never defended Devil’s Rejects, but you get the point.)
It’s just that you criticize film on a much higher level than the average person, and it made this debate very uneven and, at times, awkward.
All that being said, I have two things to praise about the movie: The two times Terry Reid was used in the soundtrack.
Maybe it’s just because I love those songs . . . but I thought it was cool of Zombie to pay tribute to the man who could have been Robert Plant.
Although I doubt you’d agree with me, since the soundtrack was one of your pet peeves.
Hi Chuck,
I can’t explain the success of bad movies just like I can’t explain why people buy tickets for Charlie Sheen’s live tour, or a Sum 41 concert. People like stupid shit all the time and there’s really no accounting for taste.
I haven’t seen Inside, but I have seen Martyrs and I really liked it because it was unique and made me think critically about martyrdom and suffering. The last Japanese revenge film I saw was 13 Assassins which also offered a great story and beautiful settings alongside the excellent carnage. I firmly believe that the horror genre has evolved to the point where killing for the sake of killing doesn’t cut it; you have to be creative about it and you have to make us care. This is what sets the classics above the million forgettable splatter films that come out all the time.
Tickle my brains a little while you’re down there, I say.
And Meli – Call me Andrea
Ok, Andrea, I will concede your point, but only because I don’t have the time or knowledge to go and research enough to back up my argument…pesky life getting in the way. So, I hope I didn’t offend you, I was just throwing out my viewpoint. Have a great day!!!
Cheers Nick, tell me what you really think.
In the end, that was both of our arguments, he liked it, I didn’t, when debating film that really is all any argument gets down too.
You can come at the nuts and bolts side of film making, how precisely it’s shot, how clearly the sound is recorded, how the coherent the editing is, but that type of argument won’t hold with Devil’s Rejects, because when it comes down to it, technically it’s a well made film.
What we were debating was the artistic side of film making, the writing, the acting, the art side of it. and art is, always has been and always will be, subjective. one makes masterpiece is another mans “craptacular crap fest of crapitude” to quote a better debater then I.
When you debate or argue about film, you’re debating your point, your viewpoint, your opinion. No matter how eloquently you put it, that’s what it boils down to. That’s all this was, and it was all in good fun, two friends discussing, passionately, their opinion on a film.
As for stuttering and stammering, that’s just my normal speaking pattern.
I morbidly adore this film. Zombie’s film style and directing is what I’ve been wanting to see in a horror movie for a long time. When House of 1000 Corpses came out, I knew then that I would be a Firefly fan
It’s all good, Charlie. I didn’t mean to ruffle feathers. Glad you (I think) took my criticism in the spirit of debate. I probably could have been a bit more gentle though.
And as I tried to imply, I’m more of your ilk when it comes to film criticism. I like it because I like it.
But I do enjoy listening to someone who has the kind of film education (whether it’s self-taught or whether he went to school for it) that a guy like Feedback has. I just dig the learning experience of it.
(I actually thought he was kind of snotty and elitist when I first started listening to RM Radio, but I came to realize he just knows his shit.)
I do think Feedback took you down on points, so to speak. Then again, I came into the podcast already on his side, so I’m probably biased there.
I think I may have also been disappointed that I didn’t hear anything that altered my opinion. I like the challenge of being forced to see something in a different light.
I suppose it comes down to the fact that I just don’t like this movie, and I guess I never will.
Anyway, I’m glad you didn’t totally go off on me, because I didn’t mean to denigrate your intellect, or you as a person or anything like that.
To Chuck, Re: “To Andrea: “Brutality, depravity and gore are simply not enough to carry a film in this day and age” If that is the case, please explain the success of films such as Inside, and other recent films out of France, and also the Japanese revenge films.”
I know this isn’t directed to me, but I have seen INSIDE and I don’t understand the parallel you are drawing between it and TDR. The brutality in INSIDE has a very specific motivation that speaks to the fragility of the female psyche under certain circumstances. I’m purposefully vague because saying too much spoils the film (and I’m not smart enough to defend it), but INSIDE is a beautifully constructed horror film that has both gore and an intelligent / creative plotline. It’s fresh while at the same time tapping into the old school horror fan’s nostalgic tastes a la Halloween… Even though it pays homage to that type of film it wasn’t cliche, the acting was superb, and the plot was something new.
Those films are not in the same category at all, IMO.
Maybe fragile is the wrong way to put it – the lengths a person (esp. a woman) will go to under certain circumstances…. or something…
FEEDBACK is the best at arguing. Please defend INSIDE
I quit…my point is that sometimes there doesn’t HAVE to be a point to a movie…sometimes it is simply to be entertaining, and pure escapism…I suppose it doesn’t matter what I throw out there, someone will disagree, and that is fine. I just…ah forget it. Y’all have a great day, and take care…maybe when I get my thoughts in order…I will have a plausible comback. (I am not angry, just…)
Not at all Nick, I totally took your comments with good humour, this was a debate after all, .and I like how it’s still going in the comments. that’s truly what I love about film, it brings people together. (and then makes them yell at each other and tell them they’re wrong.)
I too love listening to Feedback, he knows his shit backwards and forwards and this debate was pretty daunting to me, I watched Devil’s Rejects every night for a week to prepare. (kinda done with that film for a while now.) I wanted to prepare as much as possible.
Chuck – “my point is that sometimes there doesn’t HAVE to be a point to a movie…sometimes it is simply to be entertaining, and pure escapism”
I totally agree with that! Many times throughout Horror Court I was thinking the same thing. Some movies / books / music aren’t meant to be over-analyzed.
But since TDR was put on trial and I had a second chance to re-evaluate it, I decided guilty.
