The Serpent And The Rainbow (1988)

JUNE 21, 2008

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Until Night of the Living Dead, “zombie” movies were usually about voodoo, not flesh eating. Since then, it’s been rather uncommon that a zombie movie deals with the “real” facts about zombie-ism, so I was hoping that The Serpent And The Rainbow would be a fine attempt at making a modern “old school” zombie movie, but sadly it’s mainly just a giant bore.

The main problem is the script itself. Unlike many of his peers, Wes Craven is a guy who rarely dips into the world of adaptation. With the exception of Scream, he wrote all his best films himself. But not only is this film based on a book, it's also adapted by two folks who aren't Craven. So it just doesn't really feel like one of his movies. The only thing in this film that connects to any of his other work is a scene where our hero is attacked by a chair, something he also explored in Shocker. But yet, his contributions to the genre forever give his name more weight than some no-name director, and thus more is expected out of him.

Another problem with the film is the complete lack of danger. Bill Pullman narrates the film, so his survival is fairly obvious, but also, he goes back home (to Boston!) a couple times in the film, which breaks what little tension the film has built up from the “stranger in a strange land” scenario. If he can just hop a plane whenever he feels like it, what’s the danger? If not for the finale and the endless nightmare scenes (another slight connection to Craven’s other work), it would come off more as a ripoff of Medicine Man* than a horror movie.

Pullman’s good though, in a rare straight lead role. He’s not all dark/moody like in Zero Effect, but he’s not the lovable 2nd banana from his romcoms either. It’s a role for a more traditional A-lister, and if the film was more successful, it’s easy to see that he would have gotten more leads (instead of being part of ensembles). The supporting cast is also good, particularly Brent Jennings as a con man who turns out to know what he’s doing. It’s just that the script by Richard Maxwell (based on Wade Davis’ novel) gives them nothing to do. There’s no rising action, no real feeling of danger, and the political uprising subplot that plays a heavy role in the film’s finale practically defines “shoehorn”. The whole movie is just treading water until the final 10 minutes, and by then it’s too little too late.

This film is sandwiched in between two of Craven’s most delightfully silly movies (Deadly Friend and Shocker), so it’s nice to see him trying something more serious. But honestly, I think in the end it would have worked better had it not had horror type elements at all, and was just a straight up mystery/adventure type deal.

On a more positive note - I beat Grand Theft Auto IV today! It's the first one I have ever finished, having usually gotten bored with doing the same things over and over. Bless the Xbox achievement points system for inspiring me to press on and complete it (plus do lots of side quests). Now, on to Alone in the Dark!

What say you?

*I know Medicine Man came after this movie, but a. I saw it first and b. it's way more awesome. No one in this movie yells "I FOUND THE CURE FOR THE 20TH CENTURY AND NOW I'VE LOST IT!", for example.

Read more »

Zombie,

{[['']]}

Corpses (2004)

JUNE 14, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

A few Horror Movie A Day reviews have been for unreleased films. In a couple cases, the film’s own director gave me a DVD he burned himself. In these cases, I don’t care about the lack of professionalism on the DVD itself. Having taken a course and played around with DVD authoring software, I know it’s pretty goddamn easy to put in chapters, a title menu, and other basic stuff like that, but if its skipped on these “homemade” discs, it’s not a concern. But when a movie like Corpses is actually available for retail (i.e. people are PAYING for it) and the menu is just 4 boxes, one of which reads Title 1 (the other 3 are blank), the chapter stops are just placed every 10 minutes regardless of where they fall in a particular scene, and the film’s only “bonus material” is a collection of muted video clips meant to be used for the effects team later on, I am a bit insulted as a consumer.

The movie itself is reasonably OK. Like Nightmare Man (also directed by Rolfe Kanefsky), I don’t particularly find many of the jokes funny, but there is a continual sense of amusement to the proceedings that the other film didn’t have (since it went off on a rape tangent at the end). And I can see that Kanefsky and his crew are genuinely interested in making a fun movie, not a quick buck. I just wish that he could learn to rely less on trying to be funny and focus on simply making the movie fun. I don’t need a joke to enjoy myself – for example, Dawn of the Dead (the remake) doesn’t have wall to wall jokes, but it’s a blast all the way through. Character and action alone are enough – having them make inane puns and such every other time they speak is just too much.

The movie also contains the most obvious standin since Lugosi’s in Plan 9 From Outer Space. Jeff Fahey (who is fucking great in it otherwise, playing the straight man turned Ash-esque asskicker) is in a scene with a blond zombie, and halfway through he abruptly disappears. For the rest of the scene we only hear him via recycled dialogue, and see a hand meant to be his. It’s not a very successful ruse, and since the scene is hardly one of the film’s highlights, one must wonder why they didn’t just cut it entirely (or edit it down in a way that it could be ended as soon as Fahey took off) rather than draw attention to the cheapness of it all. Maybe it’s another joke I don’t get, I dunno.

But hey, everyone’s having a good time, and there’s a refreshing lack of cynicism or pandering in the movie, so I won’t be too hard on it. It’s not that great, but it’s harmless. I’ll take 10 of these over a single Doomed.

You might wonder why I’m not taking the standard route of bitching about every minor problem in the film, but I’m in too good/nervous of a mood. Tonight is my Q&A with John Carpenter (!!!!) and thus I have an equal feeling of “Everyone and everything is great!” and “I better not do anything to earn bad karma.” You know, like point out that one of the zombies in this movie had all of these bloody holes on his shirt, but no actual wounds on the skin beneath.

Dammit!

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Wickeds (2005)

JUNE 6, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

On one hand, I really hate saying anything negative about independent films such as The Wickeds, which are clearly made with the best intentions (as opposed to soulless pieces of shit like A Brush With Death), are technically well done, and live up to their promise (in this case, zombie action). On the other hand, it costs me, the viewer, just as much to rent/buy it as any other movie, and thus its (non-budget related) faults cannot be instantly forgiven just because the filmmakers didn’t have a catering truck or a large crew.

For starters, writer David Zagorski really needed to focus on a single genre. He goes all over the place – we start with a vampire (who looks awful), then it’s zombies (which look really good), then some possession/ghost stuff comes into play, and the final ‘shock’ involves something else entirely, a demon or something (one of the ‘survivors’ suddenly has red eyes, which no other monster in the film has displayed). I assume they couldn’t afford a werewolf costume, or else that probably would have gotten tossed in as well. It’s not that combining subgenres is a bad thing, but since the zombie/vampire stuff is front and center, the other things just seem like they were making it up as they go along.

The monsters are also inconsistent – some of the zombies talk, others just moan. Standard rules are also ignored: the vampire can go in daylight (the entire movie is set during the day, which is actually kind of interesting), and for some reason they use crosses to defend themselves against the zombies? Again, these things are fine when they are used as part of the plot (such as in John Carpenter’s Vampires), but here it’s not explained in any reasonable manner.

