A meditation on zombies, part 2

A couple posts back, I started writing a meditation on zombies. I am little perturbed about the state of zombies in our world nowadays actually. What happened to the slow lumbering zombies? Why is it all of a sudden cool to have fast moving zombies that can run you down? Don't get me wrong, I think fast moving zombies can work, but why doesn't anyone want the slow zombies anymore? Did Zack Snyder ruin that like he's ruined 300 and The Watchmen? Don't get me wrong, I liked his remake of Dawn of the Dead (and Watchmen was okay, but 300 was pretty mediocre), but between that and 28 Days Later, fast zombies (or infected zombies) have become all the rage. Aren't people scared by the slow moving zombies anymore?

My girlfriend said she thought the fast zombies would be scarier because they produce more jump scares. Well, in my opinion, jump scares can be used fairly well, but after a while, they just make a crutch for bad horror to "scare" audiences, when all it really does is surprise them. You get the same effect when the lights turn on and a group of people yell surprise. The majority of jump scares are not that scary, just abrupt. They make up for a movie's lack of true tension by creating brief glimpses of it. Fast zombies create the possibility for the zombie to pop up suddenly and scare you, but they aren't truly horrifying in most cases. Dawn of the Dead had some great scenes and it was fun, but it was really more of an action movie than a horror movie, it just happened to have zombies in it. It's also worth pointing out that the characters were better developed than the average action movie, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is, most of the scares in the Dawn remake came from jump scares. It worked though because it got tension from the characters, not the zombies.

That's also why 28 Days Later worked: it produced a lot of tension. Go back and watch that movie: it doesn't have that many jump scares, but Danny Boyle could have easily put many in there. Instead you have (one of my favorite scenes in recent movie history) the scene where Jim enters the church and is greeted by a lot of infected, including an infected priest. It's wonderfully executed and tense, yet not a jump scare to be found. In the end of the movie, there's also a scene where young Hannah is suspended behind a mirror while an infected looks at his reflection in the very same mirror. It's spooky because the danger is so imminent (and quite well shot by Mr. Boyle). 28 Days Later, with its infected zombies, stands out as a wonderful zombie movie and would easily go in my top 10 zombie movies of all time.

But 28 Days Later is a rarity like that. Slower zombies will always be scarier to me because of the tension they create. They are ever present. You can easily walk around them and get away from them, but every time you look behind you, they are still there. They don't stop. And if you stop moving, even for a night, they have suddenly come out of the woodwork to surround you. They moan, they stumble, and they drive people insane. The slow zombies can lull you into a false sense of security because they are so slow. And then when you let your guard down for second, they will get you. Even slow zombies produce jump scares. They stalk in the shadows and remain silent and motionless until you get right up next to them. There's no scream or rumble before they attack, they just bite your neck.

You may say to yourself that slow zombies aren't nearly as scary because if you were in that situation, you would totally get away from them. The fast zombies are what would get you because you couldn't out run them. And that's exactly why when the slow zombies truly come, you'll be totally screwed. At least the fast zombies will give you a screech or just come running at you. The slow moving zombies are the things that are right there when you turn a corner. You take off in a sprint and come around a building to be caught by the slow-as-molasses zombie lumbering towards you.

Slow moving zombies represent the ever present death in our lives. They can be used as an allegory for many things (and have been by Romero). Fast moving zombies are cool, but they are ultimately there for show, not for introspection. Slow moving zombies will always be scarier to me because they can represent things besides just the walking dead. For me, it's all about the approach and the slower, the better.

Dead Snow Review

I managed to find a copy of Dead Snow that I have wanted to see for a while now. I watched it this weekend (twice actually as a friend wanted to see it too) and decided to review it. But first, just what happens?

The movie opens with a girl getting chased through the woods by some unseen evil and she eventually falls down a steep incline and is devoured by something we don't fully see. We then find 7 friends heading up to a remote cabin in the Scandinavian mountains for a fun filled weekend. As they settle in for their first night, a strange man comes to their cabin asking for some coffee. He tells them a story of how the village near the cabin was once occupied by Nazis during WWII and they weren't kind to the villagers. However, the villagers rose up against them and drove the Nazis into the very same mountains this cabin was in. It was said the Nazis, knowing they would have to retreat, grabbed all the valuables from the village and hid somewhere up in the peaks. Of course the kids (who are all Med students) don't believe in that sort of story and the stranger is on his way.