Thanks, Meli! And just because it is a heaping pile of nonpoint, doesn’t mean it cannot be worth watching now and again…so I still say not guilty by reason of my own mental instability.
In Charlie’s defense (regarding his weak arguments against Feedback), Feedback has a helluva time sharing airtime. I love to listen to you wax poetic about film, Feedback, but you certainly overpower the conversation and for someone less aggressive that could be difficult to combat with.
Nick. Your comments are good for my ego – but not at the expense of Charlie’s! Put it this way….I’m a battle hardened, veteran Caustic Critic. I’ve gone up against some of the best, the brightest and the biggest blithering idiots in the entire horror community….
Charlie’s fresh out of the box and for a newbie, I thought he handled himself very well. He never caved, he knew his position and he stuck to it, even in the face of my full-frontal assault style debate which, as Meli puts it, tends to be on the ‘aggressive’ side.
But Meli. All I can say is that if you could spend one evening at my Mum and Dad’s house during our family get-togethers, it would ALL make perfect sense……
And Meli…
I wouldn’t defend INSIDE in court…
BECAUSE while I dig the movie and there’s aspects of it that I absolutely ADORE…..I have problems with it.
Also, there’s an old RMR episode where Doug Buck and I square off on INSIDE. He REALLY wasn’t impressed with it – and I’m not sure how well I was able to defend it from his claims.
…and besides….
As far as I’m concerned, Charlie was doomed from the very start. I mean….how can you possibly defend THE DEVIL’S REJECTS?
By showing how good of a film it is Stuart, by showing how good it is.
Having been on the receiving end of Feedback’s “full frontal assault style”, and having lived to tell the tale, all I can say is…I would have it no other way with him.
He may have a very forceful way of expressing his opinions, but he does so in such an incredibly articulate, passionate manner…and that is all too rare in this age of armchair internet film criticism.
Plus, though he may vehemently disagree with you and even aggresively chide you for taking the opposite side of the argument, he always does so with great respect for your views and with a decent amount of good humor, never crossing the line into the type of mean-spirited, ugly, personal attacks that have unfortunately become the norm in 99% of social media forums.
He’s a terrific guy who, underneath the bluster, is all heart. Perhaps a it’s a rather BLACK heart, true…but still…
It’s part of his charm, and it’s one of the main reasons why we all keep coming back to his shows over and over again.
I thought he came off here as very respectful of Charlie’s opinion, even if he, like a lot of us, doesn’t understand why he would choose to champion this particular film…when there really is NO REASON to! (Just kidding, Charlie).
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go throw up after commencing this little ridiculous love fest.
Well said Mike. It’s why I really enjoyed doing this, even though it was standing up to a hurricane of force, he was respectful of my opinion, as I was of his.
we all need insulin shots now, it’s gotten far to sweet.
Come on now, fellas….
This is getting awfully uncomfortable.
Moo ha ha ha.
My favorite thing about the inaugural episode of The Horror Court: I agree, to a large extent, with every argument presented. The Devil’s Rejects is one of those movies that I will freely admit is NOT a good film by any definition of the term… yet I find it wildly entertaining, largely for all the reasons presented against it. It’s an absolutely ridiculous film, but that’s what I like about it. I classify it the same way I classify Pink Flamingos (not comparing, mind you) – the biggest mistake you can make is to even consider taking it seriously.
So I find I can’t vote one way or the other on this particular film – it’s guilty of being garbage, but it’s garbage I was able to enjoy in spite of myself.
And c’mon, the “Don’t'cha like clowns?” carjack scene? Worth the ticket price alone.
…and Feedback, I *totally* agree with you about Superbeasto – I turned it off after 20 minutes and had to take a shower. Eesh.
“And c’mon, the “Don’t’cha like clowns?” carjack scene? Worth the ticket price alone.”
Charlie should’ve picked that scene because it DOES have a certain somethin’ somethin……
I almost did, it was number four on my list of scenes to pick, I decided to go with Bill Mosley’s speech instead of Sid Haig’s. But it was very close to being on the show.
“I decided to go with Bill Mosley’s speech instead of Sid Haig’s.”
A regrettable error.
For my money, if TDR didn’t have Sid Haig, this whole conversation wouldn’t be necessary.
Not Guilty!
This movie is FUN, and that’s the bottom line. I watched it with my friends and we loved it. If you can’t watch this movie and enjoy yourself you need to lighten up!
Like I said on the deadpit forums, if you can’t appreciate the genius of chicken-fucking jokes then what can I tell you?
I should point out that I’m an admirer of many of the actors in this movie, in fact, almost all of them except Sherri Moon who simply annoyed me with that horrible character.
So my issue isn’t with the actors at all, it’s with their characters, their dialogue and a myriad of other issues as outlined by the prosecution’s case.
But Chad. Don’t sit on the fence. Post your verdict! The fate of THE DEVIL’S REJECTS depends on it!
XtrialbyfireX!
According the Lydia, the chicken fucking scene was not supposed to be funny!
Why can’t you TDR fans make up your minds!
But I’m holding out for Shlogg’s dissertation on how the CHICKEN FUCKING scene in DEVIL’S REJECTS is a pointed satire on post-911 American cultural anxiety infused with a smattering of global warming hysteria wrapped in an enigma as complex and as mysterious as to why the American people allowed their government to loot their treasury in order to bail out the wall street crooks!
Until then…I must admit….I haven’t clued into the genius of the chicken fucking scene just yet…..
There’s nothing serious in it at all; it’s a joke! Relax!
Oh, I get it now….
hey you don’t like the movie, we all know that! but i don’t see any reason to condescend to people like me and schloggs who do enjoy it.
if you’re always looking to nitpick and overstate the faults of a movie then of course you won’t enjoy it, but if you’re willing to look at what is actually good about something then chances are you’re going to be a lot more likely to enjoy yourself.
i really don’t think this movie needs the level of dissection it’s been given here. it’s not a complicated movie…you either like it or you didn’t.
