zor_prime's Reviews

I Am Legend (2007)

9/10

Excellent adaptation proving there is still heart and soul(s?) in the big movie business.

15 December 2007

After skimming the book, and having watched the previous two attempts at I Am Legend, I went in hoping for the best, but expecting mediocrity, (or something like the two recent Resident Evil films)... But I was quite surprised and entertained by what I experienced. Though it's true that most of the CG in this film is not very good, it's apparent to me that CG isn't the film's selling point, or what it leans on for merit. It's a well acted, well paced, well directed, and well adapted piece. Honestly, the 'monster' aspect never needed to be front-and-center visually for it to be effective. I thought it was implemented very well (largely in the dark and ultra fast moving scenes where the imagination can assist).

I was hoping for a departure from "The Omega Man", which I thought was an incredibly silly film of what I consider to be the "A-Team variety". But, for the first 30 minutes or so, there were just so many analogs to Charlton Heston's performance that it was getting predictable (though the Will Smith version is hardly as pompous as Heston's). Very quickly, though, I forgot all about that concern and the movie really came into it's own. Smith's character, the environment, and the adversary were all quite different and very well conceived.

I was also expecting vampires (a genre that I'm no big fan of), and was pleasantly surprised at what I found in this film's antagonist to be (which is 28 times more endearing to me than vampires).

The third and probably most detracting thing I was expecting from this film was for it to suffer from the standard droll devices of a big-budget blockbuster: the requisite love story, Rambo shoot-em-up action, and a dialog-over-story plot basis. Oh, and not to mention headlining a traditionally "feel-good" star actor that could probably run for president one day. Fortunately, none of these normally ever-present problems intruded to ruin this film. And though it was indeed an uncharacteristically dark role for Smith in several ways, he pulled it off brilliantly.

Maybe it could have been a little longer, answering more questions and allowing more of the psychodrama to filter in, but it's possible that would have spoiled the excellent balance of jump-in-your seat action vs. the plot/tension building interstital scenes. The theater I saw this in was packed with plenty viewers from the younger crowd (it's hard to believe this film is only PG-13 in the US). However, the entire theater was completely silent and caught in the grip of the films action, story line, and excellent pacing.

I noticed a lot of people taking advantage of what could be considered the 'comic relief' of this film. However, I found some of the 'humorous' parts less than laughable, and more disturbing than anything. When you see this, really try to understand this man's environment and then you will probably better understand his psyche.

I will look forward to more from this relatively unknown writer/director team.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)

7/10

Okay as a Road Warrior style post-apocalyptic film... But a great zombie franchise sequel? Not so much.

22 September 2007

In the not too distant future, viral weaponry research and development goes all wrong. What follows is an entertaining vision for any fan of zombie pandemic stories or just plain world/human survival style films. The first film in this franchise is decidedly the best with as-believable-as-can-be ideas, nifty effects, a decent (not over-the-top) story. The second and third films, however, move pretty far away from the basic zombie survival story and much further into character-based stories with a focus on splinter/spin-off concepts like wildly comic book/cartoonish science fiction elements. So if you enjoy movies that are based on comic books or video games that will require you to accept a lot of really over-the-top ideas (like superpowers, supernatural powers, CHUD-style mutation, magic, etc.), then you will still enjoy the latter two films since they are not bad on that merit. They're also okay as general apocalyptic survival stories. However, as a fan of the zombie genre, if you were expecting a solid continuation of the basic story of zombie infection from the first film, these sequels will let you down. The Romero-style zombies in these films are really just extras that apparently just needed to be in the background making room for more intense and faster (though much less believable) antagonists. Maybe this is because films like 28 Days/Weeks and Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead have done much to turn the volume down on lumbering old-style zombies and Paul W.S. Anderson felt that he needed to crank up the action factor.

In RE3, our heroes finally figure out that moving to near the arctic circle would be a good move (you know, COLD + ZOMBIE = IMMOBILE ZOMBIE), and decide to hoof it to Alaska after learning of a possible isolated colony of survivors there. There are a number of new twists on the infection (you will be thinking of Bud The Zombie and/or Bud The CHUD at a few points), and there will be more Boyle/Snyder style zombie goodness to contend with mixed in with the normal zombie hoards.

