What the world needed, a remake of George A. Romero's 1973 twist on the zombie flick. I could listen to an argument for a remake of Return of the Living Dead or even Dawn of the Dead. Remaking this 1980's video store standby is like covering Beatles tunes but only focusing on Yellow Submarine. This wasn't his best work and was far from being worthy of further attention.

Timothy Olyphant (A Perfect Getaway) and Radha Mitchell (Rouge) star as David and Judy Dutten , an Iowan couple. He is the local sheriff. She is the local sheriff's pregnant wife who is there purely as a means of putting the sheriff in continual and needless peril. A strange series of horrific murders hit their small town in the course of a couple of days. Soon the whole town is frenzied with violent psychopaths. A toxin has entered the water supply turning everyone insane. The whole community quickly descends into being a Darwinian carnival.

The townsfolk slaughter one another and eventually the State shows up and does what the State does best - it screws the whole thing to a point of complete collapse. Given how our Government works, this film gets the State's response completely wrong. In the movie the soldiers show up inside of a few days. In reality this would have gone on for another month before a commission would be set up to talk about the possibility of a response to a dangerous neurotoxin infecting a population. The zombies would have time to become domesticated and vote one of themselves mayor before our Government would step foot in the Midwest.*

The film is a paint-by-numbers affair with no surprises and nothing original. It is pap. There isn't anything wrong with the performances or even the execution (other than a reliance on gore - but you have to excuse that since that's the reason for making the movie). The problem with the film is that it is so painfully unoriginal. Even the DVD cover isn't new. The dragging of the pitchfork is a direct homage to the Coen Brother's Blood Simple where the implement was a shovel being dragging along asphalt.

You do not need to see this movie, so don't. It is a time waster and you have more to do with yourself than waste your time.


* - Unless it was Primary Season - this is Iowa after all.





Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
28 Days Later (2002)
Dead Snow (2009)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Beyond Hollywood
Film Freak Central



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, George A Romero, movie review, Radha Mitchell, remake, Timothy Olyphant, zombie

Ángela Vidal (Manuela Velasco), a fresh-faced, young, reporter and her cameraman Pablo are shooting a video piece for a late-night show. She is spending time in a firehouse, interviewing the firemen and generally getting in the way. Ángela and Pablo tag along when the firemen are called out. They all enter an apartment building, responding to the reports of a disturbance.

What turns out to be a run-of-the-mill call turns into a nightmare when it becomes apparent that the residents of the apartment building are being infected by a mysterious disease which turns them into...let's all say it together - ZOMBIES. Authorities quarantine the building with Ángela, Pablo and the firemen inside.

The entire film is shot through Pablo's camera. This over-used gimmick actually works in this instance. First, because its logical. Second, directors Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza make use of the limited viewpoint of the camera to their benefit. Pablo can only catch so much so as things begin to hit the fan, his frenzied shots allow for some good surprises. It also lends a sense of reality to the proceedings which is notably effective.

Balagueró and Plaza set up the one camera gimmick by spending time with Ángela in the firehouse before the call. She is shown not just doing her on-the-spot interviews but also in her more natural moment between takes. By the time the call comes, the audience has become familiar with the use of the camera, and with Pablo as a character even though he is rarely seen.

The duo directors also effectively build their story. Things begin with some confusion which slowly turns to concern. The horror, the loss of hope, is saved for the end. This is a slow boil, but when it begins to cook it is fantastic.

The downside is the insertion of an anti-Christian message at the end of the film. It is a little like enjoying a nice dance with someone only to have the slap you as you're walking off the dance floor. To be fair, I think most people won't fully digest the message being presented. It is shoehorned in at a moment of high tension. It is there however.

Overall, this is a fun, inventive film worth a look if you don't mind a little gore and lots of subtitles.


Related Reviews:
Horror movies
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
The Exorcist (1973)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Pop Matters
The Flickering Wall




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, horror, movie review, zombie

It should be obvious that I don't recommend the movie. Look at the top of your browser, read the description of my site and then look at the DVD cover. Yeah, this ain't one I'm giving to mother at Christmas.

