House of 1,000 corpses sequel

[NzoMatrix]

Just saw this at diabolical dominion. Apparently their will be a sequel and Rob Zombie will once again write and direct the effort. Shooting will start in april and will get wide released next April in theatres.

[Toxic_Cinema]

Maybe it will be a horror movie this time

[NzoMatrix]

I havent seen the first movie yet so what did you mean by that comment.

[michaelvorhees666]

what do you mean "not a horror movie"? House of 1000 Corpses put the HORROR back in horror movie!!! if u think I Know What You Did Last Summer or Scream are true forms of horror, your DEAD wrong. H1000 Corpses is not the best movie but it definetly defines the word "horror"!

[dethandtaxes]

house of 1000 corpses defines the phrase "i wanna make a Texas Chainsaw Massacre rip-off"

now i know it didnt COMPLETELY rip off TCM but the similarities are just too obvious. dont get me wrong i liked it...there were some really good shots in the movie, but it played more like a rob zombie music video than anything, and we should all know that rob zombie's music sucks balls...he made a huge mistake by quitting white zombie.

as far as a sequel goes...it COULD be good, it needs way more gore, and it needs to leave everyone that comes to watch it disgusted and thinking "there are people out there that are REALLY like this...holy crap!"

it just seemed to me that 1000 corpses was made for all the nu-metal kids to go to the theatre and act like asses so we who truly enjoy a good horror movie had to sit through loud ass high school kids who dont even know who tobe hooper is.

bradshaw

[armagecko]

WARNING: Do not read this if you haven't seen this movie. I comment on things that you may rather wait and see yourself.

1,000 Corpses is what happens when a musician gets his hands on a camera and $5 million - half of it goes for good weed and the other half to some sexy babe (or three).

Actually, I like Rob Zombie. I love much of his music, I've read many of his articles in the music mags, and he comes across as a very driven and knowledgeable guy. So, I WANTED his directorial debut to be good. Unfortunately, I thought his movie was LIMP. That's the word for it, folks - LIMP.

I did, however, like the first 15 minutes. The style was clumsy, but different. I thought that, although the dialogue was ridiculously inane, Sid Haig (Capt. Spaulding) was entertaining and his "museum" was the most interesting set in the movie. Sheri Moon was gorgeous and, oddly enough for this film, a dynamite actress. However, she was not on screen enough to carry the show. That was left to Bill Moseley's Otis. (What is it about this name 'Otis' that justifies its re-occurring presence in several horror movies lately - Frailty, Wendigo, Corpses??) Moseley was much too young for this role. He looked like he was in over his head and he had little to do. Why? Because not much happened at this house of (supposedly) 1000 corpses (Did you see 'um?). That's why I liked the museum better.

I also liked the long pull-away shot before Otis kills the sheriff. Nice touch (obviously the suggestion of the DP). And I liked the final shot of Otis rising up from the backseat (Although, wouldn't the "damsel in dis-dress" have seen him? It was a convertible...) The sad thing is that these 4 good moments are not enough to justify an 85-minute feature film. This movie should have been a short - and it still would have been a bit boring. (Sorry, Rob.) And that's exactly what Universal thought. (Don't you just HATE it when they're right?)

As for Corpses 2 - "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."

[Doombringer64]

<sigh> People do make valid points against theis film. However they totally neglect the film making. Seriously when was the last time you saw even part of a film in negative. I thought it was good to look at. On that level I was intrigued. I really liked the scene with moon licking the corpse (Wish they had more of that).

I was let down the gore, was anybody else or am I just a twisted freak?

[armagecko]

C'mon, DB! You weren't watching negative film! That was a digital effect that any 17-year old can accomplish with Final Cut Pro. When's the last time I saw that? Oh...just every time I download some amateur 'Star Wars' spin-off.

Those are the kinds of things that happen when you've finished shooting your movie and you realize, "Uh-oh, this thang ain't half as good as I thought it was gonna be. I guess we really didn't know what we was doin." So you go to your producer and say, "I'm gonna need more money to get these actor folks back in here and shoot some different scenes and make a story outa this." The studio says, "You're already $200K over budget and 4 months behind schedule. We're not giving you another cent!" So now what do ya do? You take the next year and a half and gather all your footage together and take it to the doctor - or in this case - the editor. The editor takes one look at your mess and determines the only way to cover your F-up is by using every digital cliche at his disposal. "Don't worry," he says, "they'll think it's an artistic choice." And you know what, some do. Trust me, I've been privy to conversations identical to the one described above.

I totally agree with you about the gore factor. That's where Universal parted ways, as well. There wasn't even enough blood and gore or T & A to classify the movie as a genre flick. So, they had a lame story (Chainsaw rip-off), no name actors, no blood/gore, and no T & A. The only commodity they had left to sell was the name, Rob Zombie, and - to Universal, at least - his name wasn't worth enough. Therefore, they bailed.

Like I said earlier, I really wanted to like the movie, but there really wasn't much to like.

[Doombringer64]

Doesn't sound like you have ever watched a Rob Zombie video.

[armagecko]

What about the previous comment sounds like I have not seen a Rob Zombie video?

[Doombringer64]

It should be obvious to anyone who has seen a Rob Zombie video.

While I understand what your saying to think Rob Zombie didn't intend this film to look, well "Fucked up" is absurd.

[armagecko]

I'm sorry, I probably didn't explain myself clearly. It's not the LOOK of the film that I find "f-ed" up, it's the STORY. The editing effects are a bit amatuerish, yeah, but forgiveable. The way the story is told, however, doesn't work - at least for me. And Universal, I guess.

There's a BIG difference between a 3-minute montage for an MTV video and an 85-minute feature for a major studio. Expectations are slightly higher and competence with narrative is critical. "Audiences go to [see] stories, not to [see] films." Who said that? Jeff Dowd, a legendary producer's rep responsible for selling many indy films like 'Blood Simple,' 'Two Family House' (Sundance Audience award-winner) and 'Dream With the Fishes.'

But, how can I argue with success, huh? Over 750,000 people have gone to see 'Corpses,' pulling in over $6 million. Of course, over 4,875,000 people have paid to see 'Identity' for a total gross of over $39 million - and Identity did this in only three weeks of release. I have to believe that story had something to do with it.