There were, however, some hold-out thematic elements from the first two films. There are zombie Doberman pinchers, creepy hologram girls with British accents, plenty of zombie-around-the-corner jump-in-your-seat moments, and of course Alice either naked or in hot Road Warrior-style tactical gear. There is the terrible T-Virus infection, and the perfect anti-virus strait out of the X-Files. There are new hints at the answers to old questions, and some new things to think about that still relate to the basic T-Virus. And without a doubt, there's the recurring theme of the evil big corporation (The Umbrella Corp. A.K.A. Halliburton + Merck + United Healthcare) which caused the mess but has managed to out-survive governments and massive population decimation. The moral here? What happens when a capitalistic society allows a private entity to become too powerful? The evil private scientists always plot to rule the world at the expense of the common population.

Anyway, I don't go to the theater to see films often, but I try to make it to the big-budget zombie flicks... However, on the merit of being a zombie film, I could have waited for this one to roll to DVD...

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)

8/10

The only real zombies: caught between death and heaven.

27 August 2007

When I first saw this film as a 12 year-old (what were my parents thinking?) I was unimpressed and recall thinking the movie was stupid. Now that I have done some research into the Vudu (the politically correct spelling) Tetrodotoxin zombies (and have begun to enjoy zombie theory in general), I appreciated this film much more.

Though there are some cheeseball scenes (which I would expect in any Wes Craven film), I think this one was was intended to be taken serious, and some of these pre-CGI effects are done very well. The topic of real zombies has been an interesting subject since US armed forces veterans began bringing stories of the "zombie powder" Vudu traditions back from Haiti in the early part of the last century. Movies like White Zombie and several books detail the application of this medical condition into forced labor or worse.

While Serpent and the Rainbow was entertaining, it's not likely that real zombie powder is standardized in such a way that it's efficacy will follow any reliable pattern, such as the Soap Opera-style "rules" described by the good doctor. i.e.: total zero vital signs, a 12 hour effectiveness, etc. Additionally, this type of toxin will generally leave it's victim severely brain damaged, and most likely good-for-nothing. So, this film takes a bit of creative liberty, and a good imagination will help you enjoy it. Though it's nearly 20 years old, not much is dated (even most of the effects), and it's still a fun viewing now.

Snag it on your DVR!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Braindead (1992)

7/10

Shaun of the Dead is elevator music in comparison...

9 August 2007

So over-the-top and only gets better...

This zombie film/zombie comedy (I think the movie Dead and Deader coined the term Zomedy) is so over-the-top, and only gets worse (better?) as you progress. Though there is a lot of fanfare about this title now that Peter Jackson is a recognizable name, it's not Peter's name attached that makes this a great film in it's genre. Before watching this, I thought "Oh well, if it's terrible, it's only 97 minutes of my life and I can get some work done while I watch"... After the first 20 minutes or so, I never decided break from the movie.

This is a film that employs so many zombie clichés that it's really incredible. It creates new ones that have been used by other films, and exploits zombie pre-1992 scenes for excellent comic (and general shock) effect. As you begin to think you've seen the last over-the-top effect or idea, it only gets more incredible. The turning and kill scenes really get more and more insanely campy, but in the best of ways. You can feel the ballistic gel squishing. You can hear the hand-in-the-turkey foley art... Classic! Then it has the audacity to try to create familial drama after you are already invested in the extreme campiness. Imagine Evil Dead, but GOOD! Genre fans will love it, casual movie-goers will try to take it seriously and may hate it.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nomad: The Warrior (2005)

5/10

Not a terrible "epic" style movie.

3 August 2007

I would argue that there weren't many genuinely original concepts, other than simply shedding some light on Kazakh history. Basically a live action, feel-good version of the Prince of Egypt cartoon, trading Egyptians and Hebrews for nomadic Muslims. But that being said, it was decent and crisp.

Filming locations seemed really great, like LOTR - The Two Towers without any need for CGI! As for rating/violence, it could have almost been PG13 in the US, but I liked this fact. It was a clean-ish film that likens back to the spaghetti western. No over-the-top violence, sex, swearing, or embellishing for the sake of a Hollywood audience. While this generally comes off slightly cartoonish, it was refreshing.

As for the language, I would swear that it seemed to be filmed in English and dubbed in Kazakh. In fact, I don't usually mind a dubbed movie (especially Spanish or Japanese for some reason), but half-way through this film, I realized there was an English audio track and switched it over, and I was more engaged.

The horse work was pretty amazing, I thought.

Again, overall, this film seemed to have all the filming quality of an expensive Hollywood movie, but brought a niceness that's less common in contemporary film (Note: guaranteed NOT to hold the attention of most American youth).

7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

300 (2006)

8/10

Once the fight begins, blink only with one eye.