With that out of the way...

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I was very surprised by this movie. It is rare for me to be wrong with my estimations when I write about trailers.

In this case, I was wrong.

Yes, I understand that I am talking about a movie about a bunch of goofballs who awaken Nazi zombies on a ski trip. The fact is that even though this is a stupid, frivolous gore-fest, there is much to find impressive.

Co-writer/Director Tommy Wirkola doesn't have much to work with. His premise is silly and his resources don't appear to be plentiful. He pulls some notable moments out of what should be a terrible, horrible, miserable movie. Wirkola actually has some creepy shots intermixed throughout the film as well. This is remarkable when you remember we're talking about NAZI ZOMBIES. It's like being successful with a movie about zombie clowns.

Wirkola doesn't succeed on his own. His cast is quite strong, again considering the kind of movie we're talking about. There isn't a weak link, but of the whole crew, Charlotte Frogner was the stand out for me. In a simple horror movie such as this, projecting terror is key. She has easy screen presence and was very effective in her role.

Sheesh, I feel like such a dork praising some one's performance as zombie fodder, but there it is.

This is a gory film. Wirkola delivers plenty of blood and guts and in some instances he does so with some cleverness. It is safe to say that if you're squeamish, this isn't for you. Then again, you're probably not in danger of watching this in the first place.

I am a hopeless fan of zombie movies. Yes, I am a Christian but I can't help myself. This makes me pathetic, but it also makes me a connoisseur. This is well above average for the genre and is one of the better zombie flicks I've seen in a few years. It's on the same level as Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead but is far below 28 Days Later. Either way, it's a severed head and tails above the miserable nonsense George Romero has been depositing for the past few years.

To sum up, don't bother, this is a terrible zombie film with no redeeming values. As far as terrible zombie movies with no redeeming values go, this is one of the better ones in a long time. It certainly has me keeping my eye out for Wirkola's next film. A little more budget and a little less cheese and he might have something.




Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
The Omega Man (1971)
The Signal (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
28 Days Later Analysis
Beyond Hollywood



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: film, movie review, Nazis, zombie

Screenwriters: Scott Kosar (The Machinist) and Ray Wright (Pulse)
Director: Breck Eisner
Actors: Radha Mitchell (Rogue), Timothy Olyphant (Meet Bill) and Joe Anderson (The Ruins)

Labels: film, Joe Anderson, movie trailer, Radha Mitchell, remake, Timothy Olyphant, zombie

What the world needs, another indie zombie movie.

No really, bring it on. What the heck? If we're going to fritter away our civilization we may as well do so with some zombies.




Screenwriter: Tony Burgess
Director: Bruce McDonald (The Tracey Fragments)
Actors: Stephen McHattie (2012), Georgina Reilly and Lisa Houle

Labels: film, movie trailer, Stephen McHattie, zombie

Even with my love for all things zombie, I still have my standards.

This doesn't meet those standards.

Something tells me Tommy Wirkola has a picture of Uwe Boll hanging somewhere in his office.




Screenwriters: Stig Frode Henriksen and Tommy Wirkola
Director: Tommy Wirkola
Actors: Charlotte Frogner, Ørjan Gamst, Stig Frode Henriksen and Vegar Hoel

Labels: film, movie trailer, zombie

In 1968, George A. Romero offered up one of the great cinematic treats Night of the Living Dead.

In 2008, George A. Romero is still attempting to suckle on the teat of that success.

A group of horrible actors pretend to be a group of horrible filmmakers making a horror movie about the undead when they are interrupted by actual undead people. Anyone who loves bad acting, insipid dialog and fumbling political gestures will find plenty of all three here. On the other hand, if you want a good horror movie, or even a lukewarm zombie flick, you’re out of luck. This film, ironically is D.O.A.


Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
Planet Terror (2007)
The Signal (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The One-Line Review
Rolling Stone

Labels: film, George A Romero, movie review, zombie

If Robert Rodriguez, Quintin Tarantino, and I'll toss in Kevin Smith for good measure, stopped making movies today, the world would immediately become a better place. They each have been given power and praise well beyond their talents and each are a constant reminder of how low we've set the bar for the entertainment industry. To be fair, Tarantino is a legitimate talent but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy with a box of frogs and firecrackers. Its all about the reflexive thrill of what he thinks is cool without a thought to the consequences of how he entertains himself.

Rodriguez is the real fumbler out of the bunch. His track record is one of juvenile, morally retarded stinkbombs like Sin City, Spy-Kids 3-D: Game Over, Desperado and From Dusk Till Dawn. Of his works, Sin City at least had interesting visuals, although it was little more than a cinematic love letter to the low IQ set.

There, how's that for bias. Now on to the review.

I love zombie movies - love em'. I consider it a character flaw, but that's the truth. I love zombie movies and I hate - strongly hate Robert Rodriguez's abominable dip into the genre. Having this hack, this inept doofus create a zombie movie is my nightmare. Zombie flicks are stupid, brutal affairs and I didn't think it was possible to mess them up, they're so horrid how could you? This guy figures out a way to mess up a simple zombie flick.

This film's idiocy is beyond description. You almost have to watch the film to really understand how incredibly pathetic it actually is. Setting aside my distaste for Rodriguez's lack of any discernible talent, and taking this film on its own terms, it is a horrible, vile embarrassment. This is about the time the cinematic sycophants of the Gen-X loser brigade will chime in with "you just don't get it" or "hey, its a homage!" Listen, flat out, this film stinks. I understand this wasn't made to be great cinema - its supposed to be a bloodbath, gorefest with cheesy dialog and off kilter plotting, I get it. Even as a homage, its still an unwatchable circus of dumb. The only thing I can say about this film is that they got the low quality film making down, the grainy footage, scratched film, tinny audio, drifting focus, etc. The problem is that they didn't need to go to the extra effort of making this film look like a cheap piece of crap, it already succeeded just on its own.

Can't we please get a restraining order out to keep Rodriguez one hundred feet from any production meetings or film sets?


UPDATE: Zee, a patient reader, has noted that I avoid specifics in this review. She's points out that I claim that it's horrible but never explain how.

Fair criticism. Here we go:

Okay, before I get into this, I want to state upfront that yes, I understand clearly this was meant to be cheap, I get it. Even allowing for that, it still stinks.

Reasons Why Planet Terror is horrible and should be removed from society:

1. The various narrative parts don't match or flow. Even considering that the film was supposed to be poorly written, the disjointed storyline failed to build and simply limps along.

2. The film doesn't parody or mock the cheap films it's attempting to recall - it simply apes them neither adding to their cheesy charm nor does it fully mock them for their stupidity. In essence this is a painter making an awful knockoff of velvet paintings but ending up with nothing but another ugly velvet painting in the end. By not mocking the form or improving on their camp value, this whole production loses any point it may have had.

3. This movie really is nothing more than an effort to replicate crap cinema but here it still fails. The point is the poor and gratuitous use of blood and gore. This easy thrill should carry the movie - the gore is sloppy and uninteresting - even taken as pure camp the buckets of blood are so childishly handled and quickly become boring.

4. Again the gore - even taken for it's gross out factor it doesn't work. The elements that are there simply to be disgusting aren't.

5. The casting of Rose McGowan was a huge mistake. Yes, she can play role of a stripper with ease but anything more than basic emoting is beyond her skills. She can snarl her lines and shake her goods but that's about it. It's also a little distracting to think that all of the unneeded lingering shots of her butt, chest and legs were shot by her boyfriend. Is there anything more pathetic than a guy hiring his girlfriend?

6. The casting of Freddy Rodríguez was a huge mistake. He's supposed to be a tough guy but in every scene he looks like the weakest guy in the room. Tough guy lines coming out of that boyish face is almost laughable. Rodríguez lacks the confidence to back up his lines and when he spouts threats or lines establishing himself as a leader it all comes across as hollow acting.

