House of 1,000 Michael Myers - Page 2

Aside from the fact that it is a pretty gory film in the first place, Charlie hits the nail on the head. If fake entrails are all that scares/excites you there are plenty of badly-made video nasties floating around out there for you to gorge yourself on. Leave the actual disturbing movies for the those with more discerning tastes.

no need to get so het up. does it really bother you that much that my opinion differs from yours? i happen to like gore movies. i never said devil's rejects was a bad film, quite the contrary. however, i prefer house of a thousand corpses. do you think you can deal with that or do you need to go and cry?

You're the one that said "oh man, i can't believe so many of you prefer rejects to HO1KC."

i apologise if it seemed like an attack, it was intended as a passing comment.

I'm not crying about it. I'm wondering what kinda gorehound needs more when a movie features Brian Posehn shot in the head at close range, a woman getting splattered by a truck whilst wearing her dead husband's face, a guy stapling photos to someone's chest and its antiheroes getting blown apart in slow motion. The gore in DR is certainly more affecting that of HO1KC.

Well, if gore is really more important to you than story and character, then I can see how you'd prefer the first film. What I can't see is why your parents let you watch it. Seriously, how old are you? What kind of film enthusiast seriously criticizes a film based solely on how many buckets of blood it employs? I guess Casablanca must be a complete dud for you, as there's not a single drop of blood in that one.

I'm more mystified by the idea that someone can actually prefer House of 1000 Corpses.

HO1KC is a really fun movie, much in the same way that TCM2 is. Both of them are extremely quotable cartoons.

The Devil's Rejects, while very quotable, is not a fucking cartoon.

House of 1000 Corpses is fun, at certain times, on certain levels, but I don't find it quotable, as the dialouge is dreadful. Devil's Rejects, on the other hand, is less fun but more quotable.

I do know that if I saw it when I was 9, House of 1000 Corpses would scare the living fuck out of me.

Corpses just tries way too hard to be quotable.

I don't know guys, for me HO1KC didn't feel like much of a film at all, just an extended version of one of Zombie's music videos, or a really obnoxious theme park ride.
I don't necessarily look for a horror film to scare me, I'm too familiar with the genre for that to be a common thing, however I do ask to be engaged on some level, and HO1KC wasn't up to that particular job.

That being said, I do recognize and appreciate that Zombie is a fan, and that The Devil's Rejects was a relatively gigantic step up, that's why I'm not ready to openly condemn a project that I would normally write-off if it were anyone else in the director's chair.

The most I felt I could say for House of 1,000 Corpses after it ended was that I thought Zombie had potential, but that this film hadn't really exercised it. The mere fact that he cut Dr. Satan out of The Devil's Rejects shows how much he'd grown as a storyteller.

i dont only like gore films, but i prefer my horror movies gory and fun. i also enjoyed devil's rejects but i preferred house of 1000 corpses. that's it, im not dissing either film. and as for how old i am...a lady never tells.

now, shall we get back to discussing halloween?

See, I think that's exactly the attitude that's been destroying the genre until just recently. For a true fan of horror movies, they're not supposed to be fun. If you're laughing, then horror isn't what you're after. You're after a comedy with lots of blood and nasty bits. The reason that early Cronenberg films were so revered by fans of the genre is that he never used his gore to incite laughter. It was never just for the shock value. His movies were genuinely disturbing, as any real horror ought to be. And that, not incidentally, is exactly why The Devil's Rejects is the better Rob Zombie film. It's trying to elicit reactions of fear and dread, rather than laughter. The first film has absolutely nothing like the sheer horrifying quality of the motel room sequence.

There's a place for movies like Dead/Alive and Evil Dead II. I love those films, but they're really hybrids, not true horror. Not once during those movies was I ever scared, nervous, or tense. Those are the things I want from horror movies. There's a reason that The Exorcist is still cited as being one of the greatest horror films ever made. And it's not because it makes the audience laugh.

Horror gets so skewed because it's damned near impossible to make a movie that is actually scary, but it's relatively easy to make one that is fun and violent. Devil's Rejects is all about tone shifts, pacing, toying with the audience's sympathies. A lot of thought and care is needed.

House of 1000 Corpses is Rob Zombie taking the craziest shit he can think of and doing it whatever way he can. That movie felt like a horror kitchen sink. Satanism, Nihilism, weird video clips, it gets weird and supernatural at the end with those ghouls that come out of the water, mutilation, dark humor, it's all really haphazardly thrown together with no real rhyme or reason. And yeah, that can result in some really fun moments (the box of "Agatha Crispies" had me in fucking tears, for reasons I'm still not sure about) but it's far from a better movie, or even a good movie.

This thread is really making me want to pick up House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, just for comparison's sake.

Prepare to appreciate Devil's Rejects.

Carpenter remakes are now at...three? (Halloween, The Fog, Assault on Precinct 13. Yes, I know assault was itself a redux of rio bravo, and Ghosts of Mars was a blah blah blah...)

Romero's got two with three on the way (Creepshow, Day of the Dead and The Crazies, if that's still happening). Are there any other directors from that generation that are having their whole catalogs remade? Craven and Hooper don't have as many to pick from, but their remake ratio is about teh same as Romero and Carpenter. The only one as prolific as them out of that crew is Cronenberg, and I'm sure those remakes are on their way (I've heard rumblings of The Fly and Scanners).Was there a point in film in decades past where a director was heavily remade?

I wouldn't mind seeing Scanners remade, since the lead actor in that was pretty bad but to remake the Fly would be ridiculous.

Scanners is already being remade, as it should be, since Stephen Lack (I love the irony there) was one of the worst leads in cinematic history. I wouldn't mind seeing Rabid redone as well, since it's hampered by the rediculously bombastic 70's score and crude FX work, but Marilyn Chambers will be hard to beat. The Fly was already a remake to begin with. The only thing I can critisize the film over would be that some of the effects have aged poorly, but beyond that, I think it's a perfect film.

Looks like no dice on the "Season of the Witch" route:

Despite the promise Zombie has shown as a filmmaker this sounds like the typical crap "prequel/reimagining" that they could have hired any director fresh off of music videos to helm. For all his talk about a fresh approach to the material, each detail that's revealed about the project seems pretty standard and uninspiring. Maybe he has something interesting up his sleeve but so far it sounds like more of the same for this dead franchise.

What's really frightening is the idea that Rob Zombie might kill all the good faith he earned with Devil's Rejects on this.

I seriously doubt that. For all the fuss that's been made about his supposed generic ideas pertaining to the project, he undoubtedly has numerous tricks up his sleeve that he's not going to reveal for obvious reasons.

I have complete faith in Zombie.

It's certainly occured to me that Zombie might be a one trick pony, and The Devil's Rejects could turn out to be that one trick. I doubt that's true, and I really hope it's not true. Horror needs him.