1 August 2007

This is in the same vein of many "against all odds" historical films like Troy, Gladiator, and Braveheart. It's yet another celluloid testament to the fact that the few brave can affect the tide of time and history. The truth is that without this brand or kind of bravery, the world would be different, in fact, in this particular case, the democratic or free world might not be... or would at least be different that it is. It's interesting that Xerxes actually threatens to burn every Greek parchment. This truly would be a hit to any free society of today.

It's possible that watching "Last Stand of the 300" is a prerequisite for this film. It wouldn't spoil it (if you're wondering). If nothing more, it imparts much gravity to the events of this movie. The true back-story is really something that changed the world, and is in most 10th grade history lesson plans.

I liked the cast of relative unknowns (I wouldn't dare say B-listers!). The physical appearance/tone of the characters and the presence they relate to the audience is very important. In fact, type cast actors or the possibility of bringing reference to other movies into this film could have ruined it. The only character I might have considered recasting with a better-known actor would be that of the Captain (I would have voted for Tom Sizemore).

I only have two negative comments (maybe robbing the film of a star each): 1. The splattering blood/wet sponge foley art that is in many scenes really drew the quality down to that of a complete graphic novel knockoff, or the surreal environment of Sin City. But maybe that's just a Snyder trademark, and is excusable.

2. The dialog. Some of this script is right out of any other 20th century war movie... I'm glad that at LEAST there were were no Schwartzeneger one-liners.

I don't know or care where Zack Snyder came from, but his work is already legendary by my estimation... and I get the feeling he's just at the foot of the mountain.

Watch "Last Stand...", Then get this movie.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Isolation (2005)

7/10

Unexpectedly very well done.

28 July 2007

About as believable as any good zombie film, Isolation excels at pacing, thorough examination and explanation, and coming full circle with all of the concepts it presents. Something that so many similar movies fail at.

If you are looking for a mindless slasher, watch something else, though there's slightly creepy nuances that beckon back to films like Alien. If you need that human relation-based plot, there might be enough here to keep you satisfied, but the film doesn't rely at all on developing side-stories of love and emotion. Characters have seemingly realistic reactions and make understandable decisions (unclouded by the need to make irrational decisions for the sake of building tension in the script). Scenes follow-through to conclusion and don't seem edited for time.

Isolation leaves no main plot thread unresolved, and stylishly elaborates on the scientific as well as horrific ideas as they presented. I don't think this will be a widely appealing film, but it didn't take any wrong turns. I don't recall any advertising for it. This might mean it's less Nike and more sandal, but there is a time when sandals are practical.

It's every bit as intelligent as the best X-Files episodes, and I wasn't able to find any cheese in the effects, though I half-anticipated it to devolve into Critters or a Texas Chainsaw movie. It didn't, however, and was able to maintain it's integrity throughout.

I thought it was a gamble when I chose to rent this over a well-advertised title. But I now feel it was entertaining enough and well worth picking up.

24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Hills Have Eyes 2 (2007)

3/10

What you get without hiring a military technical adviser.

26 July 2007

As the film opens, I found myself wondering if I was about to experience something GOOD from Wes Craven.

Naw...

If you like lots of sloshing "hand-in-the-turkey" foley art, unlikely military situations, and cheesy def lepard songs, you will love this needless remake.

The first remake (2006) caught my attention because it actually took the directorial/writing latitude of allowing bad things to happen to everybody, while keeping the hero survivors at a minimum. This one has few of those qualities, far less situational tense drama, and pathetic military sense.

I tried to figure out if the horrible military accuracy is intentional (considering it IS a National Guard unit), or if it's just the lack of competent oversight (I couldn't find any military adviser in the credits or here). Probably the latter. The uniforms and gear were put together well at first (though everything was obviously new, that's a possibility for reservists/Guard).

Anyway, it's a testament to how lacking in content this film was that all I did was analyze technical detail like the freshmen foley work and military blundering. In fact, they should have left the military aspect out of the film if they didn't want to do it right.

It's not nearly the original, and as with most sequels, fails to capture anything of value from the first film, nor add any new intelligence vector.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mars Underground (2007)

10/10

As Excellent a documentary as it is wonderful propaganda.

20 June 2007

In terms of information (concise, lay information at that!), this documentary was spot on. I found it on my DVR from the Discovery Science Channel (I routinely record "space" night every week). Though the film tends to focus on all of Robert Zubrin's theories exclusively, it's a great poster tool for pushing the agenda of manned space exploration past the moon. I suspect the film's title is a reference to the Mars society, and not to Mars geology (which is what I was thinking at first). Although I'm not a member of the Mars society, but I do agree with the case for Mars in general, and this was more exciting than an hour of watching the Mars rovers slowly dig an inch into Mars' surface.