It also has what has to be the longest non-sexual sex scene in film history. For the first half hour, we are constantly treated to makeouts and dry humping between two of our stock group of characters, at one point for a full two minutes. It’s even shot like the intro to a softcore sex scene, but even when they finally get around to removing some clothing, there is nothing shown but side boob. Thanks for wasting our time, jerks! There’s some irony in the fact that a film starring Ron Jeremy would have pointless ‘sex’ scenes, I suppose, but that’s not enough to make it worthwhile.

Yes, Jeremy stars in the film as one of the two grave robbers who inadvertently resurrect the zombies. He’s the best part of the film by far; in addition to the fact that he’s simply a better actor than the kids (who range from merely dull to shockingly bad/annoying), he also seems to be enjoying himself, and has a few choice lines that made me chuckle. None of the movie is supposed to be taken seriously, but at times he seems to be the only one who remembers that.

Another downer is the direction/cinematography ranges from pedestrian to just plain terrible. Blocking is awkward, shots don’t match (particularly in the outdoor scenes), etc. Worst of all is the fact that at least two major characters are killed without any buildup or even sense that they are in danger. Not in a shock-kill type way like in Serenity (the only time in film history I have heard an entire audience gasp/yell “NO!” when a major character was killed), but in the “oh we forgot to film a shot of the zombies approaching him” way. We will be focusing on two characters fighting by the window or something, and then suddenly cut to a shot of another lead already being devoured by 3 or 4 zombies. Not only is this annoying from a dramatic standpoint, but it’s just confusing as well. And it’s not just in the kill scenes; at one point a character is in the graveyard when it was never even made clear that he left the house. Since the film is being shot on video and stars only amateur actors (save Jeremy), I find it hard to believe that they couldn’t go back and insert missing shots once they got into editing and realized some important coverage was missing.

Otherwise, like I said, it’s admirable. The meta/Scream type humor is a bit tired, but it’s not usually applied to a zombie film, so it feels a bit fresher than it would in yet another slasher film. The gore effects are impressive as well - and no obvious CG to boot. And it’s pretty fast-paced (other than the sex scenes), there’s hardly more than a couple minutes in the film without zombie or vampire action. There are also a few nice touches I appreciated, like the zombie kid in the baseball uniform who brushes off his shoes before resuming his chase of one of our heroes.

Speaking of the baseball kid, the Foley artist for this movie needs to be shot. Almost none of the sound effects sound right. The sound of the kid being hit with the bat sounds like two floor mats being smacked together; when someone is punched we hear wood being hit (?), etc. It’s funny, back in film school I had to do a project where our teacher would give us clips with no sound and we had to create the soundtrack. I got a clip from Night of the Living Dead (Molotov/ride to gas pump sequence), and needless to say, it wouldn’t pass for the real soundtrack. But that’s what this movie sounded like at times, and the film’s obvious NOTLD references made the comparison even easier to make.

There are other nice horror references as well – the house that the film takes place in is said to be the shooting location for a “cheesy straight to video horror movie” (some of that meta humor for you), and one of the corpses looks made up to resemble Mrs. Voorhees. Most folks would go for a hockey mask, so going a bit more obscure is much appreciated.

For its faults, everyone involved should be proud of what they achieved. I don’t know the budget or anything (and the disc is entirely lacking of extras), but it couldn’t be much, and a check of the IMDb reveals... a 404 timeout error (as of this writing, the IMDb is down for the first time I have ever seen in a decade!). So assuming that this was their first or second film, and not their 20th, that they pulled off a fairly large scale zombie film that is above average on the technical side for these things is not something to be dismissed, even if the script/editing leaves something to be desired.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Undead Or Alive (2007)

JUNE 1, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

HMAD reader Kristian recommended Undead Or Alive, and while I don't love it, I have to admire writer/director Glasgow Phillips for combining three genres in one film, particularly three that hardly ever work together even in pairs: Western, Comedy, and Horror. Sadly, it doesn’t really work as a comedy, and that is clearly the main ‘ingredient’, considering the wealth of comedian actors and relative lack of zombie action.

Right off the bat I was a bit unsure as to how funny the film would be, as I saw the names Chris Kattan, Chris Coppola, and Brian Posehn in the cast. Posehn is OK but his comedy stylings seem mainly limited to sitting there and making faces at the other, more entertaining characters in the stuff I have seen him in (a few episodes of Sarah Silverman, Fantastic Four 2). Kattan I never cared for on SNL (Mango being the least funny recurring sketch in the show’s history), and Coppola is just awful (though I guess it takes some sort of skill to stand out as the worst part of an Uwe Boll movie). The only character in the film who managed to get any laughs out of me was James Denton, playing the straight man. Like Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black, Denton’s laid back, straightfaced approach to the nonsense around him was the most amusing part of the whole thing. And as clichéd as it is by now, I laughed every time they played a takeoff on the Brokeback Mountain score during any scene of Denton and Kattan “bonding” (how great is it that I not only recognized it, but knew it wasn't the actual score but a slight variation of it?).

But that’s pretty much it for the laughs. The rest of it was just Police Academy-esque pratfalls and obvious humor (Posehn actually puts his foot in a bucket and tries to walk around after getting a pie in the face – come on, this doesn’t even work as a meta-joke on comedy itself) and even the less generic stuff made me groan (the opening text crawl calls attention to the fact that no one wants to read at the beginning of the movie - Ha. Ha). And according to one of the extra features, Glasgow once worked as a writer on South Park during its strong 6th season (Free Hat!) which makes the failed humor even more disappointing; even the weakest Park episodes have a good laugh every couple minutes or so. Actually, speaking of the extras: the commentary track is actually pretty funny, as the three leads and Glasgow just shoot the shit for the most part and rib one another. Since the dialogue isn’t exactly Shakespeare and one could probably figure out what was going on without it, I would actually suggest just watching it with the commentary right off the bat.

Does it work as a horror movie then? Well, no, not really. The zombie makeup is good and I rather liked the idea that simply shooting them in the head won’t do (here they literally have to remove the head entirely). But all of the zombie attack scenes (of which there aren’t too many, plus the zombies disappear entirely for a solid 15-20 minute chunk in the middle of the film) have these nonsensical cutaways to the ancient Indian men who created the zombie curse. Doing it once or twice so the audience gets the idea would be fine, but they literally do it on EVERY SINGLE ZOMBIE BITE. It completely ruins every single attack scene. Also not helping matters are the rockabilly songs that accompany every such scene, which are just completely out of place (it’s supposed to be the 19th century) and lousy songs to boot (though the theme song is rather rousing). And the zombies talk (source of more non-humor), which outside of simply saying “Brains!” I never quite shine to, especially when only a few of them talk while the others utter the usual moans and groans.

