ShareThis Page
‘Rejects’ slaughters good taste |

‘Rejects’ slaughters good taste

Ed Blank
| Friday, July 22, 2005 12:00 a.m

It’s nice to get the least pleasant tasks out of the way early in the week and early in the year. That would have relegated the experience of watching “The Devil’s Rejects” to maybe Jan. 2 instead of mid-July.

The aggressively deplorable picture plays like a test case for freedom of expression.

We used to talk about “social redeeming value.” Now we push the limits of sadism and other perversity and call it a thrill ride.

“The Devil’s Rejects” is a sequel to “House of 1,000 Corpses,” the 2000 movie released in 2003 and the only other film written and directed by 39-year-old songwriter Rob Zombie (real name: Robert Cummings).

The subhuman clown-faced Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig) and Mother Firefly (Leslie Easterbrook) have two adult offspring, Otis (Bill Moseley) and Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob’s wife).

The four, along with the even more deranged third sibling Tiny (Matthew McGrory), have tortured, murdered and dismembered more that 75 people whose bodies are stashed under and around their farmhouse.

In 1978, several Alabama policemen close in three of them, capturing only Mother in the botched raid and shootout. Otis and Baby hook up with their daddy and go on the lam, tormenting and butchering new victims throughout.

“The Devil’s Rejects” isn’t about law or logic. It’s about the dehumanization of filmmaking, with atrocious acting and worse writing.

It raises an unintended question: Has a filmmaker no responsibility beyond the titillation of the audience that would choose this over every other picture available• Additional Information:

‘The Devil’s Rejects’

Critic’s rating: One star

Director: Rob Zombie

Stars: Sid Haig, Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley

MPAA rating: R for sadistic violence, strong sexual content, language and drug use

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.