In Rob Zombie's latest, Salem rock DJ Heidi Hawthorne (Sheri Moon Zombie) receives a cursed record sent to her personally by a mysterious group called the Lords and starts to experience foreboding and increasingly intense hallucinations after it's played for the first time.

Now, let me set the record straight before I begin. I am not a Rob Zombie fan. His music is what it is but his films are infuriating. I thought his Halloween remake was garbage but it's John Carpenter's original compared to The Haunted World of El Superbeasto, which ranks easily among the worst films I've ever seen. I enjoyed House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects in high school but after I caught The Devil's Rejects on TV last year for the first time since, I felt embarrassed to have proposed watching it to the friend I was with. I think the guy's got good taste, an original style, and, for better of for worse, is able to leave his stamp but thus far, his output has been utterly sick-making.

So why did I decide to check out his new one? For starters, call me desperate. I've been hard up for a good horror movie for years now and honestly, despite my better judgment, I was intrigued by the pitch for this one: a psychological horror movie in the vein of Stanley Kubrick and Ken Russell that is nothing like Zombie's other films. Now, when you start throwing names like that around, you've got yourself a tall order but I feel like good or bad, Zombie has always made the movies he wanted to make (or at least come close). I also feel like House and Devil's Rejects were able to authentically capture the flavor of 70s exploitation cinema in ways that other films were not. I was curious to see if he could do the same here.

As the marketing ramped up and the reviews started coming in, it seemed more and more that this would be something to my liking.

Nevertheless, I went in with low expectations and came out more than just a little pleasantly surprised. I'll proudly place Lords of Salem amongst the ranks of Deep Blue Sea and Alien: Resurrection as one of my favorite guilty pleasures of all time.

Lords of Salem is easily the best film Zombie has ever done. Perhaps a loaded statement. I think detractors might consider it damning with faint praise while fans might ardently disagree with me. But seriously, I think it's better than all of Zombie's films combined several times over.

First and foremost, the film is jam-packed with sumptuous horror atmosphere. The town is Salem is a character in and of itself, as is the hallway in Heidi's apartment. The locations are all sufficiently creepy. The visual style is much more methodical than Zombie's previous outputs. The cinematography is totally channelling Kubrick to the point that at times, it felt like it was ripping him off but that's okay. It's Kubrick, after all. A Barry Lyndon bridge shot is fine by me. The color schemes recall Suspiria-era Dario Argento, Alejandro Jodorowsky, and general 60s-70s psychedelia, which give the film a cool acid trip feel. There's also plenty of classic Hammer Horror elements to keep it grounded in horror. The whole thing feels a lot more retro than arthouse, which is a good thing.

The pacing is an extreme slow burn, which might turn some people off, but I think it really serves the story and I'm a fan of this approach in general. Zombie really takes his time instilling a sense of dread. The film doesn't have much by way of scares or shock but rather a blanket of unease that continues to grow and grow until the climax. More Polanski than Texas Chainsaw. Still, there is plenty of weird horror imagery to be found throughout the film. Lots of naked witches, zombie-like creatures, insect and mollusk-like critters, dwarves, and even a Bigfoot. Sometimes, it's corny but still fun. Other times, I was surprised by how much the film was getting under my skin. It's not scary but definitely grotesque and disturbing, the witches especially. Let's just say Zombie's got Kubrick beat in the creepy-naked-old-lady from-room-237 department.

The soundtrack is also amazing. Zombie steps aside and hands the reigns to Rob Zombie bandmate John 5 and Griffin Boyce who do a terrific job at amping up the dread with their music. It doesn't feel intrusive the way most scores are; rather, much of it is slow and ambient and adds an extra dimension to the visuals. Still, the occasional orchestral and acoustic guitar interludes are there. There's also a fair amount of classic songs featured throughout, such as Rush and Rick James but most notably from The Velvet Underground. The use of "All Tomorrow's Parties" for the film's finale is phenomenal and "Venus in Furs" is more than suited for these retro horror shenanigans.