It’s a shame too, because the film concludes on a rather mean-spirited note that I loved, but tonally didn’t fit the sort of good natured humor of the rest of the film. It’s an idea that should have been saved for a horror comedy that was as morbidly funny for the entire running time.

It’s a pretty good Western though.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Earth Dies Screaming (1965)

MAY 31, 2008

GENRE: POST-APOCALYPTIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

George Romero has frequently listed Carnival of Souls as a source of inspiration for Night Of The Living Dead, but I don't think The Earth Dies Screaming has ever been name-checked. Which is surprising, because it is even more similar than Carnival, in my opinion. Both feature a group of folks holed up in a single location (a hotel), our hero is hated by another, balder survivor, and everyone's dead EXCEPT our heroes, not the other way around.

It's a pretty good movie to boot, despite an abrupt ending. The movie is only 62 minutes long, and with only 7 to go they haven't really begun fighting back or making any real plans to escape their predicament. But then, all of a sudden, the hero begins rambling about finding a radio transmission by doing some simple triangulation (which he does wrong), they drive over to the radio tower, blow it up, and the movie's over. Did they have it in their contract that the movie could only be 62 minutes long?

As for the zombies, they are also rather short-changed. Our villains, robotic men that may be from our own government (our being the British - the American government would NEVER do something so shady!) occasionally ray-gun someone, and they come back as staggering, mindless drones with giant contact lenses to white out their eyes. They don't eat anyone (dammit) but they are, for all intents and purposes, zombies. But their cumulative screentime is brief, even relative to the film's already-brief length. Speaking of the robots, the best moment in the film comes when this is discovered by our heroes. They kill one and see all the robot shit inside its corpse. "A robot!", the hero exclaims, "That makes sense!" He's not being sarcastic.

The opening scene is fantastic. We see the immediate results of the virus that has killed everyone. A guy driving a car dies and the car instantly beelines for a brick wall, a train conductor dies and the train smashes off the rails; a pilot dies and the plane suffers a low-budget plane crash (it goes behind some trees and then we see some smoke); etc. But just when you think that perhaps the virus is limited to killing only folks who are operating transportation vehicles, a few Brits in traditional bowler hats suddenly drop dead for good measure. If they chose to pad out the running time by just displaying an endless succession of folks dropping dead, I would fully endorse the decision.

I also like that the movie always has corpses lying around in the background. So many post-apocalyptic movies are lacking in this department; everyone's dead, but they are nowhere to be seen. It's one thing when it's a full on zombie film, but otherwise it's always been an issue of mine. Blame my morbid sense of humor added to my love of background extras (an organization for which my 'membership' has recently run out - if Navy NCIs ever needs the return of my dockworker character, they will have to recast).

Incidentally, the only reason I rented this film was because it came along with a movie I actually wanted titled Chosen Survivors. I thought the film was a horror movie, but I checked the IMDb before I sat down to watch it and it is listed as Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi or something. The trailer made me think it was horror, so I will have to watch it and decide whether it qualifies on a day that I have time to watch something else if not. If any of you fine folks have seen it - do you think it counts as horror? Supposedly killer bats are in there but I don't know if they are the focus or just the subject of a single sequence.

What say you?

Read more »

Post-Apocalyptic, Zombie,

{[['']]}

[Rec] (2007)

MAY 26, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Last night I was playing Halo with some fellow horror movie guys, and one of them asked me if I had seen [Rec]. I hadn’t, so it was a bit odd when I went over a different friend’s house today and he put it on for a post barbecue movie. I only wish the first friend had asked me if I had ever won the lottery, or nailed Rachel Nichols. Could have truly been a Memorial Day.

Anyway, he had thrown me off a bit by saying that it’s a movie in which the last 5 minutes are the best part. Therefore, I was assuming that it was a slow burn, that nothing happened at all for the first hour and twenty minutes. So I was happy to see that the first zombie attack happens about 15-20 minutes in, and that the pace more or less kept up (or got more intense) as the film went on. The story is told almost in real time, in fact, which makes it even more impressive (real time usually equals, well, nothing happening until the last five minutes).

Like all “found footage” movies, a big part of whether or not it works is providing a reasonable excuse for the character(s) to keep filming. Here, it’s the reporters’ disdain for the way that the cops are treating them (quarantining them in an apartment building, not telling them why, etc) that keeps them rolling – they want proof of how they were treated. It gets a bit odd when the zombies begin attacking in greater numbers (the cops more or less all dead by now) that they keep rolling, but that fabled final five minutes (more like 10 I think) again gives a good enough reason – the electricity goes out and they use the camera’s night vision to see. Works for me, though I usually don’t mind the rather illogical actions of the characters in these movies. I want to make a found footage movie in which as soon as the horror shit begins, the camera is thrown to the ground and you see fucking NOTHING for the next 40 minutes. And then I come back on camera, as myself, and say “Fuck you! If we don’t film there’s no movie!”

Unlike Diary of the Dead, it’s actually shot like someone shooting under heavy distress. Yes, that means shaki-cam and “what am I looking at” compositions, but you also won’t ever forget the type of movie you are watching (in Diary, I actually forgot it was “documentary footage” on more than one occasion, because Romero shot it quite beautifully). Also, strange for one of these movies, all of the footage is shot by one person, the news show’s cameraman, whose face we never actually see. It helps maintain the pace and tension, and also spares us from a scene in which we see the characters film each other filming.

As for that last five minutes? Yeah, it’s great. Terrifying in fact. However, an explanation for the zombie’s origin is shoehorned in, and not only does it kind of slow the film down at a really odd time, but it’s a lame explanation as well. Apparently the upcoming US remake changes this backstory (though it’s otherwise a shot for shot remake, from what I hear), so that’s good.

Then again, maybe the subtitles just made something else up, because it was the worst subtitling job I’ve ever seen (along with Botched’s idiotic ‘funny’ subtitles, this makes four films in a single week that were dampened by their subs. Everyone needs to watch Night Watch and see how it’s done!). In addition to numerous spelling errors and bizarre symbols on the head and tail of certain lines, it was also just badly translated to boot. At one point the character clearly says “Muy bien.” (“Very good.”) but the subs offer “Let’s go.” They also, like Frontière(s), often seem like they were run through a thesaurus beforehand, which results in characters saying things like “Use your agility!”. They are also confusingly presented and not in sync with the dialogue, which makes it hard to even tell who is saying what. And I can only assume that the person was saying ‘Keep filming, mother fucker!” and not “Keep filming for your fucking mother!”

