Tag Archives: George A. Romero

Uncategorized

A very short review of the Season 7 premiere of “American Horror Story” (2017)

2 Comments

I finally got around to watching my first episode of “American Horror Story” last night; I started with this season’s critically praised premiere.  (People have been enthusiastically recommending this show to me for years, and “Game of Thrones” taught me that the bandwagon isn’t always a bad thing.)

I can’t say that I was overly impressed.  Season 7’s opening episode, entitled “Election Night,” consists mostly of heavy-handed political commentary with caricaturized portrayals of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters.  Nearly none of the characters are likable; not even the one played by the terrific Evan Peters.  (Yes, comics fans, that’s none other than Quicksilver from the latest “X-Men” movies.)

There is a lot of “scary clown” horror here, as anyone who’s seen any marketing for the show at all should know.  Between that and the political elements, I suspect I am not the right audience for this show.  I simply find clowns obnoxious instead of scary, and political commentary in horror usually falls flat with me.  (I’m the rare horror fan who loves George A. Romero’s work only because it’s scary, without caring much about the social statements he’s supposedly making.)

With all of that said, there actually were a couple of creepy moments late in the game.  And there was one (as of yet, minor) character that I liked — the child of the liberal couple who were so devastated by the election results.  He’s cute, and any kid who hides parentally forbidden horror comics under his pillow is one of my tribe.

I’d somewhat grudgingly rate this a 5 out of 10.

Anyway … scary clowns are ubiquitous now, and we already have the zombie shows we need.  I propose that we bring back … body snatchers.  Those can be terrifying in the hands of a talented writer, and they require no special effects.  Or, what about vampires?  Now that “The Strain” has concluded, how about a well written television excursion into Steve Niles’ “30 Days of Night” universe?  Or maybe a “Stakeland” TV show?  Looking at you, AMC.

 

 

4ca784d4bb33b763_ahs

Uncategorized

A short review of “The Dead 2: India” (2013)

Leave a comment

At times, “The Dead 2: India” (2013), seems like a carbon copy of its predecessor three years earlier.  Both “The Dead” and “The Dead 2” portray American male protagonists on a lengthy overland trek to reach a wife or girlfriend.  Both were shot on location in an overseas setting.  (The original took place in Africa.)  And both portray a second protagonist who is a native of the country.  (In this case it’s a little boy portrayed by Anand Krishna Goyal.  Even a curmudgeon like me has got to admit — that kid is adorable.)

I liked the first movie a bit better.  This one feels a little hastily put together, in terms of its script and directing.

It does manage to succeed somewhat with the things that made the first film decent viewing.  Its desert locations are beautifully shot, and the filmmakers bring back some of the original’s slow-burn horror elements.  The zombies here are usually as slow as snails — slower even than the zombies of George A. Romero’s genre-defining early films.  But they’re also quiet, and they converge en masse when our hero lets his guard down.  And the occasional appearance of a rare feisty specimen leads to some genuine jump scares.  The movie also effectively employs what appears to be a low-budget special effect — the monsters’ eyes are of an opal-white, otherworldly color.  (I’m guessing those are colored contact lenses?)  The trick works, the zombies are scary, and “The Dead 2” successfully provides a kind of “creeping horror” that is rare for today’s horror films.

That wasn’t enough, however, to rescue this movie entirely from feeling like a retread of the original.  I’d describe this as an average viewing experience for a horror fan, and I’d rate it a 6 out of 10.

 

 

the-dead-2-poster

Uncategorized

A very short review of “The Dead” (2010)

2 Comments

Take a look at the movie poster below for the Ford Brothers’ “The Dead” (2010).  It’s problematic for two reasons.

One, of course, is that it contains what is arguably the most unimaginative title in zombie movie history.

Two is its immediate recollection of the marketing art for Zack Snyder’s terrific 2004 “Dawn of the Dead” remake.  It is so similar in composition and color scheme that it makes the Ford Brothers’ film look like a “mockbuster,” whose cover is designed to fool hasty movie renters.

And that’s a shame, because “The Dead” is a fairly decent zombie movie in its own right — I’d rate it a 7 out of 10.  It’s a lower-budget feature, and some of the acting is a bit flat, but this is a movie that does a lot with a little.  The film wisely makes the most of its African setting, and has an intelligent, if slowly paced, story.  It focuses on its two military protagonists’ needs for food, sleep, shelter, fuel and vigilance, during the course of a lengthy overland trek.  That’s refreshing in an era of “Strippers vs. Zombies” (2012), and various fairly lackluster clones of “Shaun of the Dead” (2004).