After their first night, they realize their friend who was supposedly hiking to the cabin hasn't shown up yet, so her boyfriend goes to look for her (of course, this was the first girl we saw getting killed). The boyfriend finds our stranger gutted in his tent and falls into a cave where Nazi memorabilia abounds. Meanwhile, his friends back at the cabin find a box of treasure (I wonder where that came from) and rejoice. All at once, there are NAZI ZOMBIES attacking their cabin and the guy in the cave! As some of the kids get picked off, we are treated to eviscerations, heads being pulled apart, decapitations, a machine gun mounted on a snowmobile, and just general anarchy. But, did the movie produce any fun or scares?

Cinematography: I don't know if it's that the Scandinavian mountains make directors look good or vice versa, but some of the shots in this movie are actually quite breathtaking. The long shots for some of the scenes give you a great sense of how epic the scale is and the isolation these friends face. The sheer lack of overt color in both the scenery (mostly snow and trees) and the zombies (very drab, dirty uniforms) is contrasted wonderfully by the kids' clothing and the blood in the fight scenes. The shot scale is varied and quite well done, never really relying on one type of shot for any particular scene. And there are no real shaky cam parts (in fact, the tracking shots of running through woods are quite smooth in most parts). I give it a nice, solid 4 out of 5 for Cinematography.

Execution: Well, technically we've seen Nazi Zombies before, but I still think there aren't enough Nazi Zombie movies to really call this tired or done to death. I am still willing to call this original, especially because of the back story and the fact they aren't in Germany. It's a nice little twist on a zombie film and the zombies don't really bite all that much, instead preferring to punch, kick, or stab people (which makes for some great fight scenes). The characters aren't anything groundbreaking (movie geek, horny guy, horny girl, mild mannered dude, jock type), but they aren't overwrought, making them enjoyable. You start to like the characters, but you don't get too invested in them. They are all well acted, so it gets a respectable 4 out of 5 for Execution.

Sub-genre Comparison: Comparing this to other zombie movies is kind of hard because they aren't like traditional zombies. However, it definitely holds up against some of the heavy hitters (Night, Dawn, Shaun) for sheer enjoyability. It's not a particularly scary offering, but then again it's not trying to be either. Comparing it to recent zombie offerings such as Day of the Dead or Diary of the Dead and it more than holds up. It's a fun little twist on the zombie tradition, so comparatively it gets a 4.5 out of 5 for Sub-genre Comparison.

Production Value: The settings are great, the effects are first-rate, and the acting is more than ample. It looks very polished and is done well, making it very easy to watch. They went for mostly traditional effects for gore, using CGI pretty sparingly (something I appreciate greatly). The movie is pretty gory, so for you gore-hounds, it should satisfy nicely. The scenes where Nazi after Nazi is mowed down with hatchets, sledgehammers, and chainsaws are grotesquely pleasing, offering all manners of limbs and entrails flying through the air. It's all kinds of fun to watch, so it gladly earns a 4.5 out of 5 for Production Value.

Scares: This movie isn't really meant to be that scary, opting to be a bit more towards the funny spectrum, but it still actually produces some good, tense scenes. There is an out house at the cabin, which makes for some great, Friday the 13th style scenes with people stalking around the shack and looking through the boards. There is a scene where someone is looking through a window at their friend outside, only to find out that it's only her severed head being held up that is extremely well done. Basically, when the movie wants to be scary, it succeeds pretty damn well, so I'll give it a 4 out of 5 for Scares, taking into account it's not supposed to be the scariest thing in the world.