Not sure when it’s coming out (I assume before the remake hits theaters, but who knows), but if you’re not sick of found footage yet, then you should dig it. It’s simple and fast, and that’s always a plus with me.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Dead Pit (1989)

APRIL 27, 2008

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (FANGORIA CONVENTION SCREENING)

Brett Leonard is one of those directors who has somehow made a decent enough name for himself for a bunch of movies that aren’t very good. Lawnmower Man (his director’s cut version, anyway) is probably the only one that’s worth a 2nd view; otherwise if you have missed Hideaway, Virtuosity, Feed, or his first film, The Dead Pit, you’re not missing out on a goddamn thing.

Pit is slightly better than the others, however, due to its occasional low-budget charm, good locale, and a fun finale. Still, it’s a borderline chore to get to that 3rd act, as almost nothing happens other than a Dolph-ish Nazi ghoul occasionally killing folks. We are literally an hour in before any legit zombie action begins. Hell, even the goddamn credits are endless – I think we are about 10 minutes in before the final card appears. There are also several pointlessly long shots (someone leaves a shot and we hold on a blank wall for an additional 5 seconds) that help make the film feel slower than it already is.

Another thing that severely cripples the film is Cheryl Lawson, as the lead. She is, quite frankly, the worst actress ever assigned to carry a film. She moans or cries nearly every line she has, and can’t even pull off a good delivery on simple things like “Nice to meet you”. It’s astonishing that she was the best they could do; even on a low budget you would think that ANYONE would be able to be convincing at least once or twice during the film, but no such luck with her. And since there’s really only one other prominent cast member (a Nick Chinlund-y hardass), it’s a major issue.

Still though, once the hospital becomes overrun with zombies it improves, with some nice makeup gags and a much more lively pace. However, again, since there are really only two people on the “hero” side, it’s sort of lacking any real suspense or thrills, since we know they will be OK until the very end at least. And I like that it’s the rare zombie film in which there’s no open ending hinting at an apocalypse; other than the standard “one left” final scare, the zombies are entirely wiped out by the film’s best invention – a toppled water tower that has been blessed by a nun (for some reason holy water kills zombies in this movie. Whatever.).

This one is coming on DVD in a month or two, but I really can’t see myself ever wanting to watch it again. And they basically admitted at the screening that they plan to double dip, so don’t buy the single disc when it comes out, there’s a two disc on the way.

What say you?

Read more »

Zombie,

{[['']]}

Zombie Strippers (2008)

APRIL 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

Seven people. That’s how many I asked to accompany me to Zombie Strippers, and coincidentally it's also the number of people that declined. I can’t say I blame them – the screening was at the Sony lot, which is not convenient for anyone in LA, and thus not a very enticing drive (it’s the equivalent of being at 34th and Broadway in New York and asking someone to drive to the Moon). Also, it’s a movie called Zombie Strippers.

With that title I was expecting Troma levels of absurdity, nudity, and gore..ity. What I most certainly was NOT expecting was to be treated to Nietzsche quotes, lots of female empowerment metaphors, and some fairly obvious but still pretty funny topical humor (a news graphic pointing out that its currently 97 degrees in Alaska, for example). I should have known better; as I entered the screening room I was handed an “Existential Philosophy Primer” along with the press notes, and a Magic 8 Ball that didn’t work very well (every question I asked was answered with “Corner of the pyramid shaped answer box”).

I’ll get back to that later.

Honestly, the idea of melding a completely cheesy concept with some “deep” spiritual and philosophical ideas is pretty interesting, and on the page it more or less works. The best gag in the film comes when Jenna Jameson (surprisingly decent as a character who is never once required to take a cock up her ass), by then a zombie, reads from Nietzsche (as she did when she was alive) and says “Wow, this makes so much more sense now.” It’s a great line. There are a few others as well, and the humor surprisingly comes more from the dialogue than from zombie gags or whatever.

And here’s the weird thing. As I was watching the movie, I wrote down “Slaughter” in my notes, to remind me to bring up the fact that it reminded me of the movie The Slaughter, which also had bizarrely implemented sociological dialogue in the middle of what was a standard Evil Dead type movie. And guess what? SAME GUY! Jay Lee be his name, something that I had somehow forgotten, what with the 200 or so horror movies I have seen in between the two. The blend works much better here, and thankfully he didn’t have the characters turn meta in the film’s final 20 minutes like he did in his previous film. It’s definitely an improvement.

However, it just doesn’t come together as well as it should. Maybe Lee was spread too thin by directing, writing, editing, and shooting the film himself. The script is good (with some minor issues - the military plotline that takes up the beginning and the end of the film is almost completely ignored for the hour in between), but his editing and shooting are mediocre at best. In particular, it seems very disconnected – shots don’t cut together very well, and it always seems like things were shot weeks apart (which they are, on almost all movies, but we’re not supposed to notice it). Also, and this may be better on DVD, but the digital look of the film was lousy. The lighting in particular made every character look like they were composited into the background. And hell, maybe they WERE in some cases, but I don’t know one would need to shoot two actors in front of a greenscreen so they could add in a bookshelf later. This is apparently a Lee staple, as Slaughter also had terrible compositing.

It’s also very difficult to understand how much time has gone by. In another nice surprise, the film wasn’t a “a bar full of zombies fights off the survivors all in one night” type movie, a la Feast, Devil’s Den, Dusk Till Dawn, etc. But I can’t tell how long it DOES take place over, either. It seems like a few days, but everyone wears the same clothes. Do they just not leave? Again, this is the result of poor editing and such.

And someone needs to keep Robert Englund the fuck away from characters that run nightclubs. He fares far better here than in the Masters of Horror Dance of the Dead (still the absolute worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life), but he just doesn’t work as well as a caricature, and the environment does him no favors either. He doesn’t have to play Freddy all his life (he is brilliant as the Sam Loomis type in Behind the Mask, for example), but some roles are just not a good fit for him. And it’s more of a shame when you consider the film’s technical limitations – an unknown actor without a (relatively) big salary would probably allocated more cash for an editor or better CG (which is at least consistently unimpressive; it’s better than when a VFX team blows their wad on the first couple of shots and then the rest of the movie is atrocious). However, there are a few good kills with practical effects work, especially a nice head ripping around the halfway mark.

As for the 8 ball? There’s a scene where Jameson’s zombie places a few billiard balls up her vagina and then shoots them out at the zombie she’s fighting with (this is where the female empowerment comes in - they are basically fighting for supremacy). So even the marketing for the film is strangely conflicted – they give us Nietzsche Cliff’s Notes and an 8 ball meant to simulate the one that gets shot out of a porn star’s key asset at the end of the film. I'll give it this much: this is the least clichéd horror movie of the year, if nothing else.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Mulberry St (2006)

APRIL 1, 2008

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

No it’s not an April Fool’s joke (I did enough of those on my other sites): the After Dark film Mulberry St. is by far the best they have offered this year (so far) and ranks up there with Gravedancers as the best film with any sort of ties to the company (don’t forget non-festival offerings like Skinwalkers and Captivity!), period.