I’m not condescending, X. I’m just messing. Shloggs knows it’s all in good fun, don’t worry.
“t’s not a complicated movie…you either like it or you didn’t.”
Man…you could’ve saved us a HELLUVA lot of time.
So..after listeing to the podcast, and scanning these comments for the past couple of days…I felt compelled for whatever strange reasons (perhaps my near-terminal penchant for indulging in masochistic activities) to dig up a copy of the film and give it another spin to try to discern, for myself, what exactly it is about this film that either A) I’m missing, or B) why it ultimately doesn’t work.
And I’ve come to the conclusion that, with REJECTS, Rob Zombie does indeed prove himself a competent, stylistic filmmaker, an efficient editor, and a proficient storyteller with an eye for period, sub-genre-specific detail and colorful casting (though it still counts mostly as “stunt” casting, in my book). You’re never bored while watching one of his films.
And yet…the film is still a failure for me for one simple reason. Rob may be channeling some of the great horror/trash films of the past here, and he does indeed do so in a lively manner…but he ultimately has absolutely NOTHING to say here. The action moves from one brutal and/or vulgar confrontation to another without pause, instilling the viewer with an empty, dejected feeling of hollow voyuerism. It’s a pointless exercise. Rob seems to have little on his mind here other than the above mentioned attributes.
I understand that this film is trying to pay tribute to films like TEXAS CHAINSAW and LAST HOUSE and blahblahblah…but those films existed for specific reasons. They were ALSO vulgar and brutal, but the filmmakers had something to say with the material, statements about societal ills and human frailty and the consequnces of violence and brutality on the soul and psyche, themes that were also very much of their time.
Rob is just painting-by-the-numbers here, like a kid who has crafted his own version of a certain type of wind-up toy that he grew up loving…except all he does here is wind it up and watch it go around and around, without adding anything new to the machinery.
REJECTS is distracting, but it’s also without purpose.
So, once again…GUILTY.
That’s all I got.
By the way, Feedback, I didn’t mean to make you uncomfortable. But I just felt the need to defenf the show and your style a bit, as I think it works perfectly for this type of film discussion. Most podcasts I hear are flavorless dreck with no real passion or reason for being. Not so, these RMs and Cinephobias, which is why I’m such a fanatic for them.
Okay, I’m done.
you asked us to come here and state our case, and when we do you give us very sarcastic responses. it all sounds very condescending.
“Man…you could’ve saved us a HELLUVA lot of time.”
and seriously, how is this not condescending?
There isn’t a lot of depth to Devil’s Rejects. It’s a really simple movie. It’s not No Country for Old Men, or Akira, or whatever. But there is nothing wrong with being simple.
You either enjoy going along for the ride with a bunch of Zombie’s misfits and enjoy all the trashy violence and the silly jokes or you don’t. Seriously what else is there? I honestly don’t see what there could possibly be in this movie to analyze so extensively.
X. Why are taking my sardonic responses so personally? I’m just messing around. Look at Shlogg’s response on the DEAD PIT site. We’re ribbing each other in the spirit of ‘friendly’ jesting. Sorry, if I took the same liberty with you…..
As for your assertion that the film is not worthy of analysis….I’m gonna respond to that on the show wherein we reveal the final verdict. Stay tuned….
Actually, Shlogg’s posted a link to an interesting article in defense of the film.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-new-cult-canon-the-devils-rejects,2544/
Not Guilty. I think the film is an honourable failure. I’m really not a fan of the picture, but I’ll put that down to aesthetic differences rather than a complete want of quality on the part of the TDR. I don’t see much to recommend Zombie’s other work (apart from the deliriously loopy “Werewolf Women of the SS”) but I think this was a genuine effort at articulating a specific and idiosyncratic vision.
Zombie makes a good fist of recapturing the formal trappings of the nihilistic grindhouse cinema of the 1970s which he so clearly adores. I agree with Mr. Andrews that the film is hollow, and many of the scenes play clumsily, but that doesn’t condemn the film to utter garbage. Yes, the characters are repugnant and barbarous, but the universally bestial ensemble of characters suggests a nihilistic worldview. I suspect that Zombie wants to force the viewers to the conclusion that in so debauched and vile a world, any expression of humanity justifies sympathy. He doesn’t succeed, but he’s pretty clearly attempting an agenda, and refusing to embrace a lot of conventional cinematic ideas about point of view.
As Mr. Lawton pointed out, the William Forsythe character evolves throughout the narrative, and the audience sympathy ebbs by degrees as the Sherriff approaches the film’s climax. In contrast to Detective Scagnetti in Natural Born Killers (who is introduced, if memory serves, strangling a prostitute, moves to savagely and senselessly beating the protagonist during the arrest at the Drug Store, and then attempts to beat and rape the Juliette Lewis character – rendering not so much an arc as a remorselessly plunging line) Forsythe’s Sherriff starts as one archetype and drifts into something different and darker. Unfortunately, the parallel evolution of the protagonists doesn’t come off nearly as successfully, which greatly weakens the effect of the final scenes.