Although I like to consider myself pretty familiar with these topics, this documentary really gave me insight into the history and primary concepts of the argument for Mars that I never really knew before. The Mars Underground actually answered many questions that I knew to ask from my experience that I would have thought would go unanswered in this short documentary. In the first few moments, I was already asking about radiation, provisions, bone mass loss (due to gravity), and the overwhelming cost of a short Mars trip only to throw around some dirt and plant a flag.

Dr. Zubrin's very bold plans really throw standard convention and the tendency to inject too much bureaucracy into a simple project. His almost shoestring budget and nearly arrogant propositions are aligned with the same thinking of the Apollo missions, Christopher Columbus, and other major pioneering ventures. But it's what is needed to take that next step and step out of our reductionist couch comfort to do what's right for humanity in the name of life itself.

60 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Shadow Walkers (2006)

2/10

Very poor acting of most every character. Goofy effects and makeup.

18 June 2007

That about sums it up, so rather than really reviewing much more, here are the high (low?) points:

In the stolen plot devices category:

1) Chemical gas knocking out genetics lab employees (who wake up with temporary memory loss): Resident Evil

2) Tedious dance across thin object bridging an abyssal drop while evading or escaping: The Poseidon Adventure (new one), The Fellowship of the Ring, most any action film with an elevator scene, and many others... (take your pick).

3) Immense facility to provide perfect settings for zombie confrontations and on which the world's safety from pandemic tragedy relies on containment of said facility: (entire Resident Evil franchise).

4) Somewhat sentient zombie-like antagonists that have very human memories and abilities, but still want to kill everyone: Every poorly-done A-Team variety zombie film ever made.

Other random poorly conceived or implemented ideas:

1) Doctor or Lab tech (white coat staff) wearing fishnet top.

2) General Death Star-like abyss of a "Genetic Containment Unit".

3) Blatantly stealing "You are one ugly Mother..." from Predator.

4) Having a survivor maintain a fist-fight with an obviously superior "infected" (or whatever you want to call it) mutated human who's saliva would only infect the survivor as he hits it.

5) Adding generic porn-film quality soundtrack by an 80's soundtrack band in an attempt to sound like Slipknot in Resident Evil or somehow appeal to a younger party crowd.

6) The very much cliché idea that Big Bad (not to mention always bungling) "Military Industrial Complex" is of course responsible for the inevitable mess of genetically engineered zombie hordes every time.

7) Use of the word "Prion" in the script in an attempt to impart some sense of intelligence or scientific reasoning.

8) Adding the genetic mutation of fangs and long, sharp claws to the film's antagonists, only to have them very carefully avoid using them in nearly attack every scene (presumably to avoid having to have makeup/effects re-apply them when they pop off/out).

11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Peoples (2004)

6/10

Hi-8 Quality quasi-decent take on contemporary parent-sponsored 20-something malaise.

14 June 2007

Kind-of a cross between every other college-age coming-of-age movie and the Saddle Club. The realism to the script (if there was a strict script), film-type, and tight camera work might make the film worth watching. The actors really could be any contemporary knuckle-head kids somewhere between high school, college, and general delinquency funded by mom and dad. Almost an entertaining documentary or session of "reality TV".

I almost wonder if the actors weren't taking some percentage of the drugs they were portraying to have taken. They certainly understand the mindset they were supposed to be portraying. Possibly not to the extent that Depp and DelToro did, but enough for this film. Perhaps the most cogent, coherent character was "The black guy"(TM). But rather than serve as a plot device, he held the film together. He's probably the most respectable youth character in the film, though this doesn't say very much.

Many issues are approached by the film's writing: Spoiled kids & botched parenting, drug use and abuse, racism, social classes, and sexuality/interpersonal relationships. In fact, this might be required viewing for parents of children in the late teen/early twenties set who have not yet found their niche. It's less contrived and more effective than films like "Thirteen", "Havoc", "Bully" or "Manic", though in the same vein. Possibly a statement on today's youth who's parents give them just enough financial support to keep them from having to learn responsibility or even parents who give enough to allow their kids to destroy themselves for lack of actual any sense of realistic need or direction.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Nativity Story (2006)

2/10

Boring and poor normalization

11 June 2007

I'd agree with most people who weren't religintimidated into not saying what they really thought: This film was boring. While the film "sticks to the script" (remains true to source), it lacks the entertainment or enlightenment value of Mel's film or some of the fun early biblical films. That is to say that there is little action (though admittedly there's little action in the source to draw on), and very little depth to its educational value. There were no "ah-ha" moments where a clear-thinking screen-writer gives us some staggering visual interpretation of events, great new revalation, or other food for thought. No, this was a simple story drawn out and marketed at exactly the right time of year to bag the greatest financial yield.