7. Too many spokes in the wheel in regards to the number of characters and plots. Keeping in mind that this is supposed to be poorly written, the sheer mass of characters makes it impossible to really ever get into the action since the film has to swtich from scene to scene so frequenty, and does so with little regard to clairty. This isn't Shakespeare, but even cruddy student films are usually better constructed than this.

8. The ninety-five minute running time is absurd and the real reason why this thing doesn't work. This is a short film, or a string of short films, at best. By drawing the film out for so long Roderiguez has to push in so much filler it saps the movie of it's humor. Tarantino and Rodriguez let their egos get the better of them. Their ideas weren't interesting enough to fill a full length movie and they didn't have the self-restraint to see that. Edit this down to thirty minutes and you may have something...but that something still probably wouldn't be worth sitting through.

I hope this clarifies my opinion. Any time I get too wrapped up in beating up on something and forget to mention why, feel free to call me on it. Thanks to Zee for speaking up and keeping me honest.


Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
.

Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmCritic.com
Rotten Tomatos

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, Josh Brolin, movie review, Robert Rodriguez, Rose McGowan, zombie

Short Review: It has zombies, how bad can it be?




This could have been a brilliant film. As it stands, its still a darn good one. Don't fool yourself, this is big, sloppy, McMovie and the is plenty that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. So, if you're someone who notices things like that if the zombies are capable of setting traps they would have been doing so already to catch food and wouldn't have cannibalized their fellow man out of starvation, then you should be just fine.

Will Smith is precisely the right guy to lead this film. He's a solid lead actor and is capable of managing most of the film on his own. He engenders interest and sympathy as Robert Neville, a military scientist who is apparently the last man on earth after a cure for cancer goes sour and either kills the population or turns them into raging zombies. Smith's charisma carries the first half of the film where he is alone in the world with his dog. As the story picks up and the zombies are introduced his natural talent handling scenes where he is in peril is displayed. The other actors in the film are passable and fail to compete with Smith's performance. This isn't to imply Smith created a memorable piece of acting, the other roles are simply underwritten and were designed to make them into talking props. Even when the film is populated with multiple human characters it is still all about Neville.

Director Francis Lawrence (the man responsible for the unwatchable Constantine), manages the first half of the film well and sets up the destruction of mankind in effective flashbacks. Once the other characters, a woman and a small boy, are introduced the film stumbles a little. Their time together is so brief and lacking of any depth that the relationships never emerge. The woman and kid show up and that night the zombies attack. Its over before it begins. Also missing is the sense that Neville has been utterly alone for years. His first interactions with other humans is oddly handled. He throws a fit, which is an interesting reaction, but it isn't played as an ironic reaction, it comes off more as bad writing. This mixed with the brief respite before the zombies attack saps the film of some potentially vibrant character development.

The other downside of the film is the zombies themselves. They're infected humans who have been turned into growling, frantic rage-machines. In the original book by Richard Matheson, the infected speak to him from the darkness, he actually recognizes one of them as being his old friend. This interaction sets up a great dramatic tension that could have been played out with great effect in this production. They chose to ignore this in favor of having the infected be faceless ghouls. This choice drains the film of some key tools to drive any symbolism and/or dramatic tension. The idea of Neville being called after as he tries to get home in time, or having the infected attempt to lure him out at night seems like cinematic gold. The irony of his never ending loneliness being interrupted every night by the voices of the undead calling for his blood could have been riveting. As it stands, we're stuck with pale, bald growlers.

Overall, the film succeeds, but it could have been far better. As a McMovie, it entertains, retains a worthy message and closes with a satisfying conclusion. Yes, I'm one of the few critics who think this film ended well. Actually, the ending is nearly perfect from my point-of-view. Neville's Christ-like sacrifice and the prominent images of the church at the end of the movie are well-placed and make an important point. The original ending, the one in the final film is an alternative that was thankfully inserted, had Neville and the zombies coming to terms. Neville gives up the girl zombie to the head zombie guy who holds her gently. This original ending is the typical moral-relativist conclusion we see these days. This ending would have spoiled the sin and redemption through blood concepts so vividly displayed in the final close.

