Rob Zombie

Remaining objective is a hard thing for any horror fan to do. As you see more films, you start to develop opinions that only get stronger and stronger with time. You find directors you absolutely adore, but on the flip side you find directors that you just can't stand. Eventually you find actors and actresses that you could watch no matter how ridiculous the premise, and you find others that you wouldn't watch even if they were related to you. Because of the strong opinions held by many in the horror community, mentioning Rob Zombie seems to stir up a whirlwind of controversy. Some support Rob, but it is clear that the majority would like him to leave the horror genre as soon as possible. To those I say it's time to put down the Haterade.

Let's address the major complaints about Rob Zombie's films. First, one of the major complaints about Rob Zombie is the fact that his movies take place in podunk, hillbilly towns that have more trailer parks than homes. To this one must ask, what's so bad about that? How many films do you see that take place in a town that's barely a step up from being a trailer park? Not that many. So why complain about this? Would Halloween and Halloween 2 be that much better if they took place in the middle of suburbia like most other horror movies that we see come out? Would all of the critics take a liking to the Halloween series if the events taking place were happening to a bunch of teens that took a wrong turn and ended up lost in the woods or at some deserted campround? The setting of his films makes his films seem unique and stand out from the rest of the typical horror movie locations. That can only be considered a good thing. Before you complain about the settings that Rob chooses for his movies, you should think of it like this. In his eight years of being a director, Rob Zombie has made four films. Can you not deal with a unique setting like the ones he provides once every two years? I know that I can.

And the women. Another big complaint about Rob Zombie's movies is that he intentionally makes all of the females in his movies look less attractive than they really are. Once again, the question must be asked, is that such a bad thing? Let's take a trip outside our comfort zone fellas. Let's pretend we're all chicks. Or even better, let's pretend we're all the “final girl” in the horror movie of your choice. You've just been hunted down, witnessed your friends and perhaps even your family being brutally murdered by a mad man with a meat cleaver and now it's down to you and him. What are you thinking about? You're thinking about finding a weapon. Maybe you're thinking about finding somewhere to hide so you can use the element of surprise to kill this son of a bitch. Maybe your just thinking about finding a way to get as far away from him as you possibly can. What you're not thinking is to make sure that your clothes match. You're not trying to decide whether you should wear your Hollister tanktop with your American Eagle hoodie. You are not thinking “I have to get out of here--- after I apply another coat of this lipstick!” I'm all for chicks looking hot in horror movies, but why fault the director if he wants to go for a more realistic approach? Harley looked hot in a trashy, sleazy sort of way. Mya and Annie Brackett both looked gorgeous despite the fact that neither of them were sporting today's newest trends. Whether the storyline worked for you or not, Laurie Strode's downward spiral lead her into being your typical grunge rock chick. She definitely looked the part, while still being attractive.

Not everyone can look like Amanda Righetti in Friday The 13^th where despite all her trials and tribulations in dealing with Jason, she still looked like a knockout throughout the whole ordeal. Rob Zombie could have had all of the women wear their stilettos with their micro mini skirts and push up bras to make their breasts rest firmly under their chin, but I'm glad he didn't. Rob Zombie was going for realistic violence, a realistic yet unique setting, and realistic looking women. Personally, I think he hit the ball out of the park in this regard.

And my biggest pet peeve about all the Rob Zombie hate is the prevailing opinion that Rob Zombie has ruined John Carpenter's Halloween. Really? How so? I've watched the original Halloween since seeing Rob Zombie's two efforts in the series. John Carpenter's is still the classic that it always was. I wasn't forced to turn off my DVD player because a movie that was made 29 years later ruined it for me. That's preposterous. I saw Halloween: Resurrection and that didn't stop me from watching Halloween again. It didn't ruin Michael Myers as a character for me. It didn't make me want to boycott the series. So why the over reaction? Why have some sort of end of the world complex where you'd stop supporting one of your favorite films just because someone completely unattached to the original that you fell in love with made another film in the series? It just doesn't make a lick of sense. A lot of the horror purists, or people posing as horror purists hated Halloween because Rob Zombie made it an origin story and made some changes to the characters of Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode. To these so called purists I ask, would you have preferred a shot for shot remake? I know I wouldn't. It's my opinion that remakes should only be done if you're going to provide a fresh new take on something. If I wanted to see Michael Myers stalking Laurie Strode at school and while she walked home, I'd watch John Carpenter's version and not waste my time on a remake that provided the exact same thing. Instead, Rob provided us with a unique vision. Whether you liked that vision or not is your prerogative, but there is no denying that Rob provided us with a fresh new look at something that had started growing stale many years ago. We found out why Michael Myers became The Shape, something that wasn't provided to us in the original. We find out about his troubled childhood and what lead him into becoming the monster he transformed into. We dig a little deeper into Loomis' psyche and in Zombie's universe, he's not Laurie's hero in a trenchcoat, but he's an egomaniac who's about making a quick buck. We find out a little bit more about Laurie Strode, instead of just finding out that she's Michael's sister and he wants her dead. That's a not a knock on Carpenter. His film was near flawless for what he was trying to achieve. What Rob Zombie was trying to achieve with his film had nothing to do with what Carpenter's intentions were. They were two completely different films, that were trying to do two completely different things. If anything, I found out that Rob Zombie's Halloween enhanced John Carpenter's Halloween for me. Obviously most of you disagree with me, and I can respect that, but stating that you disliked Zombie's movie to the point of it ruining Carpenter's is absolutely preposterous. Can you not watch Bram Stoker's Dracula because Dracula 2000 was an abysmal movie? Is the original Rollerball no longer a phenomenal film because Chris Klein and LL Cool J decided to remake it into one of the worst movies I've ever seen? No. So why should this case be any different? It shouldn't.

Don't take this to be me blindly praising Rob Zombie or his Halloween series. I'm not, in fact, I think both films had their flaws, especially the sequel. I just feel that if you are going to hate on a movie, it should be for legitimate reasons. It shouldn't be for the reasons I've gone into detail about above. The best part of being a horror fan is debating with other horror fans, so if you disagree with what I've said, feel free to respond and drop me a line. Everybody has an opinion, so let yours be heard.