The acting was sub-par, though it's hardly avoidable since for time constraint, most dialog and screen-action is paraphrased. The costumes weren't extremely true and it seems to me that many characters and extras probably had to share costumes (especially the roman soldiers). An additional fault (which is shared by Mel Gibson's film) is the continual presence of the supernatural. A similar film about anyone other than biblical prophets would be rejected by most English speakers unless there was a ghost or haunting involved for entertainment value. As an example, if you want to sell these biblical concepts, avoid glowing, gleaming eyes and soothsayers around every corner. I mean, do you want palm readers and shamen as the primary character witnesses for something that you are representing as doctrine?

On the other hand, one great aspect of this film is it's cinematography. Some camera work is excellent and post production applies just the right visual filter and soundtrack to ensure continuity and give it a big-budget feel. For these reasons, I gave it higher than 1 star. I should also note that this is yet another extremely poorly edited DVD from an audio normalization perspective. Anyone who has young childred they want to keep asleep in any house less than 4000 square feet will know what I mean: This is another film where you turn it way up because it's hard to make out the dialog, then unexpectedly the audio is loud. You have to keep your fingers on the remote's volume controls constantly.

In conclusion, the chapters of the Christian texts that this film expounds on are easy enough to interpret by any lay person. This movie was simply not required as it added no additional value. I would sooner recommend reading the Bible free online.

1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dead Awake (2001)

6/10

Vive la non-linear...

11 June 2007

...and somewhat believable entertaining plot devices!

I came across this film on my DVR a few days after combing late night TV for zombie movies (by virtue of the film's name)... And though it has less to do with the flesh-eating kind of zombie, Dead Awake has at least one zombie, played by Stephen Baldwin. While I'd like to make a joke at this point about the zombie reference being in reference to Baldwin family acting, he did okay in this one, and plays a corporate warrior who, though is successful, wanders through his days in a zombie-like trance because he is some sort of unexplained insomniac-narcoleptic. He's an insomniac who has is awake most nights and catches his rest in various lengths of micro sleep (with his eyes open). Enough of the plot is disclosed in the IMDb synopsis above (or probably also in the DVD liner notes), so I won't repeat it, but I will relate that some of the plot devices in this murder mystery are all at once simple, yet not completely unbelievable or borrowed/warmed over from other films.

There are also interesting characters and decent camera work. The entire movie has the feeling of Insomnia (the movie with Al Pacino), though it's faster paced and requires less critical or intense thinking. There's a neat scene where the camera moves forward through a cab (in one window, out the other), and then you hear the cab take off, in an obvious attempt to trick the viewer into thinking there's no camera at all. It's easy to figure the trick out, but I appreciated the little extra thought and prep that must have went into the scene, adding to the films overall stream of dreamlike consciousness. It's by no means a "Waking Life" experience, or as contrived as Snatch, but a very unexpected sleeper that I had never heard of before.

The music and ambiance not bad. Though it's filmed in Canada, it leaves you with the feeling that it could be New York, Chicago, or any believable Eastern US metro city.

There is a server at the diner who is legally blind. Unlike so many films that portray blindness (especially low-vision/legal blindness) inaccurately, the blind girl treatment in Dead Awake was quite realistic, and will certainly leave some people wondering "how could she see if she is blind?". She was actually one of the more believable, well-played characters in the film.

Overall, I probably would have walked past this one at the video rental store, especially with Stephen Baldwin on the cover, but I was mildly glad I mistakenly recorded it.

PostScript: There's a short bonus scene in the credits betraying a happy little conclusion to the narcosomnia.

6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Severed (2005)

3/10

Evil Corporation:1 - Liberal Activists: 0

17 May 2007

... And by liberal activists, I mean the writer/director and producers! Forget the undead (were they even undead?). The real activists and loggers were on the film crew (as writer/director/producers and camera crew, respectively). The primary thematic element of this film could be summed up in it's opening and closing scenes, and is most certainly more about smearing the ominous evil corporation than ominous zombie entertainment or bringing any new concepts or devices to the genre... And while the ShakyCam{TM} can be employed successfully (see 28 Days/Weeks Later), unfortunately, the loggers on this film's camera crews thought they were still handling chainsaws.