Should you see it? Sure. Particularly if you've ever sat through The Omega Man, the embarrassing Charlton Heston version of the same story. For all of the faults of this production, it didn't make the zombies into nonsense babbling hippies.


Cautions: It has zombies so there's plenty of violence. The violence is rather subdued and there isn't much gore. The language is rather tame as well.


Worldview: Exceedingly rare in Hollywood films is not only the mention of God by name but the instruction that he is concerned for humanity and works with us directly. Normally Hollywood deals with issues of faith in neutered language that fails to reveal any real conviction to anything real. This film stunningly breaks from that tradition. While Neville drives through an abandoned New York he casually passes a sign that reads "God still loves us". Presumptively, he has been passing by this obtuse sign of hope everyday since the apocalypse destroyed his world. This reminder of the endearing love God shows for his creation didn't make it into the film by accident. This is also the case with Neville's picture of himself on a magazine cover citing him as a "savior". The film sets Neville to be a surrogate Christ-figure, but one that has been distracted. He has been flummoxed by the apocalypse because he has insisted on seeing the devastation through the eyes of the material, through science. Employing science while ignoring the governing hand of God is like completing a jigsaw puzzle upside down. You can figure out how the pieces fit together but you're missing the beauty and function of the design. Neville struggles to find a man-made cure for the infection (sin) but is unable. When Neville finds Anna (who is reminiscent of the prophetess from Luke 36-38). She tells him that God still exists and that "he has a plan". Of course, meaning a plan to eradicate the infection/sin. In the end, Neville sacrifices himself and gives the cure for the infection/sin derived from his own blood, again he is a Christ-figure, to Anna who witnesses his sacrificial death. She then travels to a sanctuary where she closes the film telling of how Neville and his blood cure was indeed the savior of humanity. The Christian overtones to the film are unmistakable and wonderfully woven in without being to heavy-handed. Pay attention Christian filmmakers, the inclusion of faith is exactly how it should be done. Faith plays a critical role in the production but doesn't consume it, God is involved but the narrative doesn't turn into a Bible-banging sermon. Its amazing what a little subtlety can do.



Related Review:
Omega Man (1971)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters and Critics
Rolling Stone

Labels: film, movie review, Will Smith, zombie

I will absolutely see this.

Then again, I love zombie movies. You mix celluloid with the undead, I'm there. Sad, but true.

My personal weakness for zombies aside, this is compelling. If handled properly this film about a couple of strangers who, in the middle of a zombie apocalypse, hunker down in a remote farmhouse. Normally zombie flicks turn into belligerently stupid pick-off movies (a group of characters is established and then systematically picked-off). This trailer implies the focus is on the survivors and deals with their relationship and their circumstance more than just shuffling ghouls. The key to horror is to take it serious (even if it involves zombies). I hope writer/director Kery Anne Mullaney has done things right.





Screenwriter: Kerry Anne Mullaney
Director: Kerry Anne Mullaney and Kris R. Bird
Actors: Sandra Louise Douglas, Alton Milne, Sharon Osdin, and Vivienne Harvey

Labels: film, Kerry Anne Mullaney, movie trailer, zombie

Short Review: The characters in the film are turned into mind numbed vomiting zombies – so is the audience.

I found myself rooting for the zombies.

This is the unneeded follow up to the more successful 28 Days Later. The original was a refreshing take on the old zombie movie plot. It was inventive in its look, its handling of the end of the world (or at least the U.K.). To be honest, the first half was masterful, the second half absolutely falls apart and loses its focus faster than Michael Jackson driving past a Boy Scout camp. Regardless, the first half of the original film is probably the best piece of horror since The Exorcist.

This sequel couldn’t be more of a disappointment. It certainly appears to have promise, following the complete destruction of Britain by a horrid virus that causes its victims to become blood-vomiting zombies, people have finally returned home. Of course it is only a matter of time before the virus makes it return. What should be a tension filled movie turns out to be a dopey series of forced plot conveniences and paper-thin characters. Given how potent the first film was, this sequel being so patently bad is a disgrace. Where the first film can be likened to a slightly rebellious but likable and intelligent father who is interesting and fun to know, this film is more like his loser slack-jawed son who eats crayons and punctuates his jokes by farting. It’s hard to believe such a good film went on to produce such a dumb one.

