Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 9, 2018 13:10:24 GMT
What I saw was Zombie making his own film, to his misguided and turgid reboot and showing his flair and terrific grasp of the film medium. I found the film the be technically excellent, visually strong and atmospheric, superbly edited and I also found the performances intense and sincere. The graphic violence was raw and disturbing, and in the best films about the ugly and terrifying nature of violence, he presented it in such a manner, that our minds fill in the gaps and makes us feel like we are seeing more than what we actually are. This can make us feel uneasy.
It is all subjective at the end of the day and what one relates too. I was massively disappointed with his Halloween reboot and heard nothing but scathing things about his sequel and approached with much apprehension. It payed off, because I was knocked for a six. H2 and The Devil's Rejects are his best I feel. Have not seen 31.
I do think he has a distinct visual style and I sometimes am impressed at his ability to execute his ideas. He clearly has a very assured approach to visual filmmaking, but I would push back on calling him a master of the medium or anything like that. He has an effective eye, and is able to make brutality feel especially brutal, but I'd also push back on saying that he shows any sort of restraint in visually presenting it. We see A LOT of graphic violence in his films, Halloween II included. Psycho or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it ain't.
But in any event, I'd agree that for the most part he is a capable director. What he is not, is an even moderately decent writer. His characters are all shallow caricatures of trailer park trash out of Jerry Springer. Even those where it doesn't make any sense at all for them to be presented that way. And his dialogue is full of non sequitur conversations about fucking animals or some other such nonsense that was maybe amusing the first time I heard it, but has become its own cliche bullshit as he's repeated it again and again and again and again. He's much more interested in showing things that he thinks look cool than having it make any sense whatsoever. Like one of the things I listed before, which was only the few off the top of my head since the last time I'd seen it (there are many other huge, stupid problems with his film), the gigantic poster of Charles Manson over Laurie's bed. There is no scenario in any way in which that makes sense for that character. He, for whatever reason, likes to fill his sets with an overwhelming amount of annoying set decoration that doesn't fit in the scene, so fine... But for that character to celebrate another serial killer is so fucking misguided and stupid it's hard to imagine that it made it into the film.
I'd agree that he made his own film his own way and separated it from the Halloween franchise, as it were, and I can agree that it's effectively shot and put together. But I can't agree that the treatment of the characters, the dialogue, the attempts at symbolism, the plot turns, the framing devices, or the overall final product is anything other than extremely and painfully stupid.
I'm with you that The Devil's Rejects is his best. 31 is genuinely terrible. It's bland, it's dull, it's predictable, and it's everything you might expect from a sub par Rob Zombie movie. I couldn't say, but I don't think you'd find as much enjoyment from that as Halloween II, since it doesn't take the same approach of just making insane and wild choices in the story. But it's visually very much his kind of thing... I though Lords of Salem was a massive missed opportunity. It has some really great ideas, but his typical bullshit prevents it from being as good as it should be.
I haven't totally given up on him as a director, but I'd be much more interested in him directing someone else's script.