It’s also one of the few films in the festival (good or bad) that I can genuinely dub “independent”. Unearthed, or even Gravedancers, don’t really strike me as independent films. They have big actors (well, big for horror films), budgets of a million or more, myriad producers, etc. To me, an independent film is one that quite frankly wouldn’t be made if the director decided not to do it, populated with people you haven't seen in Saw sequels. If Matt Leutwyler decided to walk off Unearthed, once Emmanuelle Vaugier and Luke Goss had already signed on to do it, you can bet that someone else would take his place. But if director Jim Mickle (who wrote the film along with Nick Damici, who plays the lead) gave up on it, it’s pretty likely that Mulberry would never be completed. And that would be a shame.

Ostensibly a zombie movie, Mickle does a good job of selling the idea that New York is under quarantine. Since he’s not exactly Francis Lawrence, he can’t really shut down whole areas of the city, so he sells these ideas via a near constant stream of news and TV broadcasts that mix footage from what I assume is from 9/11, the blackout, etc., along with standard “quick no one’s around let’s film this street” type stuff. It works well. Most of the action is confined to a single apartment building, and thus doesn’t require such extravagant shots like a deserted Times Square in order to get the point across.

The cast is a huge part of that success. With one exception, I don’t doubt for a second that any of these characters (mostly blue collar types) are genuine, hard-working New Yorkers who get caught up in a horror movie plot. Damici in particular is a fantastic lead, and carries the film effortlessly. Big actors wouldn’t work for this particular movie. I always hate when I’d see a Schwarzenegger movie that tried to pass him off as a regular family/working man (like 6th Day), because there’s no way in hell I can believe him as anything but a larger than life character. Even a character actor like Ed Harris wouldn’t be as effective in this particular film, because it would be harder to sell the whole “New York is quarantined” idea. I know Ed Harris is not a New Yorker (well, maybe he is, but you know what I mean), so I’d be less inclined to believe he was trapped in Harlem without being able to actually SEE the city being closed off. But this guy, who I don’t know from Adam? I buy it. Even Larry Fessenden, the patron saint of indie horror, pops up in a quick cameo, and it doesn’t distract from the illusion.

The only exception is the girl playing his daughter. While not a bad actress per se, she didn’t really feel as genuine as the others, seeming more like an actress playing a role than an actual person (ironic since her resume is one of the less prolific – hell, I’ve actually SEEN Damici in other films and didn’t recognize him). Her scenes also take place around the city, and in these scenes the small budget and obvious lack of an actual quarantine begin to become a bit more apparent. Luckily, the apartment stuff takes up the bulk of the film, so it’s not really a big deal.

It’s also smartly paced. The first 40 minutes are like old Cronenberg in a way, with just the feeling of impending dread instead of in your face gore sequences. We just see these guys going about their day, with minor mentions of rat problems and such sort of presented in the background. Then the 2nd half of the film (it’s only 82 minutes long, hurrah!) is an almost nonstop series of ‘zombie’ attacks (they’re more like the ratty vampire things from Dusk Till Dawn), and despite the low budget, we are treated to some good action and gore. Not to mention some unique cinematography; there’s a great camera angle from the top of a door that the monsters are trying to open, so the shot slides back and forth along with the budging door. Nice stuff.

It’s also one of the few modern horror movies to deal with any sort of social commentary. Greedy land developers and such are given their due, the heroes of the film are hard-working blue collar types who are just trying to survive. Sure, it’s hardly original, but since so few modern horror films (especially the ones Mulberry is lumped with) have anything to say, it SEEMS original.

The DVD comes with what seems like a substantial amount of extras, but sadly they are not really much to write blogs about. The video quality is poor on several, resulting in a “What the hell am I looking at?” feeling on the outtakes and makeup test portions. A pair of deleted scenes are wisely cut, and the sketches/storyboards are only of minor interest. Still, the film itself is the real bonus. This is exactly the type of film After Dark SHOULD be releasing (in the festival or not) – true independent films that would be otherwise lost on the video shelves without the promotion AD gave them. You think something like Tooth And Nail, with Michael Madsen, Vinnie Jones, etc. would completely disappear if not for After Dark? No way in hell. But movies like this, with no stars, no big effects to promote, etc.? If I wasn’t watching a horror movie every day I’d probably never give it a second glance. Hopefully, if they do a 3rd festival, AD seeks out more truly independent films like Mulberry and gives them the recognition they would not only otherwise not receive, but undeniably deserve.

What say you?

Read more »

After Dark Fest, Independent, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Day Of The Dead (2008)

MARCH 30, 2008

GENRE: REMAKE, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SPECIAL SCREENING)

You might wonder why this is a Non-Canon Review... that’s because I saw the Day of the Dead remake last fall at a test screening, and didn’t review it on the basis that A. I already had a review for that day and B. it wasn’t finished. My rule is, unless I love the movie almost completely (such as Repo), or it’s a complete, un-savable abomination (like Invasion), I wait for the final cut out of respect for the filmmakers. Plus, one or two scenes I like may be removed, thus making the film weaker, or one or two scenes I really hate might also be removed, making the film better.

And that was exactly the case with Day. This cut was much improved, even though only minor things were changed. More importantly, and this is the same way I felt when I saw it before, I really don’t get why this movie is being ripped to shreds on Aintitcool and such. I have watched at LEAST three zombie movies that are far worse just for HMAD, not to mention all of the ones I had seen before that were far more worthy of being raked over the coals. It’s certainly not a perfect film, but I don’t think anyone involved with this version of Day set out to make anything but a goofy, fun, action-zombie movie. Which is exactly what it is.

The irony is, Romero’s original is hardly beloved by the general horror fanbase, many of whom consider it boring and cheap. I happen to really like it (though not as much as Night or Dawn), but after I learned my lesson with the Dawn remake, I knew not to damn this one before I saw it. Sadly, it seems others don’t feel the same; even those who liked the Dawn remake seem to hate on this one for the same types of things that film had in spades (fast zombies, emphasis on action, younger cast, etc). It baffles me when people hate a remake for simply being a remake to begin with, but even moreso when it’s a film relatively few people defend anyway (though to be fair it’s been thankfully re-evalauted in recent years). It seems like people just wanted to hate this movie for the hell of it, regardless of reason. I even read a review from guy who seemed to primarily hate the movie because a lot of it didn’t take place during the day. Oh yeah, genius? Night takes place over 24 hrs, and Dawn takes place over several months. And the original Day takes place over the course of a week or so. So go fuck yourself!

Screenwriter Jeffrey Reddick did a Q&A after the screening, and revealed that originally his script had more in common with the original film, but due to rights issues, producer/director wishes, etc, pretty much all of those things were lost (he also dislikes the ceiling zombie as much as everyone else – “not my idea”). So, like Dawn 04, this is basically the same concept as the original (military, zombies, quarantine), but is otherwise its own movie, and it should be judged as such. Unlike other remakes, you certainly can’t accuse Reddick or Steve Miner for plagiarizing the original – there’s literally nothing repeated other than a few character names.