So, the final tally for Dead Snow puts it at a 21 out of 25. That puts it into the "Must Watch" category, as far as I am concerned. As I said, I watched it twice this weekend and I gleefully enjoyed both viewings. It's got so many fun scenes once the action starts that I couldn't help but laugh. And the homages it throws out are great too, so be sure to watch for some of those. It amazes me at not only how much fun it was, but how well done it was. It wasn't just a fanboy making a movie, it was a director (who happens to also be a fanboy) making a film. This movie is a blast, I highly recommend watching it when it gets here to the US! And in a movie full of ridiculous scenes, I give you the most ridiculous as further proof you need to see this movie!

IMDB Frontpage

Anyone notice anything about the IMDB front page today?




(Click on the image to zoom in)

The trailers (with the exception of 2012) are all for horror movies. Am I the only one who finds that interesting?

A meditation on zombies

First off, let me apologize for the infrequency of my updates as of late. There is a guy at work that has been gone for the last 3 weeks and is out next week as well. I am this guy's back up at work, so I have been pulling double duty lately, which has left me working about 55 hours a week and tired when I'm not at work. Admittedly I knew this was coming because he is gone to spend time with his first child, so I'm neither surprised nor angry, it's just been a bit tiring. But I will diligently try to keep updating as often as possible.

Well, as expected from the title of this posting, I will be discussing zombies today. We'll see just how long I rant on the subject; it may end up being broken into two posts for you, the readers' sake. First off, let's establish something: what defines a zombie?

Now, I'm not exactly Webster's (I am a bit of a walking dictionary, though), but I have a definition of a zombie that I adhere to. A zombie is a creature (not necessarily human, but more often than not) that has died and due to some unnatural process has come back to life. The reanimated corpse is unable to truly think, though they may be able to put some basic thoughts (even speech) together. They are in the group of creatures known as "undead", which includes vampires, mummies, ghouls, skeletons, and (depending on which legend you go by) werewolves. They are all creatures that die and then come back, not really alive but definitely not dead.

Now that's where my definition really trails off. My usual thought of a zombie is that of the Romero Type - slow, shambling corpses with no thought or coordination. They are ever present, moaning but not really speaking. And you had better be prepared to shoot them in the head in order to kill them. That doesn't mean I won't accept other types of zombies: Dawn of the Dead (2004) had zombies, but they were fast; Return of the Living Dead featured zombies that had to be electrocuted, not shot in the head; The Dead Next Door had zombies that were basically unkillable and some spoke; and Cemetery Man featured zombies that could not only talk, but could hold conversations. Now, I consider all of those movies to contain zombies, but they aren't all the same type of zombies. I am even willing to accept 28 Days Later and Quarantine as having zombies in them if someone wants to use them as an example. I realize I have said in the past I don't accept 28 Days and Quarantine as true zombies, but I do consider them a sort of sub-genre in zombie movies I like to refer to as "Infection Zombies". So while they aren't "zombies" in my truest sense of the word, I'm willing to accept the movies on a zombie movie list (though I like to point out they aren't "true" zombie films). The one uniting factor is that you have some unrelenting, unthinking enemy that keeps wanting to kill you for no good reason.

With the recent development of the fast zombie (28 Days Later, Dawn remake), it has given rise to one question: which is scarier, the slow zombie or the fast zombie? Seeing as how this post has already come to be quite long, I will tell you in my next post what I think. However, I would like to know what everyone else thinks. So, in the comments, what do you find scarier? Fast or slow zombies? Here's some food for thought:

Fast Zombies:


Slow Zombies

A quick share out to everyone

I know everyone has been wanting to see it, so if you haven't, you should probably check out [rec]. But how the hell can you check something out that doesn't exist in your country yet?

How about you check it out right here. *Disclaimer: I did not post this video, I just found it somewhere else and am linking to it here*

The site will cut you off after a certain amount of time (I think it's 50 minutes), but all you have to do is wait a half hour and watch the rest of it. I know that kind of sucks, but it's worth it to watch this little gem. I am in the process of getting Dead Snow so I can watch that soon, I'll have a review for that up soon hopefully. And if I manage to find that online, I'll be sure to share it out with you all.

