Reviews

Zombie Love is a highly entertaining movie that combines two seemingly totally different movie genres into one.

The theme of the movie is appealing. It is, after all, a love story about two people (well, one actually, if you don't count the dead guy) who are very unlikely to fall in love with each other, and yet, they do. The choices they are faced with are universal, and very recognizable: The lead zombie Dante is confronted with the choice whether he should betray his zombie nature and his friends because of his love for Claudia. Claudia on the other hand has to choose whether or not she is to follow her heart in the search for her truly beloved zombie. This may sound dull; after all, movies have been made about these themes wherein the characters talk, and talk, and talk…

Not in Zombie Love! Why? Well, it's a musical! Instead of whining, characters burst into song! This movie offers horror, drama, romance, humor and music all in one package.

Because of the very clever way the plot is written, the humor, music and drama go hand in hand, without one overruling the other. The zombie theme is not merely a continuing joke. It really adds to the story, which is compelling and funny. The lyrics and music are well written, and the two main characters share a chemistry not often seen in the semi-professional genre. A little background knowledge of the horror and musical genres can help the viewer to appreciate the inside jokes even more, but there's enough to enjoy even if it's your first encounter with a zombie-musical movie.

To say anything about the finale would be a horrible spoiler, so I'm not going to. You're just gonna have to buy the DVD or keep a lookout for a screening at a place near you. Be warned though: Don't watch it alone! It's worth to have somebody with you to share the fun with!

I admit, that's quite a strong thing to say, but I have an example for you to illustrate what I mean. You see, I'm very fond of science fiction. I'm one of those folk who think that SF tells us a lot about who we are and why we are. On a deeper level SF productions (films, novels, series) tell us something about the time and civilisation we live in, e.g. what can "Aliens" in retrospect tell us about the eighties. Of course, a lot of rubbish has been produced over the last few years, Firefly not being one of those. Who…what…Firefly? Of course, you've probably never heard of Firefly. Well, that's just my point. You see, Firefly is that great series created by Josh Whedon, the man behind Buffy and Angel, the man who perfected the idea of telling stories about vampires whilst actually telling us about family, friendship, well, life actually. By telling stories about the dead, he upheld the living a mirror. Well, this man made a SF series about a crew on board the Firefly-class spaceship Serenity.

Captain Malcom Reynolds is a former galactic war veteran who is the captain of the Firefly class transport ship "Serenity". The other people on the crew list are: ensign Zoe Warren, Zoe's husband pilot Hoban Washburne, muscular former combat soldier Jayne Cobb (Buffy viewers may recognize him for being one of Whedon's favourite vampires), young engineer Kaylee Frye, former Alliance medical officer Simon Tamm, his teenage sister River, priest Shepard Book and companion Inara Serra. They all have their reasons for being on board Serenity, as the spaceship crew travels across the outskirts of outer space looking for food, money and anything to make a living on.

Main concern for the Serenity crew is to keep out of reach of the Alliance, an interplanetary organisation controlling the human inhabited part of space. The Alliance didn't get control until a bloody war was waged on the resistance, the latter consisting mainly of the so called brown coats, captain Malcolm Reynolds being one of them. It was at Serenity that a last stand of the rebels was crushed by the Alliance, leaving the rebels either dead or on the run.

Whedons universe is a melting pot of cultures, non of them being alien. It is a relief to watch a SF series without prosthetics. Indeed, Firefly is best subscribed as a western in space. It is the language that lets us know that we're not in the now; only a few factions have survived the struggles for power, China and America being the most dominant. As a result everybody speaks with a strong southern American accent mixed with Chinese. This Chinese can be pretty handy since it is a great way to avoid sensor ship. Now, "Gao yang jong duh goo yang" (Motherless goats of all motherless goats) is a curse no network will find offensive. Nor is "Ai ya, wo mun wan luh" (We're in big trouble!). However, the often used "gorram" is a good example; it can be used either as "goddamn" or "shit", like in the sentence "This here gorram ship ain't worth a dime", or "You keep talking that gorram in ma face will turn your skin blue!".

What makes Firefly really good though is the cast and characters. They're all very good actors, and the characters are developed very well. To establish this Whedon took his time in setting up the story line. It is because of this that the network got reserved. They wanted an easy action packed funny series where viewers could hook on to right from the first episode. Firefly is just that, but at the same time it brings a quality and originality that is unparalleled, and that may take some time to get used to. And that is what the network got really nervous about. So what did they do? Pull the plug. Just like that. Therefore Firefly didn't even make it one season. It's only 14 episodes, leaving the viewer with tantalizing questions like, why is that little girl River so dangerous, who is this priest, what's with the "hands of blue", how solid is the marriage between Zoe and Hoban? Of course, you don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about here. So please: watch the series and tell people about it. Let them know that networks can be very, very stupid.

PS: please don't copy the Firefly DVD's. Every DVD sold will prove Josh Whedon right!

Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though!

I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!

The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!

There is one basic problem that shows itself with the release of every single Star Wars movie: George Lucas cannot direct human emotions.

Off course, it all looks great. The worlds created are stunningly realistic and computer graphics are (most of the time) convincing. But it doesn't work on an emotional level; storytelling is much more then showing effects, and this is what wrecks the Revenge of the Sith.

