MovieChat Forums > The Devil's Rejects (2005) Discussion > This is NOT Rob Zombies masterpiece. In ...

This is NOT Rob Zombies masterpiece. In fact, it isn't even a good movie

posted 8 years ago by ohsnapitskale
19 replies | jump to latest

I think The Devil's Rejects is entirely overrated. While I liked the tonal shift between House and Rejects(making it a felonious road movie), there is very little redeeming about the film. The first half of the movie is the Firefly clan torturing and killing a group of people who we barely get to know. It's cruel and vapid. Then the film tries to show you the Firefly clans endearing, familial qualities, with the whole "Tutti Frutti" scene. No thanks. Following that we get them partying at the pimps place. Snore. The vengeful, over-the-top sheriff was the best thing about this movie. It has a lot of style going for it though, I'll give it that. Just wish it had more substance.

[–] twominds79 8 years ago

I don't think he's capable of making a masterpiece . While I dug 1000 corpses I found this film had no redeaming features .

[–] deepcovergecko 8 years ago

Devils Rejects is a modern horror masterpiece. Not sure what you guys are smoking

[–] ohsnapitskale 8 years ago

Back up your position. HOW is this a good film? There is little sustenance to be had here; It's junk food. Sure, it's got style; some good music, and a lot to like aesthetically, but NO depth. To repeat what I said when I originally made this thread, the first half of the film is just a torture show. We barely even get to know the victims, so we have to sit there and watch shallow cruelty take place for half an hour with no real stake in any of it. It says nothing new about the Firefly characters either. They come off as crazy for crazy's sake. Then the film goes from "I am the devil...and I am here to do the devil's work" to that emotionally cheap Tutti Frutti scene. They go from pyschopathic and satanic, to relatable and sympathetic in a heartbeat. It just doesn't work. The pimp stuff was unnecessary too. We get to see them partying? Who cares? The vengeful sheriff had the only story arch worth following and being invested in. That was some deep, dark, disturbing stuff. Everything else was disposable. The ending perfectly encapsulates what's wrong with this film. It looks *beep* cool(great slow mo), and it sounds *beep* cool(Lynard Skynard!), but you don't really care that they're being shot to death.

[–] jacksakes 8 years ago

To repeat what I said when I originally made this thread, the first half of the film is just a torture show. We barely even get to know the victims, so we have to sit there and watch shallow cruelty take place for half an hour with no real stake in any of it.

This is what makes it so good. These people do not care who their victims are and their motives are simply to torture and kill them.

The only reason I ever have reservations watching The Devil's Rejects again is the same reason I can't keep watching the original Wolf Creek. The violence and intensity is sick. You end up hating these killers for how much they go into all levels of torture, from psychological to physical.

That to me makes an effective horror movie.

They come off as crazy for crazy's sake.

Like Michael Myers in Halloween. No known motives. He's just a shape. Ironically what I feel Rob Zombie got wrong in his adaption.

They go from pyschopathic and satanic, to relatable and sympathetic in a heartbeat. It just doesn't work. The pimp stuff was unnecessary too. We get to see them partying? Who cares?

They are outlaws like in a western. Shoot people all day then come to the tavern and drink and *beep* about it later.

The ending is what I expected. They went out in a blaze of glory.

This movie is Rob Zombie's masterpiece to me as well. But if you don't jive with what goes on in it, then there's nothing wrong with you not seeing it that way. It just didn't work for you like it did me.

[–] ohsnapitskale 8 years ago

The difference between this and Wolf Creek, is that Wolf Creek let you spend 45 minutes with the characters before they became victims. You got to know them, you cared. Granted, that film was from the victims' point of view, but my position remains the same. Don't spend half an hour of your movie torturing and killing victims who we know for all of 5 minutes.

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

Zombie isn't trying to force you to relate or make them sympathetic (though I personally love them all since the House). Why can't you believe that a family doesn't constantly walk around killing people but also interacts with each other and maybe has members who like ice cream? Plus the delivery fit Baby's character perfectly...

[–] ohsnapitskale 8 years ago

Oh, he's DEFINITELY trying to make them relatable. Who can't relate to loving ice cream? VERY few people. The point is to show them at their most deplorable and then at their most relatable, so that the audience feel a sense of unease for relating to these monsters, in ANY capacity. I DO believe they interact outside of killing, thanks to House of 1000 Corpses. There were some good interactions between the family in that film. This one? Not so much. It's shallow.

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

He isn't demanding your sympathy. He is doing it for contrast and for originality in telling a story like this. "This guys are a bad so Im making a strong moral statement" is utterly boring. He isn't interested in moralizing here. Yeah, he is into his characters, I am too, but not in the way where he is trying to make a normal person like you sympathize. He wants to just show stuff, the brutal at its worst, the love between them (like how mom loves Baby), and even the stupid silly moments.

The contrast part is that Baby is like those anime with killer lolis. Cute and baby-ish (so I think the cheesy ice cream scene where she acts like a little girl really fits) and yet a complete psycho killer. I like that stuff, and I can get over you not liking it, but don't act like the point was to evoke strong emotional reaction of sympathy in viewer. It was just making contrast - to those of us who like them they already were likable from the start.

This is a story about psycho family told from their pov. Of course they like each other, they see good things in each other, so we get that perspective. He doesn't at all shy away from showing us their brutality, it's just do you actually need him to dumb it down and say "hey kids, murder is bad?" Thats just patronizing as *beep* to the viewers.

If you watch this movie I find it pretty pointless to be shocked and find the family deplorable. You roll with it. You love the deplorable. You then certainly don't need an obvious caricature of a warm family ice cream moment to help you get warmed up or sympathyze with the characters.