Oh, and if you've missed out on Splinter so far, why not go here and check it out (same disclaimer as before). I know the quality isn't the greatest, but it's free.

That being said, I've already pre-ordered Splinter and will buy [rec] as soon as I can, so I encourage you guys to support these horror flicks by buying them eventually. Let's keep people being able to make them! There, I'm done with my soapbox for now. Now watch away!

I hope you enjoy everything!

Pointless Twist Ending: Rest Stop

I recently watched this movie via the wonder that is Netflix Instant View, so I feel like I didn't actually have to pay for watching it. Nevermind the fact I pay a monthly fee to watch these movies, it's free in my mind, so don't ruin my wonderful little bubble I live in where I watch free movies. Okay?

Anyway, I recently watched Rest Stop. It was a moderately interesting slasher flick with a decent premise: a teenage couple runs away from home to try to get to Hollywood and gets caught in the middle of fucking nowhere at a (get this) rest stop. The boyfriend gets lost and the girl starts to look for him. There's a weird, creepy RV in the parking lot with someone taking pictures from the rear window. The girl is then tormented by a guy in a pickup truck that kills her boyfriend. And the people in the RV let her in only to reveal they are crazy-as-fuck religious people who saw her do her boyfriend in the woods. So she escapes from them and gets back to the rest stop. And that's where things take a turn for the worse. And I don't mean plot wise.

*As per the title, there will be spoilers as I talk about the ending, so read no further if you care about the ending*

The main girl is sitting in the bathroom when she finds a girl in the closet crying. She's been tortured by the same guy the main girl is being tortured by. While this new girl shrieks, the pickup truck guy comes back and our main girl blocks the door. Pickup truck guy (henceforth known as PTG) leaves because he's easily foiled by a 110 lb girl blocking a flimsy door. You then find out that the crying girl was actually a past victim that died years before. Then she disappears. To honor GOB Bluth, it was an illusion.

Well, I was actually kind of interested in the movie until this happened. It's billed as a "psychological" horror movie, which is basically like saying it's a "Sixth Sense wannabe". But you know what? It doesn't end there!

The original girl then leaves the safety of her bathroom and goes to the ranger station to phone for help. Luckily for her, a cop comes to her rescue. Unluckily for her, the cop is the most inept officer ever and he gets run over by the PTG and paralyzed. She manages to drag the cop into the bathroom, puts up her ridiculously flimsy barricade, and PTG guys is again discouraged. She tries to shoot PTG, but she shoots like a stormtrooper. Instead of continuing to shoot at PTG, the paralyzed cop tells her to euthanize him. This is actually the best scene of the movie. The girl wrestles with the idea of having to shoot a cop who has kids. She eventually sucks it up and shoots the guy in the head and puts him out of his misery.

Except she shoots like a bond enemy's henchman and the cop is STILL ALIVE. He starts shrieking and she shoots him again, this time doing the job correctly. And PTG has come back to set the whole bathroom on fire (bet you forgot PTG was still here). She crawls out and finds out that the cop she just shot was KILLED YEARS AGO (see, it's a bigger revelation if I type it in CAPS). Whoa, that's psychological. She then decides to take on PTG one on one. She blows up his truck with him in it and can finally rest easy. ONLY HE'S RIGHT BEHIND HER! And then you find out that he's as supernatural and unnecessary as the rest of the people in the movie. It ends with a shot of our main girl in the closet crying but she's not actually there because she's a ghost!

Really, the movie was interesting (well, sort of) until you start in with all the ghosts and imaginary crap and the fact she can't get away from the rest stop. If it had all actually happened, the movie would have been a lot more intense. But instead, the best scene of the movie is a crappy dream sequence basically, as is the rest of the movie. It's pretty watered down and lame as it is, but the whole supernatural element seems to take it to a whole new level of jackassery. It just didn't resonate well with me.

So there you have it, another pointless twist ending. If done properly, it could have worked, but it wasn't done well.

Master of Horror: John Carpenter

Well, I figured it was about time I updated again (last week was a bit hectic for me between work and other things, I apologize for the lack of updates), so I figured I would do a second installment of the Master of Horror look. Today: John Carpenter steps up to the plate. Let's take a look, shall we?