The performances were decent. I don't think Sheri Moon Zombie is a good actress but she was well cast here, which makes all the difference, and doesn't ever seem lacking given what the role requires of her. Jeff Daniel Phillips and the legendary Ken Foree complete the Salem Rocks! radio station troupe. Their exchanges feel very natural and authentic, I imagine because Rob Zombie is a musician and has appeared at many a radio station in his life. The standout is Meg Foster as the ancient witch, Margaret Morgan. She's definitely got the potential to scare the crap out of people. A lot of supporting cast who all fit the bill, more or less. I think most of the characters all around could've used a little more development but I didn't mind hanging out with them for the two hour or so duration of the film. They felt like real people and I appreciated the fact that they were all sort of weird and lived in their own worlds rather than bland and ordinary, meant to appeal to "normies," if you will.

Okay, that's the good. This is a Rob Zombie movie. Obviously, there's some bad.

Now, I think with this film, there were things that bothered me and things that will bother others but that I wasn't necessarily bothered by. I'll start with me.

Zombie's always been very hit and miss with dialogue. I think if he stays in a certain safety zone, he can be very serviceable but when he crosses the line, it can be ghastly, most notably in terms of humor and vulgarity. Here, almost all attempts at humor fell flat. The radio station sequences were packed with prospective zingers, meaning they barely worked at all. The gags felt very dated and corny, kinda like Howard Stern at his most juvenile. Fortunately, nothing was particularly excruciating; you could just really hear the crickets is all.

Attempts at levity amongst the characters were kind of hit and miss as well. I think Moon and Philips eventually hit their stride but some moments between them were just awkward. Ken Foree is a great actor but I feel like he was totally underused and what he's given to work with is just kinda bland.

What was really bad was when characters would suddenly use the F-word or say something dirty. The script was sprinkled with so many inane vulgar comments that just crash and burn and make you go WTF, especially when out of character. The worst was when a historian character is relaying information from a book he wrote about a Salem reverend from the 1600s and ends his sentence with "whatever the fuck that means." Dude... you're a historian. I think you're supposed to be interested in what you're studying (speaking of which, the historian subplot feels pretty shoehorned in).

The film is also rife with extremely awkward transitions and poor editing choices, many of which leave you wondering how characters got to where they were and how previous scenes wrapped up. No good. The film also follows the same "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday..." template as The Shining, which compounds the problem.

Now, I'm pretty sure if I felt this way, others will too. But admittedly, I let much slide in this film that I expect others won't.

Perhaps the biggest issue with the film is the plot. Personally, I enjoyed the visuals and the atmosphere so much that I just went along for the ride. But I imagine many would feel the film is just a series of random, interchangeable vignettes overlaid on a flimsy, redundant, and snail-paced plot that doesn't pay off in the end. Redundant would be the fairest of points, I would say. Heidi's a weak character who doesn't have command of the plot's trajectory by any means and much of what happens just happens to her. I think vision after vision, she starts to fall apart and in the film's final act, that amounts to something, but perhaps the structure isn't all that suited for effective storytelling. There's reference to Heidi being an ex-drug addict, something that rears its head midway through the film. Perhaps this angle couldn't made the plot more dynamic were it developed more but it's sparse to the point of almost being incidental.

Now, I think the thing that's going to go over the worst is the ending... or lack thereof. Personally, I enjoyed it but indeed, it's totally indefensible. What happens is the film builds to a climax and rather than following through with it, it just switches to a five-minute or so sequence of completely random images that have nothing to do with the plot and then offers a cheap explanation over the end credits of what actually happened in the plot while all this nonsense was going on. Why Zombie did this couldn't be more obvious: he wanted to end his film like 2001, pretty much, and offer a Satanic tribute to Altered States at the same time. I doubt he gave any thought to why 2001 ends how it does. He clearly just thought it was cool. This is bound to leave many viewers gloriously pissed off.

Now to wrap up, Lords of Salem is an extremely flawed film... but I think I loved it. This is the first horror movie in a long time that's gone in a direction that I found to be at all interesting. I loved the imagery, the atmosphere, the retro horror flavor, and despite the flaws in the plot, I was genuinely interested in what was going on and what was going to happen. The premise is nothing original but it works and serves as a solid base for everything that goes along with it. I guess on some level, this could be seen as nothing more than a pastiche or a tribute to a different era of filmmaking but it's an era I love and the filmmakers it tips its hat to are some of the best filmmakers ever. So despite many issues that I probably would condemn other films for, fuck it. This'll be the one I let slide. At the end of the day, Zombie's aspirations here were on the money and he delivered enough where I feel there might still be some life in this genre yet.

Feel free to make fun of me now.

Hey James,

Good on you for seeking this out.
Only opened in a couple hundred theaters this weekend.
I heard tepid reviews from its festival run.

You REALLY think this is way better than The Devil's Rejects?
That film almost feels like someone else directed it. So good.
Don't think Mr. Zombie has come close to that quality in his work since.

E.D.

I think Lords of Salem is easily better than The Devil's Rejects. The dialogue throughout Rejects feels like it was written by a fifteen-year old, which makes everything else feel adolescent by proxy. The bad guys are truly evil and the victims are pushovers and yet Otis constantly loses his temper and screams at everyone like it's his first time ever doing this. The latter half of the film tries to incorporate a lot of humor and like I said earlier, Zombie can't do funny. Not in The Devil's Rejects OR Lords of Salem. I thought in terms of filmmaking, Rejects was quite well done but Lords of Salem crushes it to dust.

If you want to get technical about it, The Devil's Rejects does have a more cohesive story and more memorable characters but neither the characters nor the story were really that great. You could say the pacing is better but to me, that's apples and oranges. I think the slow burn approach is totally legitimate. It just requires one be open and a little bit patient. You don't have to like that style but I don't think it means there's anything wrong with the film; rather it might just not be your thing.

Now, credit where credit is due. The Devil's Rejects captures the spirit and texture of exploitation cinema quite flawlessly whereas most other films that have tried have failed, Sid Haig is terrific as Captain Spaulding, and the Free Bird sequence at the end of the film is amazing. But I thought the film as a whole was pretty dumb. Lords of Salem isn't perfect but it has a cooler style, better atmosphere, a more interesting story, a refreshing lack of the things that make Rob Zombie annoying, and is just better as a film that falls short than The Devil's Rejects is as a film that holds together.

Other than that, I'll have to say that I just flat out enjoyed Lords better, if only because it caters more to my tastes.

That said, I don't think you'll like this one at all, Brett. I'd be genuinely surprised if you did.

Quoted from James McClung Now, credit where credit is due. The Devil's Rejects captures the spirit and texture of exploitation cinema quite flawlessly whereas most other films that have tried have failed, Sid Haig is terrific as Captain Spaulding, and the Free Bird sequence at the end of the film is amazing. But I thought the film as a whole was pretty dumb. Other than that, I'll have to say that I just flat out enjoyed Lords better, if only because it caters more to my tastes. That said, I don't think you'll like this one at all, Brett. I'd be genuinely surprised if you did.

Ahh, there's that circumspect insight I was hoping to see.
Yeah, I am VERY forgiving with Rejects because it has a KILLER ENDING.
You got me there.

Zombie's visuals in the Salem trailer worked.
And I grew up 30 miles from the famous town.
Skipped school many a time to hang out there.

Still, I will check out this one.
Zombie hasn't completely alienated me yet.
But those Halloween flicks certainly didn't help.

Regards,
E.D.

I think if you liked the ending to Rejects that much, the ending to Lords might sink whatever enthusiasm you happen to garner for it along the way (unless Altered States is your favorite movie). Still, I think this is definitely worth seeing for anyone who's ever enjoyed a Rob Zombie film, even if they don't like it. He's definitely secured a pretty eclectic yet distinct filmography for himself even as a quote-unquote "horror director." Lords of Salem is also supposed to be his last horror movie so last call, if you will.

As for me, I think in the time that's elapsed since I walked out of the theater yesterday, I've totally settled into liking this. It's been a long time since I've got to sit in a theater and watch a horror movie that actually gave me reason to let my guard down and if it's really that bad, it won't be the first bad movie I've liked.

Great review James.
I agree with pretty much everything you said bar a few things.
I think this is a great little horror movie. Certainly the best that's come out in recent times.
I absolutely loved this flick. Unashamedly loved it.
Considering it's budget, this looks incredible. It's a visual beauty, seeps with atmosphere and it's directed in a style that just leaves you anticipating more.
Say what you want about Rob Zombie, he has a vision and flair that is second to none. This guy is admirably aggresive in what he wants to do.  He just does it.  He doesn't seem to care if you like it.  If you came up to him and told him you liked his films it would probably ruin his entire day.

Yet, I think that there is a misconception about Mr. Zombie.  Not targeting you specifically James!  I genuinely feel he is a talented film maker, one of the best in the business actually, and he's actually seriously gifted both at writing and directing.  His Halloween movies might have bombed with audiences, but he was attempting something new. Halloween 2 (2009) is one of the most ambitious slasher films ever made.

But back to topic, I love this film. It's slow build is something to admire and not ridicule, the atmosphere is beautifully disturbing, settings authentic and uncomfortable. Characters are interesting. Great to see these guys given a chance instead of the usual stunning 20 year old with her supermodel friends shizzle.

Give this film a chance. It's worth a view.

I'm very bummed with the pathetic release of this.  I've been looking forward to it for a long time, but it's barely playing anywhere around here.  I they'd up the theater count, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm not driving 70 miles round trip to see this, sorry to say.  Guess I'll be waiting for the Blu Ray, which will probably come out sooner than later.

Good reviews, guys!

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm very bummed with the pathetic release of this.  I've been looking forward to it for a long time, but it's barely playing anywhere around here.  I they'd up the theater count, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm not driving 70 miles round trip to see this, sorry to say.  Guess I'll be waiting for the Blu Ray, which will probably come out sooner than later. Good reviews, guys!

Yeah, they only gave the film 300 screens two weeks ago.
Anchor Bay does not have the juice to open a wide national release.
And the film's already shedding a bunch of those.
Too bad.

Regards,
E.D.

Finally saw this, and...well...damn...I ABSOLUTELY HATED IT!  I hated everything about it, actually.

In many ways, it really seems like Zombie was trying his best to make a movie that years from now will be laughed at and mocked, and maybe looked down at, as 1 of the worst movies of all time.  I honestly mean this.

The acting was downright terrible all the way around.  The dialogue was laughable, stunted, and just so poorly written.

The plot?  Really?  OK, answer me this - Heidi had been living where she was for some time, right?  Why, all of a sudden, does this all start up and go down?  Senseless!

FX work was also just awful and laughable...and so random!  The naked witches?  Really?  Sasquatch-like creature?  Baby-dwarf-demon?  C'mon now.  Even the lighting was so odd, and not in a good way odd, either.

The movie's way too slow, way too long, and way too disjointed to make any sense or keep interest.

I wonder what happened in terms of what was left on the cutting room floor, because my bet it that there was an awful lot, which is why the finished product feels so disjointed and hard to follow.  What happened to Sig Haig and Michael Berryman's roles?  Where'd they go?  I think a few other actors showed up in the credits but didn't have a single second of screen time.

Finally, I want to touch on the ugliness of everything involved here.  Everyone looked terrible, first of all.  The sets were all ugly as well.  But what was most ugly is the constant and over the top evil, Satan worshiping dialogue.  Seriously, this all came off as such hokum, but I actually was feeling guilty watching it because of all the Satanic references and Satanic "love".  Did we really need that?  I say we definitely did not need it.

Terrible, terrible, terrible movie that I'm sure will slowly rise in the Hall of Shame of God Awful Movies.

Grade - F

Eh... not surprised with your review, Jeff.

Besides Devil's Rejects, I think Zombie is a terrible writer/director.

I finally caught up to this film. Even if I'm not a fan of Zombie's films, I will admit Devil's Rejects is a guilty pleasure. I'm also glad for my peers and thier insights, although I'm in the Jeff camp here. The movie was all too successful in putting me to sleep.

I saw this one a while back, horrible, horrible movie.

I love horror movies and I usually get tricked into watching anything that has a slight buzz going for it on sites like bloody disgusting. This was the case with this one as well. Like all of Rob Zombie's movies, this one sucked as well. He should stick to music.

Meh. Dudes from Half in the Bag liked it. Think I'm good.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-oblivion-and-the-lords-of-salem/

I thought it was slow and boring.

Quoted from RayW I thought it was slow and boring.

That's what most of Jeff's exes have said about him