(Speaking of which, Ving Rhames plays Rhodes. He is NOT playing his Dawn character. However, Joe Pilato, who played Rhodes in the original Day, also appeared in the original Dawn as a different character, so in a strange sort of way, it’s fitting).

So what works, and what doesn’t? Well, there are some fantastic zombie gags, particularly the demise of Mena Suvari’s mother, which had the entire crowd cheering. And it’s certainly a step up from the original in action; once people begin turning into zombies, the film is almost nonstop action until the end. And the ensemble cast is good, a nice mixture of teens, adults, and older folks (Ian McNeice is a hoot as a radio DJ). Christa Campbell is a bit oddly cast as a mother (with a husband that looks twice her age), but who the fuck cares? She’s in the movie, which is good enough for me.

As for the humor itself, it’s pretty hit or miss. “I’ll give you some money...” (see the movie for context) is possibly the funniest line of the year, and McNeice also gets in a few good lines. Sadly, Nick Cannon is given the bulk of the ‘jokes’, and his racially tinged (and mostly improvised, according to Reddick) one-liners grow tiresome after a while (“Why do white people always want to split up?” is the biggest groaner – don’t ALL dumb horror movie characters always split up, regardless of race?). But he gets eaten, so it works out. Also, the editing is a bit too Halloween 6-y for my tastes - every time the action cuts to a radio station (where a few characters have holed up), we are given flash edits and Avid farts. They also crank the film speed on a lot of the zombie attack scenes, not always to a successful degree. It’s nowhere near as annoying as House of the Dead, lest you start to get the wrong idea.

Most importantly, the movie is just fun. I had a blast watching it with a big crowd, and it will play best when you have your buddies with you (and maybe a beer or two), even at home. It’s fast paced without being incoherent, most of the CG is good (it’s about a 50/50 split between CG and practical effects), the characters are likable (even Cannon is somewhat endearing), and best of all, it’s its own movie. Is Romero’s better? No (well, YES, but that’s not the point), it’s just different. Had they intended to make a film as serious and thought-provoking as Romero’s original, then this would be a colossal failure. But they wanted to make the movie fun, action packed, and a sort of roller coaster ride. And in that regard, the film is a success. Like Black Xmas, it’s OK to dislike it, but comparing it to a film that shares only a title is insulting to both films, if you ask me.

At the end of the screening we all got a DVD of the movie (with a lenticular cover!). Since I got two (who said being married isn’t beneficial?), I will give away one to a lucky reader! Just write in the comments why you would like a copy, and I’ll pick the winner (considering the abysmal number of entries for previous contests, I’m guessing it won’t be hard). Contest ends in 10 days (when this review is no longer on the main page). Good luck!

What say you?

Read more »

Non Canon, Remake, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Night Of The Creeps (1986)

MARCH 21, 2008

GENRE: ALIEN, COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

As much as I love James Gunn for Dawn of the Dead and Slither, I can’t say I really believe him when he says that he never saw Night of the Creeps before he wrote Slither. There are too many similarities to chalk it up to coincidence: the arrival of the parasite, the manner in which they ‘infiltrate’ humans, the way that infected humans look... come on now. He at least read the IMDb synopsis.

Doesn’t matter, because both movies are a blast, and I’m happy to have both. Creeps only has one major problem – the acting of Jason “Worst Rusty Ever” Lively, but it’s not even nearly enough to cripple the film, and you can even pretend it was intentionally bad acting to fit in with the corniness of old 50s movies (his appearance as Rusty confirms that no, he just can’t act worth a shit).

Otherwise this is a perfect B horror-comedy. Tom Atkins is possibly more awesome here than he is in Halloween III, which is saying quite a lot. His default phone greeting (“Thrill me”) is amazing enough for me to use it in real life on occasion (though I often reverse the way Rusty says it, and go“Thrill me, detective” instead. It’s less awkward.). The tagline is of course the stuff of legend (“The good news is....”). There’s another line that I think is just as good, involving a flamethrower. It’s the type of movie you will quote over and over.

It’s also a batshit movie. The first 20 minutes have alien wars, rotted zombies, a science project that requires a bunch of brains to be stored in the cellar, David Paymer running another science experiment in a college lab, a serial killer... holy shit!

The movie also features a guy named Steve Marshall, playing JC, Rusty’s best friend. However, until now I thought he was the guy from Nightmare on Elm St 3 who was in a wheelchair. He’s not. That guy’s name is Ira Heiden. I apologize to both unknown 80s actors.

Like Monster Squad, the movie is essentially over before you know it (the structure is much better though), but it’s fun from start to finish, and it’s a real shame that it’s STILL not on DVD, because there’s probably a lot of kids who have never seen it (even more of a shame when you consider they probably love Slither to death). I’ll scream like a banshee the day Anchor Bay or one of those guys manages to get this one a nice special edition a la Squad, because in my opinion it’s even more deserving of one.

What say you?

Read more »

Alien, Comedic, Non Canon, Zombie,

{[['']]}

King Of The Zombies

FEBRUARY 1, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

“If there’s one thing that I don’t want to be twice, zombies is both of them.”

So says Jeff, the delightfully stereotypical black guy who is a servant to the “hero” of King Of The Zombies. Throughout the film he pretty much does everything you’d expect an African American character to do in a film from the era, and damned if it doesn’t get a little offensive at times. Especially since I’m pretty sure a lot of it is supposed to be played for laughs - when he’s not making bug eyed faces, he’s just hamming it up for no apparent reason.

The concept of the film is fine, some folks crash on an island and discover that the inhabitants are a bit weird (would make a great TV show!). However, I could tell from the plane crash that this one was gone be a lot of talk and no action. In the cheesiest ‘crash’ scene ever, the guys in the plane just suddenly scream (half-assed) and then sort of lean sideways in their seats (also half-assed). Then there’s a fade, and we see everyone was tossed from the plane in the most gentle manner possible (not even a scratch) but the plane looks like it was cut in half. Obviously they didn’t have CG and all that back in the day, but it seems like they weren’t even trying to sell the idea of the crash. So it’s not much of a surprise that a good chunk of the next hour is just folks talking about the island, talking about zombies, talking about earrings... It doesn't help that the bad guy is a boring lout (the role was intended for Lugosi - who would have at least been a bit more entertaining).

Plus, the humor never works once in the film, which is a problem when the Jeff character is constantly trying to be funny. The shtick may have worked back then for bigoted white people, but now it’s just sort of offensive all around. It doesn’t help that he seems to be the only guy in the movie with half a brain, and he is constantly dismissed by his two alleged friends (they don’t even care when he’s not given a drink or a decent bed). I know it was how things were, but it’s still a major distraction – when I watch a budget pack horror movie, I want to be focusing on the boring and stupid plot, not racial stereotypes!