Best of all, however, is the film’s skilled manner of evoking “slow burn” or “creeping” horror.  The zombies in “The Dead” usually move quite slowly.  They might be the slowest zombies I’ve ever seen.  This might be the anti-“28 Days Later” (2002).  But that makes the vibe here unique among the spate of modern zombie films — and maybe a little reminiscent of George A Romero’s pioneering early films.  If your reaction is like mine, you’ll find it a little unnerving to see them gather en masse at a snail’s pace.

I recommend this.

the-dead-1464333825197

Uncategorized

A review of “Damnation Alley” (1977)

Leave a comment

I’m not sure how to review “Damnation Alley” (1977).  I can’t call it a classic.  Portions of it are just too poorly made for that — even to the point where it deserves the “Mystery Science Theater 3000” treatment.  But it is an extremely enjoyable 1970’s end-of-the-world flick, it has some notably successful key scenes and it’s nothing less than venerated by people who love 70’s science fiction.

The movie’s story sounds as though it were conceived by scientifically illiterate teenagers who were passing a joint around … and the joint was laced with hallucinogens, and it was the crazy 70’s.  A nuclear war with Russia has actually tilted the earth on its axis, so it’s spinning askew.  This (and apparently not radiation or nuclear winter) has caused all sorts of cataclysms, and mankind’s best hope is that, through an act of God or something, the correct axis just sort of … reasserts itself.  In the meantime, the same threats you’d usually expect are inhabiting 70’s cinema’s postapocalyptic America: sick hillbillies and mutant fauna.

A trio of United States Air Force servicemen are forced to leave a protected California missile silo that has allowed them to survive the holocaust.  (It burns down after a drunk commanding officer passes out and drops a lit cigarette.  Seriously.)  Our heroes embark across America in the desperate hope to reach the one city that has apparently survived the nuclear fire.  And that’s Albany, for some reason.

I’m pretty sure Roger Zelazny’s 1967 novel, upon which this is ostensibly based, has little to do with this simplistic and head-scratching screenplay.  The book sounds much smarter and more interesting.

The movie gets off to a rocky start, in an ineptly blocked scene in which the director can’t even manage to get the three principal actors to make their faces visible during their conversation with one another.  (These would be a pre-“The A-Team” George Peppard, a pre-“Airwolf” Jan Michael Vincent, and a pre-“Terminator” Paul Winfield.”)  Just after this is an action sequence with “giant” scorpions that are composited onto the action via blue-screen.  The special effects here are embarrassingly bad; for a frame of reference, consider that this is the same year that the studio, 20th Century Fox, also released “Star Wars.”

Still, this ridiculous movie rises above its failings with some elements that were damn good.  For starters, I inexplicably found myself liking Peppard’s stern, laconic, Southern-drawled leader, and Winfield’s likable sidekick.  Even Vincent’s mimbo antics weren’t too grating.  He must have been a fan-favorite heartthrob back in the 70’s; the writer and director keep him front and center — saving girls, cracking jokes and riding a dirtbike.  (His character, “Hell Tanner,” was actually the main protagonist of Zelazny’s book.)

Here is where “Damnation Alley” actually reminded me of some of the better George A. Romero films.  Despite thin and slightly offbeat characterizations, the protagonists still managed to turn out cool and likable.  I identified with them.  (Is it just because this and the “Dead” movies seem to portray real, regular people instead common tropes?)

Second, certain scenes worked beautifully.  A no-budget scene depicting the inside of a casino was perfectly atmospheric and haunting.  The abandoned-town-with-a-secret scene was perfect, horrifying and unforgettable.  (And it had some nicely conceived antagonists.)  What should have been a by-the-numbers, cliched, post-apocalyptic hillbilly gang turned out to be genuinely frightening.  (The actors in these minor roles were quite competent.)  Don’t these prosaically characterized evildoers menace us more effectively than the clownish supervillains of the “Mad Max” films?

And, crappy scorpions notwithstanding, some of the period special effects actually worked.  The centerpiece of “Damnation Alley,” for a lot of fans, is the “Landmaster” — the  quite genuine 12-wheel, seven-ton, futuristic amphibious armored personnel carrier constructed specifically for the movie.  (That’s it in the second photo below.)  Seeing the actual (badass) vehicle instead of a model for the film should appeal to the kid in a lot of filmgoers, even today.  (I’m not even a gearhead, and I had fun with it.)  The custom vehicle cost $350,000 to build in 1976, and it’s still a legend in the 70’s science fiction fan community.