The main problem with this film is its script. The concept itself is solid and the acting and design are fine. There really can’t be that many ways you can mess this thing up. Amazingly enough, screenwriters Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, Rowan Joffe and Jesús Olmo all manage to locate and execute every single way to screw up every scene. With three screenwriters on this thing that means there had to be a ton of ideas that were probably thrown out or rewritten. If this piece of trash is the end result of their editing, what possibly was not good enough for them to include? The plot is so horrid I was surprised to keep finding the characters running away from the zombies. If I were in the movie I’d embrace them so I’d be wiped out and wouldn’t have to be a part of this stupid movie anymore. For my example, I won’t go to deep into the plot to avoid spoiling the movie more than the writers already have done...you know what, forget it – I’m ruining it.


The film focuses on a dad and his two kids. The dad gets infected and spends the remainder of the film chasing after the children. The plot is twisted into every possible direction to keep the father in the film despite the fact that it makes NO SENSE. The characters get in a car and drive through London. The father ON FOOT – WHILE STILL A ZOMBIE - manages to keep up to surprise them after they stop. Its stupid bits like this that make this an overly managed and unsatisfying heap of stewing cinematic waste. It KILLS me that they just have the virus show up and quickly wipe the population out instead of a slow building infection of the people which increases both tension and horror. With this dumb flick one minute everyone is fine and then five minutes later the whole place is overrun. There is no craft at work here.

I wanted to like this movie, I did. The truth be told, I have a soft spot for zombie movies. I was inclined to give this movie a few breaks I wouldn’t provide other productions and I still have to tell you to not bother watching it.


Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
Shaun of the Dead (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Monsters & Critics
The Stop Button

Labels: Catherine McCormack, film, horror, movie review, Robert Carlyle, zombie

This is a brilliant film, possibly the greatest horror film of all time...for the first fifty minutes. The first half of this movie is stunningly good. It redefines the zombie genre, giving us a realistic view of the world following such a catastrophe. Director Danny Boyle follows the first rule of horror: take it seriously. The reasons behind the zombie apocalypse are believable enough, as are the results. Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes from a coma in a hospital bed, naked and confused. He finds the hospital is deserted and he has no idea how long he's been unconscious. He stumbles out on to the London streets to find them empty as well. The scenes of Jim's discovery are perfectly handled. When he discovers that the world has been consumed by an epidemic, and finds other survivors, the film really finds its groove. This film makes the zombies actually frightening since they're not undead, they're infected by a man-made virus. This means the classic shuffling undead slabs of evil meat are gone. These zombies run, and blindly attack in a violent rage. So, its a little like being in the parking lot of a futbol game.

Where the film falters is when Boyle decides to remove the characters from their abandoned urban setting, and has them travel out into the rural areas. There they come across a band of soldiers who are bunkered in a huge mansion. Once the heroes enter the mansion, effectively a second movie begins. This makes the film seem uneven and incomplete. A listen to the audio commentary will show that this is actually the case. Boyle cobbled together the second half of the movie in a short amount of time. The original storyline was more focused on the epidemic which caused the zombification of the population and was absolutely more satisfying thematically speaking. But this isn't a world of what could have been, its a world of what is, and this film is very strong but fractured. Its like looking at a wonderful piece of pottery but there's a huge crack in it. Sure its nice to look at and ultimately functional but its still broke.

As a huge fan of zombie movies, this stands as one of the best. This would be the only zombie film that has ever come close to challenging the original Night of the Living Dead as the best of its kind.


Cautions: As with any zombie movie, this film is drenched in blood and gore. The zombies projectile vomit blood and...well, generally act like zombies, eat people, tear them apart, etc. Those sensitive to fake blood will be best served by avoiding this movie like the plague - pun intended.


