Will Devil's Rejects Help or Hurt Modern horror movies?

Blu · 07-16-2005, 02:07 PM

After reading about this film (but not seeing it for myself) I understand that this movie will be very gritty, dark, and violent.

It will also actually carry an R rating, which is getting rare for horror movies in today's market.

I have a hope that this will start a trend for marketing horror movies for people my age (25-35+). Movies that will appeal to viewers who don't care to watch another Japanese ghost story remake or Dawson's Creek with werewolves and a gorgeous cast.

I haven't had a tense moment in a horror movie in years and it makes me wonder if I'm jaded or if horror movies have just sucked that badly. I have a lot of hope that this movie will scare me and if anyone can do it, I would think a horror freak like Rob Zombie with a budget would have the best shot at it.

I just don't think they try hard enough to add tension to horror movies anymore. They love the cat jumping out of the closet instant scare complete with a burst of louder music to induce a jump instead of building a scary story.

I just think that Devil's Rejects is going to be a film that is marketed more towards a older audience instead of the 16 year olds who think it is daring to sneak into the theater.

Richard Travale · 07-16-2005, 04:14 PM

I saw a clip on Conan and just that creepy clown is enough for me to freak out.

Chris Hopper · 07-16-2005, 06:06 PM

Hopefully it will bring in a new era of horror movies that focuses on disturbing psychological content instead of the cheap "jump shots" horror has relied on for several years now. I loved 'House of a 1000 Corpses'. I thought it was a great revisit to classical 70's and 80's horror
that went out of its way to disturb the viewer instead of jolt them with a cat, rat, or villan jumping out of the darkness from a quiet scene with the ever-so-nosy teenager. I have a lot of faith in Rob's ability, and honestly, the thought of this film being grittier and more disturbing than 'Corpses' makes me giddy. After seeing 'Land of the Dead' all I can do is prey not to be let down again. Blu, have you seen LOTD?

Spoiler:

What puzzles me is the amount of old horror fans who say they liked LOTD. I thought for a while I was watching a new 'Die Hard' movie with zombies in it. Sorry about my LOTD rant, my point just being that even good classic directors are conforming to Hollywoods new cheap scare/thoughtless direction.

Though I encourage originality I hope that Rob encourages copycats because this new age of horror is getting on my last nerve. It is good to know there are at least some out there with similar opinions of horrors new direction.

Thanks for starting this thread. I think there is a lot to discuss here.

Blu · 07-16-2005, 06:14 PM

I have seen LOTD, I was stunned at the premise of this movie!
In that kind of world the only thing that was still valuable was

Spoiler:

That made no sense at all with all of the chaos around them!!!

I hated Hide and Seek, Boogeyman, Saw, and any number of other so called horror movies I had some hope in.

The last modern horror movie I felt any kind of tension was in the first half hour of Jeepers Creepers. It was a great idea and the first part was well executed and then it fell apart.

Anyway, I hope Devil's Rejects does accomplish a new revolution in actual horror movies!

Chris Hopper · 07-16-2005, 07:26 PM

I had great hopes for Saw myself, but was let down by the horrible acting
(you get what you pay for). It was also very nice of them to wrap it up in a nice neat little package at the end. Strangley enough, walking out of the theatre I heard a couple of guys explaining the movie to a girl who said "I don't get it." Has society come to this? Does everything have to have the nice wrapped up ending? Another movie that failed in all the right places for me was 'Darkness Falls'. I have tried to push this movie so far out of my head I cannot give all the reasons I hated it, but at the time of viewing I think I catagorized it as the most formulaic and worst movie I had ever seen. On a positive side I have to say I liked '28 Days Later'. Though it had a theatrical happy ending I have to say it was one of the first happy endings I was shocked to see. Through good direction and acting I was exhilarated by the ending no matter the outcome. I have seen the altenate endings and I liked them all because I liked the characters and every ending caused some kind of reaction in me. The development of the characters actually made me care for them, which is another constant flaw I find with the new wave of Hollywood horror. I could care less what happens to any of them.