Lucas seems to have forgotten what story he wanted to tell, thus causing lack of time being the movie's greatest problem. Halfway through the movie I started wondering how many times you can land a spaceship on again another planet, and why that fight between Yoda and Palpatin is so important (knowing both have two films ahead of them).

The dialog between the action sequences is either short and beautiful (not so many times) or boring and ridiculously badly written (times to many). And this in particular stings, because the story in itself is a beautiful one. I keep asking myself: Why is Padme so in love with Anakin? I for one don't see it, or it must be Padme is falling for aggressive, mood-swing suffering spoiled brats.

The transformation of Anakin into Vader could have been one of the great highlights in film history, but left me stunned in my seat instead, rubbing my eyes in disbelieve, not knowing to laugh or weep, but then I knew: Lucas killed Vader. The villain of villains is no more.

The point made by Lucas himself still stands: He is a great producer (The Empire Strikes Back) but a very, very poor director (All The Other Episodes).

After the first 10 minutes of this movie at the IFFR, I was thinking "Hmmm...this could be a very nice movie". It had it all: humor, wits, nice photography, a teeny bit of suspense even. But then, after about 45 minutes, I started wondering what this all was going to. No direction, fragmented storytelling, and the general feeling that I was not seeing what I wanted to at the moment. After about an hour the movie had lost me completely: what is this all about anyway? Do you know that feeling, like, when you're completely bored with a situation, that you'd rather leave but remain seated because you keep hoping it gets better? Well, thats how I spend the rest of the movie.

The movie has enough elements to make a nice story, but every decision taken by the writers, the director, the editor, whatever, leads it further away from it. Pity.

I watched Zebraman at the IFFR in Rotterdam, and it was a coaster ride from beginning to end. I've seen a view movies by Miike Takashi, and they all had elements of gore and typical Japanese-over-the-top-violence. Not this one though!!! From the first second up it's totaly wicked. It has all the elements you've already seen in this sort of action-figure-based movies, but in the hands of Miike it turns into movie magic. In a nutshell: Goodbye Hollywood! Sadako rock's! America doesn't!

The story about a failed teacher/familyman, daydreaming about his alter-ego Zebraman who after construction of his ducktaped superhero outfit gets more then he could ever hoped for, will keep you on the edge for the entire length of the movie.

Those of you familiar with Miike's previous work do not need to dispare: It wouldn't be Miike if there wasn't any blood, body fluids or slurry involved, but I can't tell you anything without spoiling, so: GO SEE!

Zebraman has everything you've probable already seen. But once again it's Miike Takashi's sparkling imagination, sense of humor and original filmmaking that makes watching this movie such a joy.

A teachers escape fantasy turns out to be more than he could ever wish for, when his alter-ego seems to be the only thing to stand between absolute (green) evil and a happy ending.

I finally did it: I sow Donnie Darko. It is a good movie. Especially when you take in account that it's the first movie this director has ever made.

And it must be great being able to write, portrait and direct yourself without over-writing, over-acting and over-directing. It does contain some nice clues, and there's a lot of social criticism and (I dare say un-American) self reflection, so much needed in nowadays America.

However.though I liked it a lot, I just can't see what all the fuss is about. Was it worth all the hustle, talk, secrecy and hype? No I think not.

Maybe it has become such a smash hit because it has all the elements to entertain the average public, plus a little extra to let that same audience have a taste of the better none-Hollywood-style-movie. It really doesn't ask that much of the viewers imagination. My advise to those who consider Donnie to be that special movie they've all been waiting for so long: go to the cinema more often and skip the action packed standards. This is cinema it is supposed to be: it is good, it is well thought, it is original. But not worth the hype.

People tend to recall Walace and Grommit once asked about there favourite claymation cartoon. Although the latter has of course a unique quality of it's own it would be just unfair to simply skip "Gogs". The story's are brilliantly simple. It's the use of time and sound that make it so catchy. I will never forget the scene in witch the entire prehistoric and pre-brain family tries to drag a giant (sleeping) bear out of there house (cave). The stupid faces of the characters, the sound of the bears nails on the stone ground and the look of total bewilderment on a passing bird are hilarious. Question is, will this unbearable treatment awake the bear...? Go see for yourself!

I can hold long story short by referring to Phil Coopers article witch says it all. There's just one thing i would like to add.

In the original story (yeah i know, you can't really compare them but once again if you want my opinion about that you'll have to read Phill's article) the ring represents the powers of evil. And there is one particular scene where that becomes very clear: Elronds Counsel. I'm revering to the part where Gandalf tries to explain to the Counsel that the found ring is indeed the one Ring. He does so by mentioning the words witch appear on it once held in fire, even better: he speaks these words, in the original language, out loud. And the sky darkened, and the Elves held their hands to their ears as everybody present shivered in fear. Now that the evil is apparent the delegations unite, and the Fellowship is established.

This short scene would have added much to the understanding of the sudden urge of the group members and it would have made clear that the Ring itself is a real danger.

Do i think less of this movie because of this little difference of opinion? NO WAY!!! Go see it!!!