THE DEVIL'S REJECTS

This is director Rob Zombie’s follow-up to his own 2003 film “House Of 1000 Corpses” and while that film was a throwback to 1970’s horror (particularly “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”), this film is a whole other beast entirely.

The film explodes into action right from the beginning with the police surrounding the Firefly residence in preparation to raid the place and apprehend the murderous family.  The task force is run by Sheriff Wydell, who has a very personal vendetta against the family, as his only brother (police officer George Wydell) was a victim of this deadly clan (as seen in “House Of 1000 Corpses”).  Inside the house, unaware of the situation they are in, is Baby, Rufus, Mother Firefly and the deadly Otis, who are awakened by the loudspeaker announcing to them that they are surrounded.  Quickly the family arms themselves as the police storm the place, where a violent and bloody gun battle ensues.  After the final bullet has been shot and the dust has settled, it is revealed that Rufus has been killed, while both Baby and Otis have escaped in the sewers out the back. Mother Firefly, however, is captured and taken into custody.

Knowing that every police officer in the state is after them, Baby and Otis know they have to find a place to hide out, but not before they get reinforcements.  Baby calls Captain Spaulding, the sinister clown from the first film, for help, where it is also revealed that Spaulding is actually Baby’s father.  They plan to meet at a pre-determined rendezvous point that turns out to be a cheap motel in the middle of the desert.  When the villainous siblings arrive at the motel, they proceed by taking a travelling band hostage, who they brutally torture and humiliate while waiting for Spaulding to arrive.

Meanwhile, Wydell’s passion for vengeance against the Firefly’s is boiling over into madness to the point that he himself could become more dangerous and violent than the Firefly’s themselves.

I will admit right up front that I am a huge fan of Rob Zombie’s talents as a director, and I believe that up until this point in time, “The Devil’s Rejects” is his masterpiece.  It is a film that works on every level and achieves everything that it sets out to do.  There is not a scene out of place, a bad performance, and it also has an amazing ending.

As I said at the beginning, “The Devil’s Rejects” is the sequel to “House Of 1000 Corpses”, but the two films couldn’t be more different.  Really the only thing the two films share is the characters themselves, but even they are different here too.  While “House Of 1000 Corpses” exists in a horror movie world with over-the-top situations, “The Devil’s Rejects” feels so real and nasty, and is stripped back to its barest elements, removing all façade.  You actually feel dirty and in need of a shower after you watch this film.  Zombie has also wisely scaled back the number of characters in this film by leaving out the other-worldly characters that populated the first film and which just wouldn’t have worked in this world (sorry folks, there is no Dr. Satan this time around).  

The problem with most sequels is that they try to duplicate the success of the original film by replicating the same sequence of events that happens in the first, rather than taking the first film and building on it.  An easier way of saying this is that they tell the same story again, just with different characters.  This almost never works because the sequel is never fresh.  However, what Rob Zombie has done with “The Devil’s Rejects” is make a sequel right, to the point that it blows the original out of the water.  While the first film is very definitely a horror film, “The Devil’s Rejects” is more like a dirty revenge road movie.  A quote which I remember reading about the film at the time of its release (and I’m paraphrasing here) was that “whatever “House Of 1000 Corpses” owed to Tobe Hooper, “The Devil’s Rejects” owes to Sam Peckinpah”.  That gives you some indication of the differences between the two films.

Aesthetically speaking, also, the films are worlds apart.  “House Of 1000 Corpses” lives in a neon-lit candy coloured Halloween world, while “The Devil’s Rejects” is set in a grimy desert world full of washed out and sun drenched yellows, browns and golds.  It is an amazing looking film which is helped enormously by the fact that Zombie and his director of photography, Phil Parmet, shot the film on 16mm, which just adds to the gritty atmosphere of the piece.  The production design by Anthony Tremblay is also genius, as the world he has created just feels so dirty and old, and like it could fall apart at any moment, it is so seedy.  It is also believable that these characters would exist and be comfortable in a world like this.  Best of all, nothing looks like a set.  It is outstanding work.

In terms of acting, I believe that this film is also the best performed of all of Zombie’s films which is due mainly to his ability to cast actors that fit their roles like a glove.  No-one gives a bad performance, and they are all so menacing and violent and scarily, it all feels so real.  The character of Baby has probably changed the most between the two films because in “House Of 1000 Corpses” she was portrayed much more immaturely, almost like a giggly schoolgirl, complete with high-pitched voice and all, and she was much more theatrical.  In “The Devil’s Rejects”, Sheri-Moon Zombie’s performance is much different (and for the better) and certainly darker, as Baby now seems very much an adult and it is now quite believable that she could commit the crimes that she is famous for.  Gone (well almost) is the trademark Baby maniacal laugh from the first film, and it is replaced with a much meaner and more demented Baby.  Believe me, you would not like to meet this incarnation of Baby, as she is seriously bad.

