No, he's not copying other films and their original, but that doesn't make them good. There's not much character development, I have no idea why he even filmed the rape scene in halloween and I don't feel he puts much work into them.

Does he equal tarantino? No.
Does he equal a pile of shit? Hard to tell.

I think Doc was making the point that Zombie is to horror what Tarantino is to drama in the fact that they are both fond of making pop culture references quite often, using a pre-recorded music soundtrack, having a visceral, fast-paced violent style, etc.

In which case, it's hard to argue against his point. Whether or not he "equals" Tarantino on a talent scale is irrelevent to the argument here.

i'm increasingly convinced that zombie is a hack and that he is like tarantino (a director schooled on bad videos without an original bone in their bodies)


not that i'm trying to spark controversy or anything!!

I do think that Zombie is a cut above Roth, its a tad unfair to lump him in the infamous "torture porn" category. I rank both Corpses and Rejects among the most enjoyable horror movies of the decade. I was more put off by Saw III for example, which is one of those flicks that makes me think I'm getting too old for this shit, to quote Danny Glover...

I'm sorry, but if you can watch Pulp Fiction and say that it isn't creative or original...then you rented the wrong movie.

I kinda want to agree with zero on that one.

Stuck in the middle with you!

critics continually pan Tarantino for "making movies about movies." looking at him in that light, I would definitely say Zombie is a lot like QT. in my own opinion, based on their overall body of work, I think Tarantino is better than Rob Zombie.

I also want to say that I don't have anything against "torture porn." lots of horror fans are ripping on it because it's the hot thing right now, but some of my favorite genre pictures are planted firmly in HG Lewis's footprints and in the 60s and 70s exploitation films as a whole. I hafta say that part of the reason I like them is that it means that there are other fans of these types of pictures.

I think a lot of people are criticizing torture porn because it takes no talent, no talent whatsoever, to make it...no storytelling skills required. And I put most of today's sadistic "horror-like" movies in that category because the payoff to people who see these things is the long, protracted killing scenes. It comes to the same.

H. G. Lewis, now, that guy did his thing forty years ago, more or less, and while it was certainly not artsy, it was a bit fresher and more daring. Doing that stuff now is a refuge for people who don't know how to do anything else.

If you see a "horror filmmaker" who can't do suspense, you should take a good look at that "artist" and really question if their work has any merit at all. If you don't, you may very well be feeding your hard-earned money to an idiot who knows how to talk his way into a deal.

Because let's face it, people: If a studio invests in a horror film and gets a big piece of crap, they will saturation advertise it ANYWAY and tout it as the new groundbreaking thing that's going to rock your mind.

Once a film is made, their money is spent, and their job is to aggressively sell it, and attempt to profit from it. If you think you haven't been sold twenty or thirty pieces of absolute garbage in recent memory...think again.