"House of 1000 Corpses" Good! SPOILERS
rande...@rogers.com
realized it wasn't just a style over substance deal. Zombie
created a riviting horror movie for one reason; It illustrated why
serial killers are so dangerous. For the people in the movie, there
were no white nights, no plucky survivor to escape, no clever
reasoning that allowed anyone to live. It showed
serial killers as they are; Brutish, sociopathic. Zombies use of
stylistic methods (course, video-looking scenes, negatives,
etc) allowed him to produce a movie that would have been shredded
by censors had it be done using normal film techniques. Some scenes
were close to NC-17, but he managed to keep it under the wire.
There were also some "in jokes" such as the hat the blond wore
and the blond herself, a contributor to White Zombie albums.
Good job.
-Rich
Ian McDowell
excesses were largely a way of getting around trouble with the ratings
board, something which apparently hasn't occurred to many of the
regulars on various horror-related boards and newsgroups. However,
the claim that the film is in any way a "realistic" portrait of serial
killers is just balderdash. The movie far more the cinematic
equivalent of a carnival spook show ride than a clinical portrait of
dementia. Hint to Rich: real-world serial killers don't dress their
victims up like Eeyore, much less lower them into a hellish
netherworld inhabited by undead mad doctors and lumbering zombies.
HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES is ultimately nothing more than a horror geek's
collagistic homage to the slasher, zombie and mad medico films of the
70s and 80s, appropriating whole chunks of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
MASSACRE, EATEN ALIVE, DR. BUTCHER MD, THE HOUSE BY CEMETERY (that
sure looked like the "Dr. Freudstein" monster at the end), MOTHER'S
DAY, MOTEL HELL, and THE DEAD PIT. While less self-consciously
"post-modern" than SCREAM, it's every bit as hollow. Aside from a few
minutes with the zombies in the pit, it was never particularly
frightening. As far as the Redneck Horror subgenre goes, "Home", the
X-FILES episode with the incestuous inbred mutants, was more genuinely
disturbing. It also worked more actual plot and characterization into
48 minutes than HOUSE managed in 90.
Which isn't to say that Zombie's film is a total loss. Lily, Tara and
myself had a good time at it, although they found it funnier than I
did. Veteran Sid Haig (who's been in everything from SPIDER BABY to
JASON OF THE STAR COMMAND) was great as Captain Spaulding, the
proprietor of a roadside horror attraction I found more interesting
than the titular house of the Firefly family (what's with naming the
villains after Groucho Marx characters?) -- if given a larger role, he
might have made the film something more than a guilty pleasure. Tiny
was one disturbing looking freak, who could have been genuinely
frightening if better used. Baby, the crazed hoochie chick played by
Zombie's wife, was a fun character in small doses, and Bill "Choptop"
Moseley wasn't as irritating as I'd expected. On the other hand, I
could have done pretty much without Karen Black entirely (I'm told,
btw, that her character in this film is pretty much the way she
behaves in horror convention green rooms, at least once she's had a
few drinks).
rande...@rogers.com
wrote:
>I have to give Rich props for realizing that Zombie's stylistic
>excesses were largely a way of getting around trouble with the ratings
>board, something which apparently hasn't occurred to many of the
>regulars on various horror-related boards and newsgroups. However,
>the claim that the film is in any way a "realistic" portrait of serial
>killers is just balderdash. The movie far more the cinematic
>equivalent of a carnival spook show ride than a clinical portrait of
>dementia. Hint to Rich: real-world serial killers don't dress their
>victims up like Eeyore, much less lower them into a hellish
>netherworld inhabited by undead mad doctors and lumbering zombies.
>HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES is ultimately nothing more than a horror geek's
>collagistic homage to the slasher, zombie and mad medico films of the
>70s and 80s, appropriating whole chunks of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
>MASSACRE, EATEN ALIVE, DR. BUTCHER MD, THE HOUSE BY CEMETERY (that
>sure looked like the "Dr. Freudstein" monster at the end), MOTHER'S
>DAY, MOTEL HELL, and THE DEAD PIT. While less self-consciously
>"post-modern" than SCREAM, it's every bit as hollow. Aside from a few
>minutes with the zombies in the pit, it was never particularly
>frightening.
I found it frightening for two reasons; It wasn't that funny. Except
for the store proprietor. The rest of them were matter-of-fact
killers and vicious ones at that. Second, the idea of being trapped
and absolutely unable to escape such people is frightening. The fact
no one escaped the maniacs was also startling, given Hollywood's
penchant for allowing at least one "good" person to get away,
to deliver some measure of hope to the audience.
As for serial killers not dressing up victims; Most don't,
but there is often a signature of a ritual nature in serial killings.
It can be something as minor as the killer arranging the person's
cloths a certain way.
The killing of the girl in the cemetary (brutally stabbed) was
as visceral as I've seen in a movie. Cartoonish is how I'd describe
killings in movies like "Red Dragon" which is why they are not scary.
The problem with the movie was that it was somewhat ham-fisted,
and it did liberally borrow from other movies. I've never liked the
idea of the homage, I think its plagarism by less talented people, not
praise. But, Zombie's movie managed to elicit terror simply because
it portrayed the killers as the vicious, crazy people they were.
-Rich
Sven Milliam
> for the store proprietor. The rest of them were matter-of-fact
> killers and vicious ones at that. Second, the idea of being trapped
> and absolutely unable to escape such people is frightening. The fact
> no one escaped the maniacs was also startling, given Hollywood's
> penchant for allowing at least one "good" person to get away,
> to deliver some measure of hope to the audience.
(Having watched the film last night,) I actually thought that was one
of the more refreshing elements to the movie.
If you want to really get into it, though, the Hollywood "allow at
least one good person to get away" ideology *DID*, in fact, come into
play in this movie. Not within the actual film content, but in that it
was dropped by two major studios. I would put money that such an
ending was one of the major sticking points (for the studio).
> As for serial killers not dressing up victims; Most don't,
> but there is often a signature of a ritual nature in serial killings.
> It can be something as minor as the killer arranging the person's
> cloths a certain way.
> The killing of the girl in the cemetary (brutally stabbed) was
> as visceral as I've seen in a movie. Cartoonish is how I'd describe
> killings in movies like "Red Dragon" which is why they are not scary.
> The problem with the movie was that it was somewhat ham-fisted,
> and it did liberally borrow from other movies. I've never liked the
> idea of the homage, I think its plagarism by less talented people, not
> praise. But, Zombie's movie managed to elicit terror simply because
> it portrayed the killers as the vicious, crazy people they were.
True enough. I thought the movie was effective in that respect, as
well.
I also think Zombie could have used some give-and-take from a dual
screenwriter. For instance, the end guy with the axe looked cool, but
the slo-mo swinging that knocks out some wood and buries him was kind
of bogus. It ended up rendering him a rather anti-climactic character.
And that Dr. Satan guy - fuck that guy....movies like these always
leave me wanting to warp into the film and kill the motherfuckers,
Snake Pliskin-meets-"The Dude"-style. I could tear those motherfuckers
to pieces with a nice double-barrelled shotgun and a marijuana
cigarrette dangling from my smirking lip. "Yeah, you look scary
enough, but I just warped into a goddamned movie! Can you get to
that?? Didn't think so. *Click-click* *BANG* *splat*"