Motives aside, there were a few decent qualities of this film (or else I would have rated it below a 3). One saving throw was the zombie acting. The zombies were very consistent, and must have had a decent coach. In fact, the zombie acting was better than almost EVERY other individual character in the film. However, generally speaking, it's possible that the day of the serious zombie film successfully employing lumbering, Romero-style zombies could be over. The Snyder/Boyle zombies have really turned the volume down on the slower Romero zombies, which steals much from the tension and intensity of this film (and probably others) for an audience who may "wanna see something REALLY scary".

Another helpful quality was that even though the ShakyCam{TM} was mis-employed over and over, the actual film quality and direction of most OTHER scenes (especially the sweeping panoramic shots) was good and well conceived. However, the pace and timing of several scenes easily loses any momentum the beginning might have built, and might leave one wondering if this is yet another low-budget film that strayed from it's original script mid-way through (for whatever reason).

The characters were extremely poorly written and acted. You might wonder if they were on the wrong set with the wrong script and really should have been in the next live-action Scooby Doo movie. Though these zombies are slow-movers, the characters are rarely able to outrun them... And although there seem to be zombies in the woods in great numbers, they only show up en masse when characters are hiking or driving in the middle of nowhere, yet when they're barricaded up somewhere, there's never more than 3 or 6 of them banging on the door (maybe there were only 6 zombies used throughout the film).

As for horror/slasher value, something was lost completely. Although there is lots of splattering blood (if that's what you're into), it seems to take an extremely long time to cut the slow-to-non-moving zombies' heads off in this film (even with tools like chain saws or a large axes). Maybe it's for shock value, or maybe it's to give the crew member with the spray bottle time between hacks to spray blood directly in the main character's face (every single time). There is only one Romero-esquire tribute scene where the camera was close on zombies in full mastication. Otherwise, most zombie death or non ShakyCam{TM} zombie attack scenes are off-screen.

All-in-all, this film MIGHT be worth watching if you're a fan of the genre, and although the film DOES take itself seriously, don't expect better overall integrity than you'd find in an A-Team episode. Well, at least this film doesn't take a shot at making the "Bud the sentient zombie" mistake made by many new and old films (Day of the Dead, 28 Weeks, etc.).

I'm personally glad I didn't pay to rent or purchase this one (I have Blockbuster TotalAccess, and it was a free rental afterthought choice). If I had paid to view it, I would have called it a deadloss (pun intended).

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

28 Weeks Later (2007)

9/10

Nothing (read NOTHING) is held back...

11 May 2007

...Not this time.

I believe 28 Weeks Later did appreciate as a sequel (with only a couple very minor depreciative concepts), and that was a surprise.

I'm admittedly a zombie film fan (especially the serious, non A-Team variety). And although the Rage virus in these two films does not produce an 'undead' zombie, the 'infected' nevertheless present a similarly formidable and threatening antagonist. If you haven't seen either film, Boyle's 'infected' are far less like the traditional lumbering Romero zombies, and closer to the Zack Snyder zombies of 2004's Dawn of the Dead. Note that if you were able to get away with seeing 28 Days Later as a date movie, you may not pull it off with 28 Weeks. There is very little breathing room, and some of it is more disturbing and far less bridled than you might be expecting, especially if you are used to the character-based 'safety' of most films.

Unlike 28 Days, a flashpan start to 28 Weeks Later sets the tone for the entire film... Which although short in running time (at just over 1:30) with quite a fast pace, still seemed very much long enough to be perfectly enjoyable, especially for any fan of the genre. Other than a brief, but informative back-story conversation near the beginning, there is almost no down time spent (wasted?) on emerging relationships or overly granular side-stories. Overall the most powerful element of the film isn't really character based, but rather the theme of a terrible pandemic that, besides a small twist, isn't much changed from the first movie.

There is one facet of the film that I did not really appreciate, but can't really detail without a spoiler warning. Let's just say that London is a fairly large playground for certain (coincidental?) events to happen (and not just once). However, there's a possibility I may be missing some concept that made these events intentional--I hope it's some twist of the virus and isn't just star power.

I'll be purchasing the DVD, but probably won't offer to watch it with any of my family and couldn't recommend it as a party movie :)

Post Script: If you had ever wondered why the rest of the world was not affected by this virus, consider the geographically isolating nature of the British Isles and the extremely short incubation period of this virus. A truly viable pandemic must have a longer incubation period and optimally be airborne or at least infect multiple disparate species. So the Rage virus, while perfectly suited in close quarters would likely not travel much farther than a pair of human legs could travel.