Another “special effect” that strangely holds up over time is the movie’s depiction of “radioactive skies.”  It’s a gaudy visual effect that would be cheap and low-tech by today’s standards, and it absolutely screams “1970’s cheese.”  Yet, as a modern movie fan, I loved it.  It’s perfect for setting the film’s unintentional clumsy-yet-creepy mood; it sets the tone for a beloved vintage B-movie classic, and it’s just neat to look at.  Wikipedia has some interesting information on the back ground for “Damnation Alley” — the radioactive skies effect actually took up 10 months of post-production, despite a final result that paled in comparison to “Star Wars.”  It was a troubled production, and its story is interesting reading.

Seriously, I had fun with “Damnation Alley.”  If it isn’t quite a “classic,” then it’s at least a really fun movie to which I’m sure I’ll return.  I’d give it an 8 out of 10, and I’m going to label it a Triple F — it’s a Forgivably Flawed Favorite.

Image result for damnation alley

Landmaster.jpg

Uncategorized

A few quick words on “Train to Busan” (2016)

Leave a comment

Everything you’ve heard about “Train to Busan” (2016) is indeed correct; it’s a first-rate South Korean zombie film that fans of the genre won’t want to miss.  I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

It’s maybe a little campier than I expected, with some over-the-top zombies that feel more reminiscent of the “Evil Dead” films than George A. Romero’s movies or Robert Kirkman’s work.  It’s also a bit long at nearly two hours — if I were editing it, I would have swapped out some of the time devoted to car-to-car melees with additional scenes showing what’s transpired beyond the train.  Imagine how a skilled screenwriter could further expand on the (really cool) train station plot points we already see … what if the train was forced to stop at every station?  What if it couldn’t stop?  What if its passengers were turned away at safe areas?  What if desperate stragglers tried to board the train?

This was a good one, people.  Check it out.

 

Uncategorized

A review of “Goodbye World” (2013)

Leave a comment

“Goodbye World” (2013) is technically a post-apocalyptic drama.  I say “technically” because this sometimes misguided movie contains little tension associated with its apocalyptic event.  (A cyber-attack destroys the technological infrastructure of America and possibly the world.)  Indeed, this catastrophe doesn’t even truly drive the plot — it’s more of a background subplot that fails to even affect the tone of the film.  (The poster you see below is misleading.)

Instead, the film scrutinizes the personal lives of a group of thirtyish college alumnae who have an informal reunion at a mountain cabin — one of their number is a plot-convenient intellectual-turned-survivalist.  They’re portrayed by an (admittedly quite good) ensemble cast.  I think a lot of my friends would smile at “Gotham’s” Jim Gordon (Ben Mckenzie) being a rather meek, feckless husband.  And Caroline Dhavernas here is no longer the alpha female we saw in NBC’s “Hannibal,” but is rather an insecure, overly sensitive young wife who immaturely pines that she was the student “everyone hated.”

And there lies a problem that the movie has … few of these characters are terribly likable.  Only Gaby Hoffmann’s surprisingly tough civil servant made me root for her.  And Kerry Bishe’s perfectly performed, chatty neo-hippy eccentric was also pretty cool … Bishe might have given the best performance in the film.  Finally, Linc Hand is a surprise standout, arriving halfway through in a menacing supporting role.  It’s a far smaller role, but damn if he doesn’t nail it.  (Please, Netflix, cast this guy as Bullseye in Season 3 of “Daredevil.”)

The others all seem either self-absorbed, self-righteous and preachy, or inscrutable and vaguely dumb.  Dhavernas’ character actually steals a child’s teddy bear (which she herself had brought as a gift) and … sets it free in the forest.  It was a belabored character metaphor when written.  Worse, it just seems jarringly weird when it plays out on the screen.

All the characters seem strangely detached about the watershed national or global crisis. Some cursory dialogue is devoted to the imagined welfare of their family, colleagues or other friends; the character interaction is devoted mostly to  marriage issues and personal emotional crises that I have mostly forgotten as of this writing.  And those seem maudlin and slightly selfish compared to the Fall of the United States.  The characters mostly failed at engendering viewer sympathy in me.

The screenwriters’ juxtaposition of personal matters and the end of the world also seemed tone deaf.  We follow what the writers hope are educated, successful and endearingly quirky fun people, and we’re asked to worry about their love triangles and spousal communication issues.  But … we’re then asked to view this in the context of a pretty frightening collapse of society, complete with plot elements that are interchangeable with those of AMC’s “The Walking Dead.”  (One secondary character turns violent over the issue of resources, then charismatically justifies his violence to  a crowd using a half-baked ideology that seems to channel “The Governor.”)