Worldview: Zombie movies tend to be Darwinist affairs where it is two species against one another: the human versus the zombie. The weak are decimated while those willing to do what it takes survive. This falls under the classification of "pick off movie" where a group of two dimensional characters are set up to be picked off one by one. It is traditional for filmmakers to attempt to use the zombie masses as a symbol of a social group. Or to use the zombie apocalypse as a delivery system for some grand social message, like the racism overtones in Night of the Living Dead. What's great about the zombie movies, and probably the reason I like them so much, is because they are immune to directorial messages. No matter how you dress it up, regardless of intent, you always just have a stupid story about zombies chasing people down. As someone who sees way too many movies and focuses on their messages and statements, the clean stupidity of a zombie movie is refreshing. Granted, the nihilistic core of the zombie template does impart a dim message to its audience and there's metaphysical issues that can be pondered. But again, most intellectual study is diminished by the fact that the messages are delivered by a raging torrent of gnashing undead.




Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
The Omega Man (1971)
28 Weeks Later (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
FilmStew

Labels: Cillian Murphy, film, movie review, zombie

Screenwriters: John Erick Dowdle, and Drew Dowdle (The Poughkeepsie Tapes)
Director: John Erick Dowdle
Actors: Johnathon Schaech (8MM2), Jennifer Carpenter (The Exorcism of Emily Rose), and Columbus Short (Stomp the Yard)

Labels: first-person, Jennifer Carpenter, zombie

Labels: miscellaneous, zombie

Based on Richard Matheson's novel, this movie tells the story of Robert Neville, a scientist who creates a superbug that nearly wipes out mankind. The survivors of the virus have been turned into violent, psychotic creatures that cannot stand the daylight. Neville (Charlton Heston) struggles to survive the onslaught of attacks from the zombies. If this all sounds familiar, this movie comes from the same source material as the Will Smith movie I Am Legend.

This piece is laughable in many areas, not necessarily for faulty film making but because it hasn't dated well. Heston's belligerent style does work well when he's shooting zombies. When things slow down, his bigger than life persona is mismatched and the scenes get clunky.

The "zombies" Neville is threatened by are merely people dressed in black robes and sunglasses. Instead of inciting fear, they are invite snickers, the dated look and their insipid dialog is distracting and pushes the film from being a classic to being kitsch. The zombies believe they have been cursed with their disease as punishment for mankind's reliance on technology. This leads them to see Neville as the final living symbol of the sinful modern civilization. Over and over they bemoan our need to use technology and speak with religious fervor of the coming time where "things of the wheel" will go away. It never dawns on them that they're all wearing sunglasses, a part of sinful modern technology.

Putting this up against Smith's version, I'd recommend watching I Am Legend instead of sitting through this dated movie. It may have been quite something in its day, but now its just...well, silly.


Related Reviews:
Zombie movies
28 Weeks Later (2007)
Dawn of the Dead (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Sci-fi Movie Page

Labels: apocalypse, Charlton Heston, science fiction, zombie

Labels: Ali Larter, film, Milla Jovovich, movie review, Oded Fehr, zombie

The alternative ending (the original ending) for Will Smith's film I Am Legend has been leaked to YouTube. The DVD hits shelves on March 18th.




I'm not impressed with this version. While the ending that was released in theaters was meant to be the more easily consumable version, this one saps the story of its grander overtones. Without Neville's sacrifice the film loses its point. Removing the transferring of the vial of blood and the arrival of Anna in the Eden-like human retreat at the end also drains the piece of some rich symbolism. This ending feels convoluted and lacking in the same power. Let me know what you think.


Update: The video has been taken down as a part of the DMCA.

Labels: film, Will Smith, zombie

Danny Boyle's zombie movie may be the best horror film since The Exorcist. Well, at least the first half of the film is that good.

As a bone fide zombie movie fan, I have to recommend this great reworking of the genre.

Labels: Cillian Murphy, Danny Boyle, epidemic, movie trailer, zombie

Labels: movie trailer, Will Smith, zombie