204 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Return in Red (2007 Video)

4/10

Is it a particle? Or a Wave?

13 April 2007

...Whichever you believe it is, the light radiating from my TV while watching this movie was extremely SSSSLLLLLLOOOOOOOOW moving! ...Or maybe it was just the movie itself... Though it was not a terrible movie.

I had time to go and browse Websites to review what I remember about the electromagnetic spectrum trying to guess which wavelengths were being used in this story. And while I did that and checked e-mail, I didn't feel that I had missed anything at all in the film. There were probably about 14 minutes of critical scenes and the rest is pretty much build-up, so feel free to catch up on bills or do your taxes throughout this one.

For some reason, I enjoyed the acting of some of the characters. The two younger male leads seemed to be very genuine, and I don't think the factory foreman even knew he was in a movie and may have been operating a real machine shop the whole time. In fact, there was a very real feeling to the representation of an entire small community revolving around the work life at a single large industrial/factory work type employer. Maybe this is why whoever perpetrated this experiment chose this town--other than whatever the factory produced, no one in America would miss anyone or anything in this town if it disappeared one day.

Many parts of this film reminded me of the almost farcical, terrible attempt at bat zombie-ism "The Roost". In fact, they could have been filmed on the same location. Though in contrast to the truly terrible "The Roost", this film had a lot better cinematic, and pseudo-scientific value. Probably the scariest element of the film overall was the relationship between the young child (who even though the weather was cold, did not seem to go to school) and his single mother *shudder*.

Overall, I think they could have ramped up the zombie-factor of the film. Though there isn't really any analog to traditional zombie genre concepts, this movie could have gone that way. I mean, everybody loves a good zombie film, right? I don't think I'd want to ever watch it again, but some of the actors (or maybe it was just the characters) were nice enough that it wouldn't be terrible (or unbelievable) meeting them in Rural Indiana. If anything, this film might urge you to evaluate your life, and the value and meaning of life itself--because it's obviously NOT meant for us to work 1st, 2nd, and 3rd shifts day in and day out with NO hope of a better waking life.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

9/10

DOTD and Zombie Theory (not really a spoiler)

29 November 2005

Warning: Spoilers

Not really any big or important spoilers in this article...

As a big fan of zombie movies (for some strange reason, I am somewhat senselessly entranced by zombie theory), I would have to say that this is one of the finer zombie films I've ever seen. Although some viewers might call it campy or spoofy even (due to some of the very well-placed comic relief), I believe it was a great effort on the part of Zack Snyder (never heard of Zack Snyder before this movie?--me neither). Some of the DVD extras are a testament to the attention-to-detail that was given to this treatment of the old Romero flick.

Plot: The plot is roughly based on the original Romero film (so I won't elaborate much here), but it has a pretty hard edge (not to mention improved zombie theory). The story follows survivors in a Wisconsin burb (yeah, it's a REAL Wisconsin Death Trip!) that's suddenly ravaged by zombie hordes. Note: If you watch the extra materials, you find that the incident happens on a global scale. Incidentally, the production company seems to be called "Strike", but the first few times I watched the movie, I wondered if the word "Strike" being shown in the opening sequence was significant of the incident(s) being an intentional terrorist "strike". My guess now is not, but I wondered if anyone else thought that.

Characters: The characters are believable (all but the kid in the begging sequence). I mean, who doesn't like a Ving Rhames joint? I think the other relatively unknown actors do a pretty great job, too. Not-to-mention the zombies: The thought that went into creating anatomically correct zombies at various stages of decomposition was apparently immense. I especially liked the Andy character, a personality close to my heart, in a situation like that ;) Interesting features: I was excited to see that this treatment incorporated the 'fast-moving' zombie mobility. 28 Days Later was (to my knowledge) the first realistic movie to theorize that zombies could be more than lumbering sub-human blobs. The idea that your first encounter with a situation like this would give you very little reaction time, is pretty scary to think about (if you allow yourself a little right-brain indulgence to really imagine it). In contrast, I'd have to say slow-moving blobs would be much easier to deal with. Which scenario (slow-movers vs. fast-movers) might be closer to a realistic possibility? You'd have to read my Zombie Theory to find out what I think (coming soon). I enjoyed the placement and appropriateness of both versions of Disturbed's Down With the Sickness.

Negative/detracting features: The girl in the opening scenes (her locomotion and biting 'bit' seemed a little cartoonish. The zombie birthing/baby scene was unnecessarily stupid (reminiscent of a Chucky movie--blech). The head and spinal column still 'alive' in the fishing boat's cooler. I didn't like what happened in the very end scenes (embedded in the credits--you missed it if you left the theater early). The ending before that would have been fine, IMO.