I felt like I was watching two movies at once, and not in a good way.  The opening motif is brilliantly creepy — the virus causes cell phones everywhere to receive a text reading the titular “Goodbye World.”  Our laconic, uniformly telegenic protagonists kinda just shrug at it.  And even when suspicions arise in the group about whether one character is connected to the cyber-attack, there is dry, dialogue-driven humor instead of any real consequent tension.  It was like John Hughes wrote a thirtysomething dramedy, but then tried unsuccessfully to sprinkle in the human pathos of one of George A. Romero’s more pessimistic zombie films.

But don’t get me wrong.  This wasn’t even really a bad movie.  I didn’t hate it.  It held my interest, its actors gave good performances, and I am a shameless fan of Dhavernas in particular.  The cinematography was very good too, and the story’s tonal differences were occasionally interesting.  (This is definitely a unique end-of-the-world tale, if nothing else.)

I’d honestly give “Goodbye World” a 7 out of 10.  I think my expectations sitting down with it were just unusually high, seeing Dhavernas attached to what looked like an independent, cerebral, apocalyptic science fiction thriller.  I might even recommend it if you’re in the mood for a really unusual doomsday movie.  Just don’t expect “28 Days Later” (2002) or “The Divide” (2012), and you might like this.

 

Goodbye_World_Theatrical_Poster

hero_GoodbyeWorld-2014-1

Uncategorized

A review of “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” (2016)

3 Comments

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” (2016) is a fun enough horror-comedy — maybe not quite as good as it could be, considering all of its excellent ingredients, yet still better than most new zombie movies out there.  I’d give it a 7 out of 10.

It’s a great genre mashup, and I don’t just mean combining Jane Austen’s 1813 classic book with horror’s most grisly sub-genre.  (This is a film adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith’s 2009 eponymous satirical novel.)  It’s also a detailed and thoughtfully constructed horror-fantasy.  (That opening credits’ alternate-history lesson was a nice touch.)  Then it tries, with less success, to be a serviceable romance and a mystery.

The film has a lot going for it: a fun concept, good actors, mostly competent direction, and a creative team that obviously had a hell of a lot of fun with the source material.  Science fiction fans should have fun spotting Matt Smith, Lena Headey and Charles Dance.  The movie has outstanding sets, costumes and filming locations — this was shot on location at historic mansions throughout England.  The fight choreography was decent enough, even if it was occasionally a little hard to follow.  Finally, the zombies that we get to see are indeed creepy — they’re not Romero-type zombies, but the livelier, chattier, brain-eating, sentient baddies similar to those of John Russo’s “Return of the Living Dead” films.  The makeup and digital effects for the monsters are pretty damn good.

Considering its unique idea, its zaniness and its high production values, “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” could have been an instant cult favorite.  But it still falls short of greatness with two flaws that I couldn’t ignore.

The first is its seeming reliance on a single joke — the juxtaposition of Austen’s proper ladies as badass, feminist heroines in a crazy, Kung-fu, blood-and-guts zombie war.  I believe that’s funny and tickles the viewer for maybe 20 minutes.  But it isn’t enough to sustain the humor for the length of a feature film.  It’s fun, but badass, wise-cracking warrior women have been a common trope in mainstream horror film and television for a long time.  Joss Whedon’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” came to TV 19 years ago, for example; the film that inspired it was five years earlier.

Second, for a film with “zombies” in its title, the monsters are a little sparse.  I’m guessing the script closely followed the 2009 book, which I have not read … but this isn’t the actioner that horror fans might be hoping for.  (And why not?  The film falls under so many other categories.)  The movie could have been better if there had been less banter and situational humor, and more zombie fighting.  Its establishing shots and sweeping vistas were downright beautiful … I kept waiting for a major land engagement that would knock my socks off.  But … there isn’t really a final battle, and the story disappoints a little with its anti-climax.  The action sequence that we are presented with is cool, and well executed, but the large-scale period battles you’re probably hoping for occur almost entirely off screen.

Oh — one final quibble … who exactly were the Four Horsemen, outside their allegorical context?  And what happened to them?  They were nice and unsettling — one of the movie’s few scary moments occurs when we wonder whether they’ve spotted a protagonist.  Were scenes cut from this movie that would have explained their role in the story?

 

zz2

Uncategorized

A quick review of the Season 6 premiere of “The Walking Dead.” And is a major death hinted at?