I very much liked the format (and the length), and hope that the Horror Court continues in future as a regular feature of the podcast. If I could make a suggestion for Mr. Andrews: focus on the film at hand. Yes, other works by the same director suggest points of comparison for thematic and stylistic interests (although good movies are sometimes one-off successes that stand in contrast to other works by the same directors, in the same way that bad films are sometimes outliers); yes, other cinema can be useful in interpreting the success or failure of a given project (your use of Bonnie and Clyde worked really well here). But, Tarantino shouldn’t be the primary counterpoint to each of Zombie’s (or indeed, of any director’s) perceived or real missteps. Tarantino is very successful at mixing and acknowledging his influences, but he’s scarcely the only film-maker to wear his influences openly. You’ve got a point about the increasingly obvious sterility of the recent stream of reboot, remake, and homage cinema, but Tarantino is pretty firmly enmeshed in that tradition. Attacking Zombie for drinking from the same well seems a touch dishonest. There’s a lot to critique Zombie about, but he needn’t necessarily be beaten for his desire to make a film of that kind.
In summary, Mr. Lawton made me return to a film I didn’t like very much and give it a new appraisal. If I don’t share his enthusiasm for this specific piece, I can at least admire the case he presented.
Stu. I can’t wait to respond to this…..
…..on an upcoming episode. So stay tuned!
Guilty.
But I have to admit, I really liked the Allman Brothers playing when they started to run. I know, I know…
Where this film fails so spectacularly for me is in asking us to identify with and feel empathy / sympathy for the Rejects.
After the whole of Corpses and the first half of Rejects, there was not one second where I didn’t want the Firefly clan to be beaten, tortured, raped or whatever.
Wydell could have done absolutely anything under the sun to these people, and I’d have stood up and cheered.
In fact, I was pretty disappointed when Tiny broke his neck, because I never stopped rooting for him.
On that same note, to me there was absolutely nothing about Wydell’s character that put him anywhere close to the evil and depravity of the Rejects.
What, because he threatened to beat up a guy who put down Elvis? Give me a break.
Did Wydell at any moment go too far? Hell no. In fact, given the crimes these people committed, the glee with which they committed them and their complete lack of repentance, maybe he didn’t go far enough.
And that’s what makes this movie so problematic: Zombie is so obviously making this attempt to shift our loyalties . . . and he fails so epically.
The first time I saw this movie, I walked out of the theater pissed off about that. I’ve seen it since, but still can’t get over it.
It’s kind of like how Death Proof was ruined for me because I’d heard Tarantino talking about how it was basically a giallo or a slasher flick, but with a car as a weapon as opposed to a knife.
And as I watched the movie all I could think about was how I was seeing nothing in it that reminded me of a giallo or a slasher.
Would I have liked the movie if I hadn’t heard him promise that? I guess I’ll never know.
Nick. I think you should revisit DEATH PROOF. You already know what disappointed you. Maybe on a repeat viewing, you’ll see its virtues.
I’m not a TOTAL hater. I thought Kurt Russell was AMAZING in it, and the car chase scene and very convincing low-tech gore effects were cool. And I wouldn’t mind a lap dance from Vanessa Ferlito.
But I did think it was way too talky. I think his love of snappy dialogue served him ill on this one.
I don’t take it personally. I just guess I just think it’s odd it when people say “Hey I’m not being condescending to you!” and then turn around and say something really sarcastic. Maybe that’s your style or what not. I’m honestly not offended.
I never said this movie wasn’t “worthy” of dissection; it’s just that it’s just simple enough that I don’t see any purpose in dissecting it.
And again, I’ll point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being simple. Hayao Myazaki, for instance, has made a career of making amazingly brilliant, yet extremely simple movies. Simple stories, with simple plots and simple characters; but yet I don’t can’t think of a film maker I would consider more accomplished or with a more enviable resume.
Death Proof is amazing BTW! ^_^
I’d actually consider it more of a rape-revenge movie than a “slasher.” I think that one actually would be a good one for some analysis
I would love to throw DEATH PROOF at the mercy of the HORROR COURT – but this time, with ME in the role of the DEFENSE.
“I just guess I just think it’s odd it when people say “Hey I’m not being condescending to you!” and then turn around and say something really sarcastic.”
Well, listen. I was under the impression we had some sort of sarcastic banter going on, beginning with the DEAD PIT boards….and then all of a sudden, you appeared to take offense.
I mean…if you listen to the show, and to the style of sarcastic insults that Lance and I throw at each other, that’s just the style of how it goes down. So what I meant was, I wasn’t trying to be insulting. I was messing around. Regardless, I’m glad you’re not ‘offended.’
“I never said this movie wasn’t “worthy” of dissection; it’s just that it’s just simple enough that I don’t see any purpose in dissecting it.”
Did you read that article? That was from someone who obviously thought the movie was WELL worth dissecting. Anyway, like I said, I’m gonna address this on the actual show because this brings up a really interesting point that I’d like to get into on the podcast.
Hi Feedback.
I just thought I’d come back to say yes, total agreement on the Leatherface appeal.
I think it might have something to do with the lack of dialogue. Both Leatherface and TDR’s Tiny work on a non-linguistic level of noise and gesture that makes them very easy characters to warm to.
On the whole, I think this whole debate is somewhat Guilty itself. The aspect of it I have issue with is the idea that an object is inherently good or bad in and of itself, instead of the idea that different people like different things for different reasons. There’s a lot of demonising of other people’s tastes going on here, which makes me sad. Horror is already a splintered, demonised group, and for horror fans to turn on each other… well, that’s a shame.
Having said that, I’m going to make one more small point about TDR.
A lot of time is spent on its cruelty, but to be honest, I feel that there is something more frightening in horror: the show-stopping death scene. Characters in a large number of horror films aren’t treated as humans, they’re treated as a McGuffin to get a body in a particular place and setting for a set-piece death scene designed to encourage applause. I find the treatment of these bodies (usually female) to be a lot less distasteful than the extended scenes of cruelty in TDR which encourage no applause whatsoever.
I hope that made sense. It’s early here.
*more distasteful.
Like I said, it’s early here.