As I’ve said, the film is littered with amazing performances with the always great Sid Haig at his absolute best as the evil clown Spaulding.  A scene where the clown terrifies a mother and her small boy before stealing their car is both hilarious and horrifying.  Bill Moseley gives another great but equally different interpretation of the dangerous Otis.  If Baby is the character that has changed the most internally, Otis has definitely changed the most physically.  The sick albino look from “House Of 1000 Corpses” has been changed with a far more menacing bearded Otis, complete with long hair which often obscures his eyes, so you are never sure exactly what he is thinking or will do next.  Leslie Easterbrook replaces Karen Black in the role of Mother Firefly in this film and gives a much different performance than her predecessor that seems much more grounded in reality, while still maintaining that feeling of madness within her.  Like all the characters in this sequel, she also seems that much more dangerous here.

As good as everyone is in this film, the absolute standout is William Forsythe as Wydell.  He is simply amazing and the way he delivers Zombie’s dialogue just elevates the writing to another level.  A good comparison is the way Samuel L. Jackson always makes Tarantino’s dialogue sing, Forsythe does the same thing with Zombie’s.  He is just perfect and understands the rhythms of the written word.  Also his descent into madness is pitch perfect and incredibly scary too.

As usual for a Zombie film, the cast is filled out with genre stars of the past including Ken Foree, Danny Trejo, P.J. Soles, Michael Berryman and Mary Woronov to name just a few, and they are all excellent.

It is important to note that “The Devil’s Rejects” is Rob Zombie’s most positive filmmaking experience to date, with Lions Gate (who produced the film) just leaving him alone to do his thing, and trusting in his vision.  They believed in the film, and as such there was no interference (the only problem did have with Lions Gate was their decision to release the film during summer amongst the big blockbusters, causing it to get lost in the shuffle).  The results of this trust speak for themselves as this is Zombie at his most pure and “The Devil’s Rejects” is easily his best film (so far).  It would be remiss of me not to mention that currently as I write this review, Rob Zombie is in the middle of shooting his latest film “The Lords Of Salem”, where the producers of that film have been so impressed with what they have seen already, they have added extra shooting days to the schedule – could we see another Zombie masterpiece soon.

It needs to be mentioned that “The Devil’s Rejects” is a hard film to watch with certain scenes of torture and violence almost impossible to take, which has more to do with the intensity of the film as opposed to the gore factor.  It is an incredible tense film which may be too much for some viewers.  What Zombie does do brilliantly is make the viewer change who they are rooting for as the film progresses.  At the beginning of the film when the Firefly’s are torturing and humiliating the poor family at the motel, you despise them and hope that Wydell will catch up with them soon.  However, as the film progresses and the Firefly’s begin to get a taste of their own medicine, you may be shocked to find your sympathies leaning towards them, hoping they will escape.

Overall, Rob Zombie has created a rare sequel that is better than the original film.  It is an amazing film full of intense violence and revenge, and while it is certainly not a film for everyone, those viewers who like to take a trip into the dark side (and I do mean dark) of cinema, this is the ultimate trip that you will never forget.  Like all great films too, it has a brilliantly executed finale.  It is a film that I can not recommend more highly.

5 Stars.

FINAL DESTINATION 5

I swore after viewing the fourth (and supposedly last) entry in this franchise, imaginatively titled “The Final Destination”, that I would never watch another “Final Destination” film again.  It was clear that the franchise was no longer fresh and had run out of ideas, and the resulting film was a failure of epic proportions.  I hated it so much that I awarded it my worst film of 2009.  Nothing worked in it at all, it felt like it had no soul, and worse it wasn’t made for any other purpose but to get money from the long suffering fans of this franchise.  Even the death scenes were pathetic (including the worst death I’ve ever seen in a horror film – a guy getting sucked into a large plughole from a draining swimming pool) and the opening tragedy / premonition was so badly done with horrible CGI, that it hurt to watch.  Do not even get me started on the post-conversation 3-D either.

Because of all this, when news came out that they were making a fifth “Final Destination” film, it barely hit my radar.  I probably rolled my eyes at the idea, but I could care less and even as it was getting closer to being released and trailers and posters for the film started to appear, my interest for it did not improve.  However soon after the film was released something strange happened, something I was not expecting – “Final Destination 5” got great reviews comparing it favorably to the first film.  For the first time my interest was piqued and I decided to brave another “Final Destination” film.  I’ll admit I was initially anxious when I realized that the film was in 3-D but relaxed to the idea when I found it was shot that way and not post-converted. 

By now we all know the formula to these films with a character having a premonition of a great tragedy / catastrophe, abling to saw a few of his friends from the disaster who are then picked off one-by-one (in the order they were originally supposed to die) by death in gory and imaginative ways.  “Final Destination 5” does not stray from this tried and true formula however it is in the execution of it all that this film stands out from the rest of the pack.

The opening premonition / tragedy, which is on a collapsing suspension bridge, is so well done and is incredibly suspenseful (no pun intended) and uses the 3-D technology expertly to accentuate the heights of the bridge.  Personally, I am terrified of heights and this opening scene just had me on the edge of my seat the whole time.

Once we are introduced to the surviving members, and thus our characters for the film, it also comes as a surprise that they aren’t just cardboard cutouts but real characters that for a film of this type are all very well acted by the cast.  They are all likeable also, which is a huge plus, including the potentially annoying sleazy nerd.  While it is obvious that the reason we all go to these “Final Destination” films is for the creative death scenes, it is good to know that the same amount of effort has been put into the rest of the film as well.