[–] ohsnapitskale 8 years ago

You just used the word sympathy numerous times. I never even talked about sympathy in my direct reply to you. I'm talking about how they're meant to be relatable in that specific scene, not that you're supposed to have some strong emotional attachment to them. I didn't talk about morality either. Nor did I say I was "shocked" by their depravity. Stop inventing talking points.

Also, if he's trying to show contrast, he did a TERRIBLE job. Both the violent scenes AND the silly/family love scenes are over the top and/or shallow.

The difference between House and this, is that House introduced the family slowly. They were developed enough to be interesting. Here, we have them torture and murder people, and be tortured and murdered themselves, with not much going on in between. Sure, that can be entertaining, but it doesn't make for a good movie.

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

Not inventing talking points, your whole argument is that they are so deplorable that he shouldn't possibly expect us to like them. I did like them, and way before the ice cream scene. You clearly implied morality considering your disagreement with him showing a family moment was wrong because they were brutal killers. As for sympathy, that was also pretty much your point whether you used the word or not. Seems like you're more interested in nitpicking vocabulary than actually discussing the point.

I found this one superior to House and don't even think you need to watch the House first in order to "get" the characters. The immersion was instant for me. The writing was good enough that I didn't need to be given *beep* tons of context to get the characters, they came across as genuine for me. The over the topness for me worked well because I could by that someone like Baby was a psycho who enjoys being brutal as *beep* and still has a very childish mentality, in fact the two go hand in hand.

It's fine that it didnt work for you but for me the intent was accomplished perfectly. I was arguing your original point which was that the ice cream scene was made specifically to make them more likable/relatable/sympathetic (whatever the *beep* word you used so you don't throw another tantrum now, point is more or less the same). He did it purely cause this type of behavior was completely believable for those character and that family. Like I said, those of us who liked them were already into them before. It's certainly not a relatable scene in a "arent' they just like your family deep down" sense, but more a caricature, taking something cliche and putting it in a dark context.

[–] ohsnapitskale 8 years ago

No, that isn't my argument. You can have completely monstrous, deplorable characters, AND STILL make them likable. I've seen it, many times. Here though, Zombie failed to do that. The problem, as I said on the outset, is that he spent far too much time near the beginning/middle of the film with the torture and murder of those musicians. It fails to add any context or depth to the Firefly family. We've seen it all before. It's a Godawful waste of time. Entertaining? Maybe. But it's cheap entertainment. So to juxtapose those many scenes of torture and murder(that fail to really do anything worthwhile for the characters), with that quick little ice cream scene, just compounds the problem, because it was a jarring shift in tone, and frankly, didn't work. On it's own, it's a fun scene, but it makes no sense in relation to the characters, if you want to believe that they are real people and not cliched cartoons.

I think you enjoyed it for what it was. Over the top, cartoonish, dark, and funny. But it lacks substance. It lacks breathing room for the characters and the story. They're only "genuine" and "believable" if you don't mind them being cliches. Like Baby being the "crazy loli" type. Snore.

I think the reason that House is a better movie, is that for the first 45 minutes they don't even kill anyone. We get sucked into their sick, twisted world. We get to know who they are as people. We also get outsider perspectives of the Firefly clan; the four teenagers, the police officers, the one girls' uncle, etc. It wasn't just the Firefly clan torturing and murdering the whole movie.

The Sheriff is the only real outside perspective we get in The Devil's Rejects, and he's the best part of that movie.

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

I think the reason that House is a better movie, is that for the first 45 minutes they don't even kill anyone. We get sucked into their sick, twisted world. We get to know who they are as people. We also get outsider perspectives of the Firefly clan; the four teenagers, the police officers, the one girls' uncle, etc. It wasn't just the Firefly clan torturing and murdering the whole movie.

I really liked House, I liked the combo of both, but Rejects wins slightly because I think the concept is just a bit cooler. Yes, in the House we get to see them through some normie people's eyes and that is relatively standard in horrors, although you could clearly see that Rob loved his villains and gave them special time to shine. I really love that Rejects are completely their pov. As a viewer I didn't feel forced or manipulated to like them the way some movies do it (for instance, he didn't try to get into forced sentimentality, the humor of it all helped). I didn't mind the torture, it was honest in my opinion - it's what gets those characters off so why not show it to the viewer?

Yeah, the director likes them, it is their pov, but you're still getting them as they are with their brutality, pointless violence and sadism. And some viewers still got to root for them.

Sheriff definitely was interesting. To me he really represented something you often see with people. People who are normal, consider themselves moral, but still have that same rage and sadism in them, they just need to feel they are directing it towards a justified target. Very well made character.

Yeah, you're right, in the end to me this was all just very fun, but I wouldn't call it superficial. I can enjoy gore and slashers but a movie still needs to have that something to stand out, this movie really did it for me. I just loved these characters. They left a strong impression. I don't know about being believable, it's believable that they wouldn't be relatable considering what they are, so why not accept that these individuals could exist?

[–] timbo-89 8 years ago

Be that as it may. I honestly find it to be a good dark comedy so meh lol

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

The actors were amazing imo. Whom didn't you like?

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hydracubus 7 years ago

Agreed. The Sheriff kicked major ass. He need his own movie.

[–] Jones70 (6195) 3 years ago

I’ve always loved this movie!

[–] TandyMan (10663) 3 years ago

I'm convinced that Rob Zombie is actually a good filmmaker who simply needs to have his movies rescued by a good editor. He has a lot of good shots and i'm sure there's plenty of good material and different takes that didn't get used. If it was all just put together in a more thoughtful manner you'd have some pretty great movies. But the intentional attempt at grindhouse schlock just drags it all into the mud.