*Again, this isn't a full filmography, go here if you would like to see that.

Halloween (1978): Okay, so admittedly, he directed some movies that don't sound all that great in the 60s and early 70s (Gorgon, the Space Monster?), but then he broke onto the scene with his slasher Halloween (it should be noted that he directed Assault on Precinct 13 before that, but it's not horror, so I'm not going there). Halloween is, in my not so humble opinion, the best slasher flick of all time. Dark, foreboding, not even very violent, and terrifying, it defines the genre. Check one great movie off for John.

The Fog (1980): An ample follow up. While it's not the greatest movie ever done, it's a good sophomore effort for John Carpenter. It's a pretty taut little movie, and as scary as you can make ghost pirates seem. It's also the second movie on this list that has been remade. That's usually a good sign when movies you've made are being redone (sometimes poorly). So far, so good.

The Thing (1982): This movie is more than ample, it's fucking great. This is probably my favorite Carpenter film, and that's saying something considering how much I like Halloween. After Escape from NY (again, not horror, not touching), Carpenter struck horror gold. While Escape from NY was good, it couldn't hold a candle to this movie. John Carpenter started to get some name recognition after this film, which led him to make...

Christine (1983): An adaptation of a Stephen King book, once again, we see Carpenter making something decidedly unscary (a killer car) into something fairly hair raising. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good movie to have and can usually be found cheap at Best Buy or Target.

Prince of Darkness (1987): Not a great movie by any means, but an average horror flick. Carpenter took a movie off from horror (Big Trouble in Little China, a good movie as well) and came back with a resounding "meh". Pretty much his first misstep on the list. Again, it's not really that bad, but just considering what he's done for the genre up to this point, it fails a bit. It should be noted this is part of his "Apocalypse Trilogy", what John considers to be the three films representing the end of the world. It started with The Thing, then this, and ends in a couple entries with In the Mouth of Madness.

They Live (1988): After watching this movie, I have to wonder how Rowdy Roddy Piper never made it as an action star. It's a terrible movie by most merits, which is all the more reason to love it. It's cheesy, campy, filled with 80s cliches, and awesome for every last second. For god's sake, it was the inspiration for cripple fight from South Park! That makes any movie a victory in my book.



In the Mouth of Madness (1994): The end of the "Apocalypse Trilogy", this movie is better than the previous entry in the set. In the Mouth of Madness actually hearkens back to the John Carpenter films of the 80s with his self produced synth score and weird creature effects. It actually uses all traditional make up effects, which I respect, especially right after we had seen T2 and Jurassic Park make computer effects look really good.

Village of the Damned (1995): It's been a while since I've seen this film, but I can remember it fondly, for whatever that's worth. I don't own this movie, though it's one I often consider buying. It's sort of forgettable, anyone else have any thoughts? I don't consider it bad, just sort of filler.

Vampires (1998): I can't get behind this movie. It's just not that good. It's a pretty sub par vampire flick and hot on the heels of Escape from LA, we've hit the low point of John's career. I mean, the main vampire's name is a consonant sound away from being "phallic". And it has Daniel Baldwin, aka the fat Baldwin. Really?

Ghosts of Mars (2001): This movie, while pretty ridiculous, is actually pretty entertaining. I don't have a problem with it, which from what I understand is somewhat strange. Again, it's pretty much like his remake of Village of the Damned: it's just kind of there.

Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns (2005): This was one of my favorite entries in the first season of Masters of Horror (I have yet to see any of the second season, so I don't know about Pro-life), but this definitely lived up to the Master of Horror billing.

So, in the end, Carpenter has been pretty overwhelmingly good (or at least passable). I think he's much more of a Master than Craven because he's actually made some good movies since 1988. But I must admit that, like Craven, his first few were his best. They both burst onto the scene and kept it going for a while. In the end, Carpenter has 7 films I like, 3 movies I'm okay with, and 1 that I don't like (not including his diversions from horror and the ones I haven't seen). As per usual, what do you think?