In conclusion, I am a big fan of this production of Romero's Dawn of the Dead. I honestly feel that this film would have been much better received by audiences had it not been a "remake". It would have been going a little further out on a limb, but what went into this film could have produced an extremely good original movie. I guess Zack Snyder (or someone at Strike, etc.) had to make the decision early on to go with a "remake" for the famesake/namesake, or something potentially better (or at least as good) that would be original and not connected to the Romero film. I enjoyed the film in the theater and at home, and it is a thought-provoking inspiration to my Zombie Theory.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

3/10

AVP: Another Vile Prequel...

29 November 2005

Yet another prequel that shouldn't have been...

I recently bought this title (mainly since it was on sale for $14.98 at Wal-Mart). I am a really big Aliens fan (Aliens being by far, the best of the Alien movies), but I hadn't heard reviews of AVP from anyone I trust. It was a gamble to buy it.

Well, I've only watched it once, and I'd have to say it had the same intrigue as say... Predator 2. Marginally interesting on the merit of it's major characters (of course by major characters I mean the aliens and predators) and pretty decent CG/special effects, I wouldn't call it mandatory viewing (even for Alien or Predator movie, or Darkhorse Comic fans). Just as with the comics, some of the ideas in the film explain issues that come out of the other Alien and Predator movies (which is nice), but unlike the comic, the movie just lacked the substance that intrigues me as a fan of the series.

I was surprised to see Lance Henriksen in yet ANOTHER Aliens movie (although I like the actor, I believe it was kind of a bad decision to include him in the cast of this film). Yes, I do understand the connection his character has to all of the Aliens movies, I just think it was kind of sukc. I am something of a fan of Paul W. S. Anderson's work as well (Resident Evil, Event Horizon), but this was pretty bland. I would have to say that Resident Evil: Apocalypse had the same level of appeal. Just an example of a great idea with a pretty good storyline that was put together terribly, giving the film experience that Mortal Kombat sort-of cheesiness. I'm not sure I am happy to have bought the title. I would rather have spend the same money to put Alien Quadrillogy on layaway or something, heh.

As Hank Rollins said recently in his IFC show Henry's Film Corner: "What happens when you take two R-rated, very successful franchises, and hybridize them together? You get a PG-13-rated piece-of-crap film called Aliens vs. Predator..." ... I'd have to agree.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jarhead (2005)

9/10

Being a Marine Sniper between Gulf Wars 1 & 2, I wasn't sure if I'd relate...

12 November 2005

I wasn't sure if I'd be able to relate to this movie, which plays out much more like an honest memoir than a war movie. Although some people might have been either shocked or confused by many themes in the film, I would have to say I thought they were accurate. I identified with most all of the thematic elements and I don't think that they were exaggerated for the sake of celluloid. I even found myself laughing (out loud) after a scene or line that I felt to be perfectly funny, though I was apparently the only one in the theater that thought so. Don't take each scene too seriously if you are easily offended--everything in it is pretty right-on, but it's all normal male bonding type stuff. Infantry (and more-so with STA/Sniper) platoons form a pretty close brotherhood where many times there may be no such thing as privacy (which is actually healthy for situations in which team-work is essential).

As a Marine Scout-Sniper in a STA platoon and other units just after Gulf War 1, I was never a shooter in combat. I thought this movie might be past my experiences, but after watching it, I feel that it's a film many people will be able to relate to, not just combat vets (unlike many other more combat-oriented war movies). In fact, it was more like my experience than not.

It's tough to relate any detailed accounts from the film without giving up the very simple and straightforward plot-line. However, I can tell you that it's glancing insight into interpersonal interactions in a unit like STA is an entertaining staple throughout the movie. I say glancing, because I don't think the director had enough time to delve any deeper given that it's less than a 2-hour piece. It's enough to give you a longview of the man's experiences. Take the time to believe the concepts the film presents (because it's a good account of a real experience), and you'll enjoy the whole thing.

Technical: Other than one scene, I thought the events were very technically accurate. There was a scene where a sniper team was in a hide, and are approached and more or less caught off-guard. I wouldn't think any school-trained Marine Sniper would let that happen (without early warning systems or other countermeasures around the hide). Otherwise, all equipment, organizational elements, and armament/ordnance representations were very accurate.

You know a movie's good when it changes your plans afterwards. Instead of going out, I went home to call some friends for Veterans Day! Cheers, Swaff!

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

zor_prime

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed