I could never stand House of 1000 Corpses. Even as a kid hungry for the most depraved thing I could find, I found it over the top and ridiculous. Nothing about that movie scared me or affected me, or did anything other than make me roll my eyes.

Devil's Rejects I liked, because it didn't have the "out there" feel of 1000 Corpses. It was a grimy sweaty nasty bit of horror that felt like it could've been made in the 70s. It affected me. I had to shake it off after seeing it. I wouldn't ever rewatch it now, or any of his movies for that matter, but I think that's probably his "best" film in terms of what he was going for. RAH BRUTAL GROSS RAPE TERRIBLE HUMANITY DEPRAVED BLUDGEONING FREEBIRD VIOLENCE. Cool and edgy and provocative as a young teen, but now I look back and ask...what was the point? And that's how I feel about the majority of his work. There's nothing to his films besides shock value and sick violence. It doesn't say anything about anything. Besides how hot and talented he thinks his wife is.

His Halloweens are a travesty and IMHO should be destroyed so that no one can make the mistake of watching them in place of the originals. Lords of Salem started good but went nowhere fast.

His pretension is what gets me. He really views himself as this second to none horror auteur. In the ridiculously overlong documentary on the second disc of Rejects, he says something to Bill Moseley after filming a gross scene along the lines of, "art isn't safe." As a kid that was like, the coolest thing ever to me. But now I look back at it and then look at his output and I just scoff, like please. How pretentious can you get. Art says something. His movies don't say anything at all, they're just trying to see how many times they can make you wince. And how many times/ways you can say fuck in a movie.

I'd be interested to see why you or others think he's such a great filmmaker because I don't think there's any redeeming qualities to his work whatsoever.