From 'House of 1000 Corpses' I could see that Rob is a fan of horror films making horror films. With these new directors you see people fresh out of film school getting to make thier movies because they have some kind of personal ties to the studio. The movies follow formula after formula. It is like they are directing from a textbook. I tend to wonder if Wes Craven started this trend with the exploitation of formula in 'Scream'? Some people have even said 'House of 1000 Corpses' is a 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' rip off, but I have to say in my opinion that it is a non-traditional homage. What really is a shame was the remake of 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. You can see the true desperation when all the new films stop ripping off ideas and just start remaking the films. I also kind of thought it was funny for Romero to use a vehicle similar to the vehecle used in the remake of 'Dawn of the Dead' in 'Land of the Dead'. Maybe that is his big social commentary. I get the materialist commentary he tries to make in the film, but with his uninteresting characters and constant explosions I just don't care.

I think Rob is bringing a new dimension to horror. People who love the movies making the movies. It is not a finacial project or a career choice, it is a labor of love. I am sure he is happy with the money he makes, but I bet he is happier with the response of the fans of the horror genre. He had a forum set up on the net for 'Devil Rejects' and he was the moderator. He asked and answered questions to fans. You could see the love he had for horror. I mean... he had set up haunted houses before he got the money to make 'House of 1000 Corpses', that is passion. I think all this man is capable of doing is helping horror. He is stretching the limits of the R rating and playing to what few modern taboos are left. Like I said before I am hoping for copycats. At least other diehard fans making horror. I hope that is the effect Devil Rejects will end up making on horror movies.

**HTF Ads**

BrettGallman · 07-17-2005, 12:46 AM

While many of today's "horror" movies aren't very good, I don't think we should really use their "cheap scare" tactics as an example. A lot of classic horror movies (Alien, Friday the 13th, Halloween) use these, it's just that they go beyond them and develop a good story too. I think most modern horror movies have been too watered down by the PG-13 craze, but I don't think it's really the worst problem. It's more that these movies don't have any substance to compensate for the lack of gore. In my opinion, horror movies can be well done with two different methods:

A. A decent story, nothing particularly original, but the presentation is shocking in some way, usually due to violence. Basically, the gore compensates for a thin plot. I would say "House of a Thousand Corpses" would fall into this, as really, it's just "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with a different crazy family. I'll also throw "Friday the 13th" in here (and I'm one of the biggest Friday fans around), as I'll admit the story is nothing particularly special, but the gore really puts the movie over the top.

B. Simply a very original story with a director that can deliver. It doesn't have to be particularly gory, just atmospheric and suspensful. Examples of this would be something like "Alien" or the original "Halloween."

A movie like "The Ring," even though it's a remake, is a lot like the second scenario, as it's nothing really shockingly violent but still very effective. This proves that a good horror movie can be done and still be PG-13; the problem comes when these PG-13 movies become thin on both story and scares, which I think is the biggest problem.

Of course, that little pattern isn't perfect, because plenty of movies are able to do both.

And regarding Dead Reckoning (the vehicle in Land of the Dead): The DOTD remake actually copied this idea from Romero himself, as it has been known that such a vehicle would be part of the fourth "Dead" film for a while. I'm pretty sure Romero's had a treatment for "Land of the Dead" for a long time, and it just now got made.

Blu · 07-17-2005, 11:05 AM

I agree, cheap scare tactics shouldn't be held up alone in terms of the lack of substance, tension, and intensity of modern horror movies. Psycho was brilliant and everyone knows that it had no gore at all. Texas Chainsaw had very little but I havne't seen that one since high school, it had that kind of impact on me!

The remake....horrible, beyond horrible.

I actually liked the Ring, it was original...at the time and told a good story although it didn't scare me and I didn't find myself clutching a pillow for protection.

It just seems that if today's modern filmmakers would learn how to create tension again and get out of the PC-PG13 craze then everyone would benefit.

Dick · 07-18-2005, 04:43 PM

While many of today's "horror" movies aren't very good, I don't think we should really use their "cheap scare" tactics as an example. A lot of classic horror movies (Alien, Friday the 13th, Halloween) use these, it's just that they go beyond them and develop a good story too.