NOT GUILTY, simply because I have liked the film since its release and no amount of name calling and chicken fucking could change that. While an immensely flawed film, The Devil’s Rejects is a stylish homage to exploitation films of the 70′s and predicted the grindhouse revival “craze” by two years.
Jess Erickson made a number of my points already so I’ll just talk about the process itself. Feedback, I agree with you much of the time and I think your reviews and interviews are intelligent and well researched. HOWEVER, you turned what (I presumed) was supposed to be an intelligent debate into one of your infamous Caustic Critics episodes (except this time your opponent had actually seen the film). If this had been a real court, your case would have been thrown out for badgering the witness, leading the witness and just generally being an ass. Charlie Lawton is not Lance or Chris Alexander and I don’t think he was prepared to dodge mud, insults and Tarantino worship. When he was allowed to give his arguments, he gave them in the context of the film and gave them very eloquently until you almost invariably interrupted him with a loud comment about how stupid you feel the film is. I’ve honestly heard less one-sided debate on Howard Stern when he’s interviewing porn stars. I like the idea of what you want to do here, I think film debates like this can be enjoyable and informative but if they are all going to be delivered Judge Judy style, I’ll just skip them and listen to your interviews. At least in those, you’re actually interested in what the other person has to say.
Oooh…..Shredi Knight. Come on now. Tell me what you REALLY think.
Ben. Can I ask you a question…
“Horror is already a splintered, demonised group, and for horror fans to turn on each other… well, that’s a shame.”
Have you just discovered the internet?
This thread is like a classic throwback to 2005, in the days of endless horror movie flamewar messageboard debates before chonebook came along and replaced that with naval gazing self indulgent delusion narcissism.
Nothing wrong with horror fans bickering over movies they loathe/despise. It’s a time honored tradition.
Even though I think your style is aggressive, Feedback, I wouldn’t want it any other way. And I thought I should point out that while you could dominate the discussion at times it’s not like you’re just rambling nonsense. You always make relevant and poignant points.
When I brought it up it wasn’t meant to be a complaint or criticism really as much as it was a defense for claims against Charlie’s weak debate style.
Just in case it was misunderstood… I would really hate for you to tone it down!
Meli, I’m changing my ways. From now on, it’s gonna be the CUDDLY CRITIC. Just you wait and see…..
There’s nothing wrong with a robust debate.
As evidenced by this message board, the splintering happens naturally. Some people like, some people don’t like . . . whether we talk about it or not.
And what purpose, exactly, does keeping our feelings to ourselves serve?
As long as it doesn’t devolve into personal attacks . . . which I regrettably came a little too close to the other day . . . I find it really fun and stimulating.
And I look forward to hearing Feedback try to change my mind about Death Proof.
Charlie, sharpen up your butter knife. I’m rootin’ for ya!
I’ve noticed over the years that whenever there’s been a lively messageboard debate on a particular topic, they invariably devolve into nastiness and pettiness. Thankfully, so far this thread is alright (despite a couple of slightly wonky moments) but regardless, I’m not gonna let it devolve into anything outside the realms of reasonable conduct. All it takes is for one internet TROLL to come along and fuck with it and I think it’s perfectly reasonable to curtail such individuals. So if anyone posts a comment that is an undue personal attack on anyone for simply stating an opinion, I will remove the comment (or censor the offending portion.)
I think that’s fair. If we’re gonna do more of these, then healthy, robust and even acrimonious debate is great. Unwarranted personal attacks? Not at all.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I’m talking about.
Here’s the thing, I think it’s okay to have different opinions about something when we’re all down with the object in question not necessarily being good or bad. But when language like ‘rubbish’ or ‘crap’ is brought into play it’s bad criticism and it’s denigrating. Sure, maybe it’s intended to enliven a debate, but it still seems clumsy to me.
When I don’t like a film, that’s on me. So I tend to steer away from using any language that would suggest the film is wrong, it’s just that I don’t like it. And there’s a difference between:
a. I don’t like it.
b. It is rubbish.
And yes. I’m new to the internet and this kind of stuff. I have no idea what a flamewar messageboard or chonebook is. However, I’ve been around the internet long enough to say *navel gazing :p
I’m old now, and I tend to avoid talking to people about films ever, because most people don’t really have anything to say other than reciting the plot.
“But when language like ‘rubbish’ or ‘crap’ is brought into play it’s bad criticism and it’s denigrating.”
Yes. But it’s so much fun.
NOT GUILTY
My condolences ‘Feedback’ on the thorough drubbing you took at the hands of Mr. Lawton. He makes a great Dan Fielding to your Markie Post. I’m confident you’ll lick your wounds and live to fight another day. Maybe next time you ought to choose something a little easier to prosecute, something truly craptacular like The Walking Dead, Twilight or Scott Pilgrim. I guess that’s not horror that’s just crap, nevermind.
Love this format, don’t you dare shorten it up, the longer the better. 3 hours of you being a belligerent ass sounds about right to me.
Landlord
” think it’s okay to have different opinions about something when we’re all down with the object in question not necessarily being good or bad. But when language like ‘rubbish’ or ‘crap’ is brought into play it’s bad criticism”
Wait though. It’s not okay for a movie to be called BAD but it’s alright for you to call my criticism BAD?
Hmmm…..
A double standard, Ben?
“Unwarranted personal attacks? Not at all.”
Unless they’re directed at Rob Zomnie himself!
Of course, Mike!
Coz he’s too busy touring with Megadeth and Motorhead to worry about what some chones are saying about him on the internet!
p.s. Is Rob Zomnie related to Rob Zombie?
Touche.
Something like less-insightful criticism would be much more appropriate.