Leave a comment

I tend to obsess a little about spoilers, so I’m reluctant even to describe the plot of the Season 6 opener for “The Walking Dead.”  The story I thought we’d see absolutely wasn’t the story we saw, and the very first scene should be a terrific surprise for the viewer.  Suffice to say, this episode was fantastic — I’d give it a 9 out of 10.

After five seasons, even a diehard fan of the program can ask about its screenwriters, “How long can they keep this up?”  This is a horror subgenre that’s hard to keep fresh.  But the show still succeeds.

The writers are trying, and it shows.  I suggest that this actually is sometimes a pretty smart show.  A nice amount of thought has gone into the major action set-pieces since the start of Season 5 — everything from strategy, tactics, terrain, diversion, leadership, and even differing levels of training for new or seasoned combatants.  When one protagonist refers to our heroes’ adversaries as “an army,” I began looking at this episode as … “military horror?”  Is that even a thing?  Anyway, it’s a refreshing change for fans of zombie horror who are tired of the spate of second-rate movies on Netflix — those typically show attractive twenty-somethings in vague battles, cheerfully rattling off dry one-liners while swinging impact weapons, despite their lack of any training or experience.  This episode offered horror fans both exploding zombie heads and an intelligently staged battle to follow.  Nice stuff!

Also present were the other things that people love about the show — great character moments, surprise character development, and terrific dialogue.  The exchange between Morgan and Carol was goddam beautiful, and it makes me rethink my longstanding (and unpopular) criticism that this show sometimes struggles with characterization.

The suspense and tension tonight were absolutely perfect.  I was on the edge of my seat until the end of story.  And the final surprise development and cliffhanger there really drove me nuts, even if I have a pretty good idea why it occurred.

There is one question here that I am embarrassed to ask.  I’m afraid I’m going senile.  Am I the only fan who absolutely does NOT remember the character of Ron?!  I … I thought that Alexandria’s Hester Prynne here had only ONE son, young Sam!

Hey, one more thing — if I’m onto something here, I’m going to be damn proud … and I don’t think this counts as a spoiler, as it is only an unconfirmed suspicion on my part.  We see an erratic Abraham manically and cavalierly battle some zombies here.  When asked why he was behaving strangely, he replies that he’s “taking the bull by the balls.”

He sounded a hell of a lot to me like the erratic Roger manically and cavalierly battling zombies during a fateful scene in George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead” (1978).  He keeps blurting, “We got this by the balls, we got this by the balls!”  And both scenes involve people getting in and out of vehicles.  The 1978 sequence ends poorly for Roger because of his carelessness.  Does this mean that Abraham is likewise doomed?

cf43d0c11dcbb85457b9fe4f7282c11c

Uncategorized

My review of “The Walking Dead” Season 3 premiere.

Leave a comment

I am blogging some old reviews from Facebook; this was my take on the premiere of “The Walking Dead’s” third season.  Here’s where I finally diss on Season 2.  (Or … is “throwing shade” the modern parlance?  I keep hearing that expression and don’t know what it means.)

**********

“The Walking Dead” returned to form tonight with a third season premiere that resurrected the magic of the first season, and even added more. I’d give this a 10 out of 10, and I was a guy who complained about Season 2. It’s better than ever.

With this opening episode, all the second season’s problems seemed to disappear. Our friends ARE OFF THE DAMNED FARM, and on the run, in a fast-paced horror story instead of a weird postapocalyptic milieu-type drama starring Old MacDonald, Good Cop and Bad Cop. There’s action, tension, scares, mood, setting, atmosphere and decent characters – not another episode of “The Waltons,” in which zombies occasionally visited.

Every major character is imperiled and has to fight. Even young Carl wields a gun and racks up a few kills. And it’s a smart script, with just enough expository dialogue to explain what they’re trying to do.

Seriously, for a horror fan, there’s damned good fun here. The makeup and special effects are f***ing incredible. (Greg Nicotero is a genius.) There’s also a few very nice creepy touches connected with the setting – including one group of zombies that are a little harder to kill. (I’m not sure if the writers knew this, but that device was also used by Dave Wellington in his “Monster Island” zombie novel.) And there are a couple of nice touches lifted straight out of the comic.

Rick used to be a boring boy scout and generic good guy who only seemed interesting as a foil for Shane. He’s much more interesting here as a fallible, darker character. Carl, previously an annoying and redundant plot device (“Where’s Carl?”), is damned cool this time out. Michonne, maybe a more difficult character to write and play, is just perfect.

Hell, this was better than one or two of the George A. Romero movies. Seriously, nice work, AMC!

walking-dead-season-3-2013-midseason-premiere-teaser-poster-andrew-lincoln-david-morrissey-amc