In fact, the only actual ‘horror’ in the film comes at the end, during the typical voodoo dance/fire/guys in masks scene from a million other movies of its type (I had a very strong West Of Zanzibar flashback). The zombies are told to attack the hero, but he says “no, attack the bad guy” (not an exact quote) and pretty much immediately, they do. It’s a nice little scene. And it’s preceded by a hilarious bit where Jeff is looking for a hidden entrance to the voodoo room. “How did I get in there?” he ponders, and leans against the wall. Then, all of a sudden, the film speed is cranked up, and Jeff does this odd sort of stop-motion looking thing as he accidentally discovers the way inside. It’s fucking hilarious.

There’s also this “suspense” scene, as the hero looks for his friend and is watched by one of the zombies. Unfortunately, in order for the scene to work as filmed, you have to assume the hero is retarded, or blind:

He doesn’t see the guy on the right side of the image. Then he walks around the bend and-

-still doesn’t see him. Jesus.

So I guess if you are interested in seeing an early horror/comedy that demonstrates how African Americans were portrayed in films of the era, by all means check this out. Otherwise, unless you’re a budget pack completist, there’s very little to recommend here.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Horror Classics, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Demons (1985)

JANUARY 13, 2008

GENRE: ITALIAN, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I like that I have now gone to see revival screenings of Demons twice at the same theater, and both times I have slept through more or less the exact same parts. In fact, along with falling asleep watching it at home about two years ago, it's been so long since I've seen the whole thing that I can no longer remember how the 4 cokehead characters die. I miss it every single time.

That is not a blight on the film though. Midnight = BC goes to sleep. I actually saw more of it than I expected this time, since I was pretty close to nodding off before the damn thing even started. Being the New Beverly, the film was almost an hour late starting. In fact, they are currently remodeling the theater, and my friend commented "Maybe they will buy a new clock." Since I was half asleep and a tad buzzed, this was the funniest thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, like I was saying, it's not that I don't like the movie. Quite the contrary, it is one of my favorite Italian horror movies. Seeing it in a theater only adds to the fun. The character of Tony (aka the black pimp dude) is one of the most delightful assholes ever put into a film. There's a scene where he's just yelling at everyone to stop being lazy, and it looks like he's about to have a heart attack. The fact that he's not really doing anything makes it breathtaking. And then he gets eaten (though this doesn't stop him from being in Demons 2 as a guy with a different name but who is otherwise the exact same guy). My other favorite character is the middle aged guy who's such a cheapskate that he takes his wife to a free movie screening for their anniversary. I'm sure I'll eventually do the same goddamn thing, but I doubt I'll randomly yell out "WHORES! You can tell them a mile away!" during the evening.

Of course, one of the most baffling moments in cinematic history occurs in this film, when a helicopter suddenly falls through the ceiling of the theater, allowing our heroes to escape. There's Deus Ex Machinas, and then there's this helicopter, somewhere above it. On the commentary track, someone asks Lamberto Bava what is going on, and he's like "I don't know". Hahahaha, oh man. Love.

I also like that the movie features the first (and, as far as you know, last) villainous free movie pass guy in a film. Anyone familiar with these folks (in LA you see them more often than you see your own friends) can appreciate the notion that any one of them are one "no thanks!" away from going apeshit and trying to kill you on a roof while wearing a Phantom of the Opera mask.

You may have noticed that I have labeled this movie a zombie film. What else would you call it? The "demons" become that way when they are bitten by another demon, and they gather in groups and attack folks in a gory fashion. That's a zombie movie, as far as Horror Movie A Day genre labeling is concerned.

The fact that I don't own this (or the sequel, which I like almost as much) on DVD sort of upsets me. I need to fix that. But if you have never seen it, I strongly urge you to do so as soon as possible, and if you ever get the chance to see it in a theater, then there should be no reason for you not to attend. It's not often you find yourself in a theater watching a movie about people going to see a movie, and even less often you see that movie with some terrible dubbing and a strangely American soundtrack.

What say you?

Read more »

Italian, Non Canon, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Revolt Of The Zombies

JANUARY 4, 2008

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

I can remember the running time of every Halloween sequel, the number of kills in each Friday the 13th movie, and the phone number of my friend from grade school who I haven’t called since, well, grade school. And yet for the life of me, I can never remember that any “zombie” movie made prior to Night of the Living Dead will have absolutely nothing to do with flesh eaters. This is why I get so easily bored with a film like Revolt Of The Zombies, though by any account (that I have found on the IMDb anyway) this one’s a dud with or without expectations of cannibalism.

In 61 minutes, I was only occasionally amused, usually by odd lines delivered by bad actors, such as “Gentlemen, the Priest was murdered. Murdered by someone who did not want the Allies to benefit by his power to create robot soldiers.” There’s also a hilarious scene where someone checks an injured person’s pulse. This is standard movie behavior; checking the pulse to see if the guy is unconscious or dead. All well and good, except the injured party is TALKING throughout the scene, rendering the pulse checking a bit pointless. Besides that, the only highlight is Bela Lugosi, or at least his eyes, which are super-imposed over about 40% of the film (it’s an image taken from the superior White Zombie, which this film is a sort-of sequel to, but has no actual connection except for the damn eyes):

In fact, the “Revolt” doesn’t even occur until the film’s final two minutes, and making matters stupider, they aren’t even in their zombie state at the time! Talk about a misleading title.

No, seriously, go talk about misleading titles. Beats watching this movie.

So what DOES happen in the film? Well, most of it is comprised of boring, talky scenes where the characters constantly “mock” one another. I use mock in quotes because their jokes seem quite funny to the other characters, but don’t seem particularly funny to me, the viewer, who doesn’t know and thus far doesn’t care about any of these assholes. They all sound like the jokes your girlfriend’s lame but well-meaning uncle might make at dinner the first time you meet him, and you’re just sort of “what the FUCK does that mean?” while smiling politely and eating your stuffing.

Oh well, it’s good to know that even in the golden age of horror cinema, there was still a few turkeys to balance things out and forever ensure that the horror genre would be more miss than hit. Thanks, guys.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror Classics, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Boy Eats Girl

DECEMBER 22, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

In an odd way, it's kind of a bummer that Shaun Of The Dead is so damn good, because every "funny zombie" movie that has come along since gets compared to it, and usually unfavorably. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a review of Boy Eats Girl that DOESN'T mention Edgar Wright's film, which must be particularly annoying for the filmmakers.