So, for example, when I first saw The Piano (not a very Rue Morgue film, I know) I really hated it. I thought it was just a terrible, terrible film. But I went back to it, and tried to look at it in a different way, and realised that there was something to see there. So what I learned from that was that there aren’t really any ‘bad’ films, per se. There are just films I like and films I don’t, but they all have something for someone.
And I’m not criticising you, for reals. I’m just saying is all.
Ben. You bring up a good point and one I will respond to on the show itself.
I would have liked to have dealt with “The Cuddly Critic” back when I professed my love for THE SOCIAL NETWORK!
Zombie…Zomnie….they’re both hacks!
*p.s. Is Rob Zomnie related to Rob Zombie?*
No, but I believe he’s related to Mitt Zomnie, the lifeless, walking dead presidential candidate.
Nick. If this was chonebook, I would’ve hit the LIKE button.
Nick-
Ha! Good one!
However, we laugh now…but just wait until all the zombies come out in support of Zomnie around election time. Chilling.
Landlord! Thanks for chiming in.
“Maybe next time you ought to choose something a little easier to prosecute, something truly craptacular like The Walking Dead, Twilight or Scott Pilgrim.”
As for THE WALKING DEAD, I already prosecuted that one severly…..
As for SCOTT PILGRIM…..wait….just WAIT until you hear the next episode of CINEPHOBIA RADIO. You’ll like it.
“As for SCOTT PILGRIM…..wait….just WAIT until you hear the next episode of CINEPHOBIA RADIO. You’ll like it.”
Blah Blah Blah….
“I’m changing my ways. From now on, it’s gonna be the CUDDLY CRITIC. Just you wait and see…..” Ugh…I think I am gonna be sick…as I said about the 20 minute idea…don’t you dare, Feedback…I will find you…I know where you podcast…lol.
GUILTY!
I found The Devil’s Rejects to be very boring…
GUILTY!!!
I will have to vote guilty, because of how the debate in itself transpired. Even if I disagree with the prosecution, the defence could not take the debate outside the terms set by the prosecution. This is a trap that everyone on the defence side has to grapple with.
Although Feedback makes valid points, I loved the movie when it was released. I thought it was refreshing and far better than the teeny bopper, rated pg13, pointless remakes, cgi saturated, and hollywood money makers that came out prior (of course there were a few gems out there, but hardly American.) Didn’t you like the opening action packed gun fight with menacing armour or the best scene of all: the face mask splatter? I thought the gritty film was innovative in following monsters around. At the time I thought, without thinking, that it was a good character study on evil people, but now I have to agree with Feedback about the poorly written character development. Well, I give it a plus, however, not in my top 50 horror movies of all time, but a positive for what the 00′s offered us.
Not Guilty. The Devil’s Rejects is the only actual film that Zombie has made that I can actually tolerate. The rest of his output is pretty suspect.
I’m a HUGE fan of House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects.
The prosecution states that Rob Zombie “revels in the cruelty of his characters.” The Devil’s Rejects is a horror movie. It’s supposed to be horrific and scary. There is nothing scarier than characters who are “loud, crude, and cruel.”
NOT GUILTY
Guilty as charged!
Not guilty!
Rejects is a survival flick, and very inspiring. Those of you who don’t understand have never left your mental couch. Safe in your little corner of internet opinions, pillows, and bowls of popcorn. Rob Zombie has insight beyond the grave. Fight or flight. Maybe you’ll get it someday…as you’re being eaten alive. BTW if you want scary just watch insects traumatically inseminate each other to death.
Not guilty!
Guilty!!! – Total Garbage!
I could not have said it better than BEN up top there. Read his and get some truth. Sorry BEN, not 2 plagiarize but thats the reason it is NOT GUILTY unlike all the clueless assholes in hollywood scrambling to do the next remake!!
Not guilty. I can understand how some might not like Robs style, I didn’t think it worked for his Halloween remake (although I liked the sequel go figure) but I love what he does. I love the references to the past with past movies, older genre actors etc.. plus as much as he borrows it’s done in his own way an is really ifferent from what else is being made these days.
One last thing I would like to add. I really wanna see what Rob can do without using red neck like charactors. As I said I’ve enjoyed most of his work but the whole red neck thing is played out now.
Not Guilty!!!!
I didnt read everything but…
GUILTY.
TDR sucked because Zombie can’t write dialogue, and his characters aren’t grounded. They are flailing mouthpieces, and that’s why I hate most of Kevin Smith’s movies too. His characters speak in a forced-geek tongue and it rarely translates honestly. It becomes a grating exercise in adolescent fuck-you-dad-isms; trying to be confrontational when it just comes off as childish. The subject matter doesn’t offend me in the slightest, but the absence of any kind of emotional tangibility, both in the characterizations and the practical craft side of it (highly stylized but utterly charmless) are what makes it a stinker.
Bottom line- its like a teenager mustering the courage to swear at his parents for the first time. Boring.
I too must drop my two and half cents…Guilty. i’m afraid Mr. Zombie has only done 2 things worthy of viewing and both of those were commercials.
Many of the points Feedback made were valid and i do share them however i must lean heavily my more eloquent colleagues above and again mention mr. Zombies inability to write credible dialogue or creating any form of characterization.
Again…Guilty as charged!
gonna have to go with GUILTY! ok, it’s rob zombie’s best flick, but that’s scant praise. having seen 1k corpses, superbeasto, and the first halloween, i think i can safely call him a mediocre director. and i’m trying to figure out if a crap movie from my favorite director beats out a good movie from a mediocre director. hmm, yeah. i’d rather watch mother of tears than this
Hmmm, either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY for sucking…? That’s not a lot of leeway! Maybe I’ll reach a conclusion by the end of my reply…
As referenced in the prologue (very insightful of you, Mr. Back), I am one who considers TDR to be Zombie’s best film. I’ll go you one further: I also consider it one of the best horror sequels out there. Anybody else would’ve just had four more kids walk up to the House of 1,000 Corpses and die in different ways. So kudos to Zombie for taking his freak show on the road.