Speaking of the deaths, they are all expertly done.  Director Steven Quale knows exactly how to generate suspense to the point that it is unbearable.  In an early scene, he had me at my wits end just by a simple loose screw.  It is an amazing sequence, the ends (obviously) in a spectacularly gory death but I was amazed at just how much tension Quale was able to generate from this misplaced object.  Another thing that Quale understands is how to use the 3-D format to the best of its abilities.  

One problem these films face is trying to match or better their amazing extended opening scenes, and while I do not think that “Final Destination 5” has quite done this, it has come pretty close.  All of the death scenes are brilliantly staged, often ending much differently than you initially think they will.  That is another thing that stands out in this film, as Quale sets up each situation so the audience thinks they know exactly how the next victim will die, only to invert it and completely surprise us.

Another problem with this franchise is, by its nature, it becomes predictable.  We know the order the people are going to die in, so there is very little surprise.  To battle this problem, the filmmakers have changed the rules slightly in this fifth film from the unlikely franchise.  In this film, it is explained to the surviving kids (of course by Tony Todd) that if they take the life of another person, death will be satisfied and as a result their own spot will be filled, meaning they will now survive.  This suddenly adds a whole new level of tension especially when one of the characters starts to lose their mind and only sees this option as a way to survive.  It is a neat little twist that actually brings some much needed freshness to this franchise.

Again, this is another one of those films that is better the less you know about it, thus making it hard to review, but overall I was very pleasantly surprised by “Final Destination 5”.  It is extremely well made, is full of suspense, and the slight change of the rules has added a uniqueness to this entry.  It is also very well acted by the principal cast members.  I should also make mention that this film has an added kick to its tail that I did not see coming at all and it gave the film a great “Holy Shit!” moment to end on.  Anyway, if you are like me and despised the fourth entry of this franchise, do yourself a favour and check out this latest installment, as I am sure that you will not be disappointed.  Will there be a sixth film in the franchise?  Well let’s just say that a line in Tony Todd’s dialogue leaves it open if they want to head to the well again.

3.5 Stars.

THE DEBT - MIFF 2011

My final film for this year’s MIFF was originally advertised as a “surprise screening”, but once it was announced that the film was actually “The Debt”, I jumped at a chance at seeing it.  This is the American remake of an Israeli film of the same name, which was actually my second favourite film at MIFF in 2008.  Back when I wrote my review of that version, I lamented the fact that the American’s were already in the process of remaking it, but it has certainly taken its time getting here.

While there are some differences between the two films, the basic story remains the same.  It is about three Mossad agents in 1967 who travel to Berlin to capture a Nazi war criminal and bring him back for trial.  The mission is a success and the three become national heroes.  However all is not what it seems and perhaps the agents have bent the truth a little.  Thirty years later, someone from their past returns threatening to expose the truth, and the now much older agents must set out and right the wrongs of their previous mission and to repay a debt they owe the Israeli people.

For the most part, this is a very good remake, however I still favour the original.  As is always the case, this remake is “bigger” than the original, but bigger doesn’t equate with being better, and as such I think this is the main flaw of the remake.  The original film is a tight ninety minute affair with no flab, however this new version is a little over twenty minutes longer, and as a result of this the film drags a bit in the second half.  They have added two new set-pieces to the film, the first of which is at a train station which I thought was a really nice addition, but the second at a newspaper office was not needed and only worked in slowing the film down dramatically and lessening its impact.

The film is most successful in the section set in 1967 when the agents are young and attempting to catch the war criminal.  This section is just as good as the original, with the exception that it is all spoken in accented English.  It just sounds a little weird, and as good as Sam Worthington is in his role of David, he does slip into his Aussie accent now and then, especially when he is yelling.  Imagine how excited I was when I found out that Jessica Chastain plays the role of Rachel in this version of “The Debt”.  I was beside myself, but she plays a much different role here involved in a lot of action and she does get quite bloody and bruised.  She is still incredibly gorgeous though.

Once the film reverts back to the 90’s, it starts to lose something unfortunately.  Helen Mirren plays the adult Rachel during this section of the film and it was almost like the producers thought because they had gotten her for the role, they better beef it up for her, which is a detriment to the film as a whole.  As I have said already, the film slows to a snail pace until the finale, and as such isn’t able to hold the sustained tension like the original.  Another problem in this part of the film is Tom Wilkinson who plays the adult Stephan.  He is an admittedly fine actor, but he hasn’t even bothered to try an Israeli accent, he just keeps his British one.  It just sounds a little odd because when Marton Csokas plays the young Stephan he has a thick accent, which appears to have gone completely at the end of the film when Tom Wilkinson takes over the role.  Also the fate of the Stephan character has been changed in this version and is much less satisfying.

Overall though, director John Madden has done a good job with his remake of “The Debt”.  The first half is definitely on par with the original film, only to be sadly let down a little by the second half, still this was a film that I enjoyed immensely.  

3.5 Stars.