Luckily for them, their film is quite good. In fact the biggest complaint I have about it is that it is too short. Running only 80 minutes with credits, the movie could have used another setpiece and maybe a tad more character time, but it works without them. It's funny when it's supposed to be, with a very good hit/miss ratio for the gags (I could do without a few of his geeky friends' quips). Almost all of the characters are likable, even the bitchy girl who you're supposed to hate is somewhat endearing (mainly for her response to "I'll eat you myself!"), and since the movie doesn't really spend a lot of time 'getting to know' them, that's high praise for the (mostly no-name) actors playing them. The lead in particular is quite good (and I am sure this is just coincidence, but he actually resembles Edgar Wright), pulling off the raging zombie version just as well as the lovesick emo kid version.

On that note, I'd like to point out the soundtrack: it's great! If you like pop rock. If not, oooh boy you'll hate this soundtrack. But for the rest of us, it's a treasure trove of UK pop.

My only other complaint is, again, the amount of production company logos (counting them, this movie is really only like 70 minutes!). There's a half dozen animated logos, and then EVERY SINGLE ONE IS REPEATED during the opening credit crawl!! Why, why why all of these goddamn things are at the top of the film is beyond me. On TV shows, the logos are shown at the END. Would you want to hear "Sit Ubu sit" every time you wanted to watch an episode of Family Ties? Of course not, that's why it's at the end, so you can shut it off. I've said it before - no one cares whose production companies worked on it except for the people whose production companies worked on it. If you just want to suck yourselves off, for the love of Christ stick it at the end of the film so people who just want to watch a movie don't have to sit through this crap to satisfy your whimsy. In this case, Lionsgate should be the only one at the top. Even though they didn't work on it, they are the ones directly responsible for distributing it in a manner that allowed me to see it in the comfort of my own home. I thank them in advance; if the movie is good I can see what companies 'presented' it at the end. Imagine if you put a CD in and before the first song came on, you had to listen to the names of all the guys who pro-tooled it to hell.

Kind of bummed the DVD has no extras though. Alexander gets 3 2-disc releases and this movie doesn't even get a blooper reel??? Then again, as it is a "foreign" film (Ireland, I believe), perhaps the Region 2 release has the usual stuff... anyone know? I'm too lazy to go look.

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Scarecrows

DECEMBER 16, 2007

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

“Hey Curry: how are we gonna live in Mexico, if we’re dead?”

That line is hilarious, but unfortunately, like about 80% of the (less funny) dialogue in Scarecrows, it is spoken by an off-screen actor. It’s really jarring to hear a bunch of disembodied voices over shots of houses, cornfields, and airplanes throughout the film, and you never really get used to it.

This is a shame, because otherwise, this movie’s pretty good. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Quentin Tarantino and/or Simon Barrett are fans of the film, since both From Dusk Till Dawn and Barrett's Dead Birds (a great flick, if you haven’t seen it yet you should) are very similar (Birds moreso than Dawn), and in certain aspects, superior. Scarecrows has a father and daughter taken hostage by the robbers (like Dawn) and is a very atmospheric, low-key effort set entirely in a farmhouse (like Birds). And both are about robbers being killed by monsters (note - I am dubbing this a zombie film because the guys that get killed by the scarecrows come back as murderous, mindless drone things).

I was surprised to see Peter Deming’s name in the credits, as he is one of the few directors of photography whose name means a damn thing to me (he also shot the Scream sequels, Evil Dead 2, From Hell, and a few David Lynch films). His career is uneven at best (he also shot Son In Law and Joe’s Apartment), but he does great work here. The shots of the scarecrows creep me out throughout the film. Take a note, Lionsgate – killer scarecrows CAN be scary!!!

And this guy is awesome.

It’s sort of a shame that writer/director William Wesley has only one other film to his name (Route 666, which was a complete disappointment, to put it mildly). He knows how to stage scenes and keep a film moving despite an obvious low budget (I suspect many of the voiceovers are the result of needing to deliver exposition without filming a whole scene), and it would be good to see what he could pull off with the necessary resources. None of the actors are particularly memorable, but they aren’t bad either (one guy kind of looks like Nathan Fillion, which is always a plus).

Also the dog in the film is “awwww” worthy.

What say you?

Read more »

Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Slaughter

NOVEMBER 11, 2007

GENRE: WEIRD, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I rented The Slaughter a few days ago, and as usual I had never heard of it. I didn’t even bother reading the back of the DVD; I could tell it was a horror movie, so that’s all I needed to warrant a viewing. But as the film unraveled, I realized that no description could do this utterly bizarre movie any justice.

See, for the first hour or so, the film is a standard Evil Dead ripoff, with some light slasher elements thrown in for good measure (and, yes, yet again, fucking real estate 'intrigue'). The characters are pretty annoying, and for whatever reason, writer Jay Lee saw fit to inject the film with lots and lots of pointless sociologically and psychologically tinged dialogue. Instead of the usual drivel these types of characters usually spout out, we get debates about socialism and free speech and the like. At one point, someone points out that reading the Necronomicon-esque book out loud is the worst idea since the Bush administration (and then they clarify by pointing out they mean George W. Bush). What the hell all of this stuff is doing in the middle of a horror movie is beyond me. The same type of crap helped to make the execrable Drive Thru even worse. If it had any bearing on the plot, or even the theme, it would be fine, but using it just to try to make your characters seem a bit smarter, or as an attempt to make your film seem more relevant, is fucking stupid.

Then, something sort of strangely wonderful happens. With 3 kids left, the film suddenly becomes an ironic parody; the very type of humor I use in my (as yet unproduced) animated show Fright Reviews. The characters don’t care if they are in danger, or that their friends are dead, they begin arguing about trivial matters when they are under attack by zombies, and even ponder whether the zombies are “Romero style” or the “new, fast kind”. Had the entire film been presented in this manner, I’d probably be declaring it the best of the year, but since it comes so jarringly so late into the film, it’s just baffling and nowhere near as funny as it would be if you hadn’t watched the hour that preceded it.

Now, it’s not that the film isn’t funny before then. No, in fact it’s hilarious, albeit unintentionally so. We have a guy who gets so high that he turns homosexual, a character staring at some dirt and screaming, and dialogue like “He’s a hard worker AND he busts his ass!” We are also witness to some of the worst compositing/rotoscoping work I have ever seen in a film, low-budget or not:

Also, during the opening titles, the film has the rather strange final credit “A film by Jay Lee” in lieu of pointing out that he wrote, directed, shot, and edited it. It’s admirable that he did so much (and it IS pretty well shot, at any rate), but perhaps the film would have been improved if he hadn’t spread himself so thin. It’s certainly not horrible, but the strange tonal shift during the third act, worthless “commentary” dialogue, the pitiful CG work, and rather slow first act make it hard to recommend as anything but a curiosity.

However, if you like the humor of the final 20 minutes, please write your congressman, or any producers/agents you may know, and tell them to carry Fright Reviews.

What say you?

Read more »

Weird, Zombie,

{[['']]}