On the other hand, I feel that the defense took a drubbing. While I’m weary of Feedback’s love for Tarantino (who has given birth to what my wife and I call “magpie filmmaking”: Ooh that’s shiny! I’ll take that! And I’ll take THAT too!) it is of my opinion that Mr. Lawton repeated too many of his arguments- never a good way to win a debate.
Holy crap: here’s something ELSE I just thought of- and, upon reflection, am surprised that this wasn’t mentioned in the podcast. When TDR first hit theaters, I believe we were theatrically inundated with a slew of PG-13 horror films. Remaking J-Horror hits for the subtitly-challenged was the rage back then. Maybe that’s why we recall TDR so fondly (and prolly why Roger Ebert gave it “Two Thumbs Up”) since it stood out from the bloodless regurgitated pap we’d been seeing.
But in the end, I will vote “NOT GUILTY”. Because, Mr. Zombie, I consider TDR to be the ONLY film you had in you. HO1KC was a first, flawed attempt (Dr. Satan? Really?) and TDR was when you nailed it. But that was it. Nowadays Rob, if I want to see fan-made rock videos, I’ll skip the rest of your oeuvre and head straight to YouTube.
-The Gil-Monster
P.S.: The Horror Court was REALLY well done, you guys. Do more of it!
…Oh. Apologies. Bobby Agbulos previously made note of the horror film climate in 2005. My bad for not reading all the comments before replying.
-The Gil-Monster
Gil-Monster. Here’s my response to your ‘Tarantino as Magpie’ filmmaker analogy.
(Well….this isn’t specifically directed at you but it does address the point.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg-PjW_soTo
Feedback,
The biggest problem I keep having with this particular “color” is how it keeps pulling me out of the movie. However fine a line there may be between “Oh Christ, not Sid Haig AGAIN” and “Hey, look! Daryl Hannah’s getting work!” the end result is always the same: it kills any immersive momentum the movie has built.
When I see Uma Thurman enter a palace in a yellow tracksuit, I think, “That suit was in ‘Battle Royale’. That WAS a great movie. I wish I watching ‘Battle Royale’ instead of this.”
Thank you for the link. You mentioned the “colors in his pallette” argument before when you reviewed “Death Proof” on the Caustic Critics (check me out; long-time listener and first-time caller) and it was good to hear you elaborate.
-The Gil-Monster
In my opinion, stunt casting of that sort is a clever (and arguably overused way) to get suburban housewives to watch 3 hours of artery slashin martial arts mayhem. By and large it has worked out pretty well. As for the effect of the ever broadening audience for that type of cinema remains to be seen. But I know what you mean about momentum breaking. One of the things I liked about SUPER 8 was that I didnt know who any of the actors were. I’d love to see Tarantino try that.
Not sure what the argument is there, Z.
Did you see INGLORIOUS BASTERDS and that brilliant ‘Oscar worthy’ performance by Christophe Waltz.
Well…
He was a total unknown. The point is, do you think Tarantino’s worth is defined solely by his peculiar casting methods?
Keep in mind, when he put John Travolta in PULP FICTION that ran counter to the prevailing philosophy of Hollywood casting agents at the time. Travolta had been relegated to the desolation of the ‘Look Who’s Talking’ sequels.
So there was no obvious commercial appeal to the casting. So what is your point exactly when you say, “I’d like to see Tarantino try that!?” I need some clarification.
Youre totally right. He does mix it up, though Waltz was more of a sort of unknown, rather than a total unknown. IB was my fave QT flick since Pulp Fiction, due to his role. But for every Waltz there is a Pitt, L. Jackson, and Keitel, Roth, Willis etc. I’m simply identifying a pattern and sometimes patterns, even in the most capable of hands, can get a bit stale.
Do I think Tarantino’s worth is defined by his casting methods? Hell no! He reinvented casting methods. I identify the method, but I don’t count it as a strike against. There is something Tarantinoesue about a prologued swordfight between Uma Thruman and an eye-patched Darryl Hannah. So he does have a certain casting method, it is not his one defining characteristic.
And since tone is lost on the web my “I’d like to see Tarantino try that” was not a derisive challenge. It was more of a “I am curious to see what he can do should he choose to abandon this particular method”.
Rob Zombie employs a similar casting method, to a less impressive effect. I think a celeb-free Tarantino movie would still be great. DJANGO UNCHAINED will not be that movie.
PS wasn’t the KB tracksuit from ENTER THE DRAGON?
Z: Maybe it was. A similar suit appeared in BR, worn by Chigusa, who was also Gogo in KB. Who has her own fight scene with The Bride. Which makes my head hurt.
Guilty as charged!
Alright Z…. I get ya….
I enjoyed TDR when I saw it on its initial release. H1KC, I thought, had promise, but was damaged by Zombie’s desire to be all experimental and crazy. I thoght all of that fuckery got in the way of telling the story he was trying to tell, so I was relieved when TDR was, stylistically, a little more subdued.
My second viewing, on DVD, was with a few friends and we all repeated some of the funny lines and fun quotes and I guess I enjoyed that, too. Then, between my second and third viewing, RZ’s Halloween came out and I saw the RZ formula in a movie where it really didn’t belong. All the needless cameos, over the top white trashy vulgar lunacy, misuse of music, obsession with bad-assery, cliche characters, lame dialog, etc… stood out so much in Halloween, that, when I saw TDR for a third time, at an all night horror marathon at a local theater a few months back, I couldn’t help but see all the crap in the movie that I wasn’t bothered by in my first two viewings of it. Halloween made me retroactively dislike TDR.