Well, they've been throwing cats at people from just out of frame for fifty years and I doubt they'll stop the practice anytime soon, no matter that it's simply moronic (have you ever known a cat to screetch and then leap on someone? If this has actually happened once in the history of the real world I would be surprised. It's the most childish kind of "boo!" in movies). The second stupidest "shock," usually with a burst of idiotic music, or at least a startled
"Huh!" is when someone puts his hand suddenly upon the shoulder of his friend in the dark as they are both looking around and have separated, and after a long, tense build-up. There is no way someone would do that, and take the chance of being mistaken for the killer and punched (or shot), or taking the chance of giving his buddy heart failure. He would softly announce himself. Human behavior in this type of movie is so far removed from reality that I do not understand why more people aren't insulted.

Andy Sheets · 07-18-2005, 06:51 PM

I think among the problems is aside from its recent Japanese remake crazie, Hollywood generally aims horror films directly at 14 year olds (well, they do that for most genres now, but anyway...). One of the important elements of horror stories is the trauma of seeing what you thought you knew completely get completely upended and that's simply not as effective with teenaged protagonists because they haven't lived long enough to have really experienced life and developed a solid worldview that can be shattered into tiny bits. Young people are just naive mannequins that squirt blood when they're poked.

Inspector Hammer! · 07-18-2005, 10:26 PM

Good points have been raised so far in this thread, and I tend to agree with most if not all of them. I too am tiring of horror films that are only in it for the quick scare with no tension or suspense.

The worst type of scare tactic that I could go the rest of my days without seeing again are the fake-outs or false scares, you know, the one's where a freind of another charactor suddenly grabs their shoulder and they laugh, or when one charactor plays a prank on another charactor by jumping out of a closet or something of that nature.

For a prime example of this cheapest, and lamest I might add, of scare tactic's, check out the abysmal Halloween Resurrection, that film is filled to the brim with them.

I miss the days when horror films knew when to just be silent, silence in a horror film can speak more volumes than any dialogue or score. John Carpenter knew this, and so did William Friedkin, which is why I love The Exorcist, The Fog and Halloween, although Halloween did have a score that accompanied most of the scenes, but it worked in service of the film.

The rating of a horror film, and my tolerance for it, varies from film to film depending on what is expected from the material. If a new Friday the 13th film comes out, I absolutly expect it to be 'R' because those films are about the gore, they're structured around it and the audience goes in with the expectation of seeing plently of it.

However, when a film like The Others comes along, that truly wants to scare me with brain teasing tension and isn't in it for the gore, I can immediately forgive it's 'PG-13' rating because a film can sufficianty scare me within that rating, boy can it ever! Those are getting rarer, though, a film needs a good story and a skilled director to effectively pull that off.

Now, Rob Zombie is proving to be quite the gifted horror filmmaker, as far as unmercifully pounding his audience into a state of shock. House of 1,000 Corpses was the equivelant of being strapped into an electric chair and fried with 10,000 volts for 90 minutes and I loved every moment of it, it's borrowing from other horror films didn't bother me, really.

Now, that said, I am getting increasingly sensitive, as I get older, to films that contain gore within a too realistic subtext, films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Seven aren't really horror films to me, to me they are films that are only there to disturb by containing their violence in a package that reflects real life in a manner that I would rather not experience because of how I feel when they are over. 'Ho1kC' doesn't fall into this category because it's violence is so over the top that it ventures into parody almost, IMO anyway, you milege may vary.

With those I just mentioned, I don't feel like i've just watched a fun horror film, I feel bad, disturbed and depressed. However, I suppose if that's the way they were intended to make me feel, I guess they succeeded, but they just aren't for me anymore.

As for The Devils Rejects, from what i've read and heard so far, this film is not going to mess around, the impression I have so far without seeing it, is that it will be one of the most lethally depraved horror films to come out in a long time. I don't think i'll see this in theaters, but because I loved the orginal I will see it on dvd later where I can have more control over my own personal experience with it.

Will the film help or hurt horror? I think that the final box office numbers will tell the tale.