Now, I really can’t stand Zombie’s Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia fetish and I find myself pretty much agreeing with everything Feedback says about the movie. Well, almost everything. I do still think the chicken fucker scene was funny. Since I still laugh at that scene and since I enjoyed the movie initially and since my current dislike of it is, I guess, a meta reaction to ALL of Zombie’s movies, as a whole, and not just this movie individually, even though I no longer like the flick and likely won’t watch it again anytime soon, I have to vote…
Not Guilty.
I think you’re spot on with all your criticisms of it, FB (except the chicken fucker bit), but I can’t say it’s total rubbish, since I did enjoy it at first.
I think we need to separate “casting” from “stunt casting”.
For instance, when you cast one of the most famous actors in the world as one of the leads in your movie, as in Brad Pitt in in IB, that’s not stunt casting, that’s just plain old casting.
Making Dottie from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure a prostitute in a 10-minute scene in your movie, on the other hand, is stunt casting.
Keep in mind I’m not making a judgment on either casting choice in this case. Just saying that I think people are blurring the lines between stunt casting and just putting well-known, capable actors in your movies.
(and yes, I realize that “well-known” and “capable” are also relative terms, and thus will not doubt open yet another avenue for debate.)
Total rubbish. I really liked House of 1000 Corpses even if it was inspired by other horror films to the put of almost ripping them off, but that being said, Devil’s Rejects lacked any real interest as well as the atmosphere the first film possessed. His Downey commerical wasn’t half-bad, but I digress. Guilty as charged.
Agreed, the terminology is a bit rushed. “Stunt” might be the wrong word, but “against type” would be closer, and I think the example of Uma Thurman in KB would maybe be closer to my point. When it came out, my uptight aunt saw it because it was the new Uma Thurman movie, not because it was a martial arts revenge gorefest. By casting her, QT was able to grab an audience who wouldn’t normally go to that kind of picture. That amazes me.
Not guilty. That Lawton guy managed to convince me.
NOT GUILTY of being a load of rubbish – Charlie definitely pointed out some non-rubbish aspects so the load was mixed. Therefore guilt not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not Guilty
I am looking forward to fast-forwarding through two hours of brilliant and meaningful horror conversation.
I’ll edit it down to a 45 second version just for you, Lydia.
I hated it.
I didn’t.
GROUCH BROTHERS!
I still hate it.
I still don’t.
If I leave here tomorrow, would you still remember me, because I must be travelling on now…
there, that’s the whole show cut down.
I’m going to have to go with “Not Guilty”.
They’re are clearly good and bad points about The Devils Rejects” I still think the good out weigh the bad. I was intrigued with Sig Haig performance and think he is a high light. Low points for me was the soundtrack especially Free Bird and if Zombie wanted to make a better movie he need but do one thing LEAVE SHERRI MOON ZOMBIE OUT OF IT. Sorry FB I can’t be on board with you on this one and I guess I’m disqualified as your biggest fan now. I stand by my “Not Guilty” vote.
Not Guilty. The Devil’s Rejects is my favorite RZ film. Great to see the “Rejects” on the run, being somewhat human and more accessible, and the clips prove to me (IMO) that RZ isn’t a hack (now if we were discussing RZ’s Halloween, my opinion would be 180 degrees the opposite).
“You boys ain’t plannin’ on fucking these chickens are you?”
At 1 p.m. EST the HORROR COURT will reconvene to determine the final verdict in this troubling case.
This means there are now less than three hours left for any final deliberations so if you haven’t yet done so, hurry up and post your decision.
I have to vote NOT GUILTY.
Back on June 16th BEN’s post pretty much covered my thoughts on the movie. I have truly enjoyed the debate and Feedback’s points were interesting to consider, but I just can’t help the basic fact that I’ve always gotten a depraved kick out of the film. All other points aside, I come back to that.
With one exception – Sherri Moon Zombie looks the way she needs to for the movie, but she is soooo shrill. Her laugh peels layers of enamel from my teeth.
Please – more of these debates! Love it.
GUILTY AS CHARGED!
I would also like to charge Zombie himself for defecation of cinema. The very worst filmmakers are those that can’t seem to acknowledge their limitations and take action accordingly in order to create the best film possible. Zombie has enough cache in the genre field to hire a really good screenwriter but instead in his infinite ego hires a really good cinematographer. The results are some fine looking films with absolutely cringe worthy dialogue haphazard plotting, and shallow white trash characters you couldn’t give a shit about let alone stand for 5 minutes. The Devils Rejects is just another example of Zombie ego at work.
Alright, the CASE IS CLOSED. The VERDICT will be announced on an upcoming edition of the RUE MORGUE PODCAST. Stay tuned.
Damn, missed it, I’ll give my opinion anyway. GUILTY! UTTER SHIT! The extras were better than the movie.
Lucky for you Cole….this came while we were still recording.
And lucky for me I guess as well.
But that’s it. Case Closed!
Alright, the verdict has been reached. Stay tuned. Thanks to everyone who voted!
Pingback: Rue Morgue : Horror in Culture and Entertainment
Ugh!
So, I have only now found the time to slog through the follow-up ‘verdict’ podcast. As you know, horror podcasts are not my thing, but I am a subscriber to a few. Sadly, they become background noise for the most part even though I intend on listening AND paying attention most of the time.
I must say I enjoyed the chipmunk voice. When I realized it was re-visited during the Rob Zombie interview I had a laugh. If only more would try this fast-forward format I would be pleased as I could fit more of this kind of awesome into my busy schedule.