June 13-15, 2008

It was a horror movie weekend!

Dawn of the Dead -

What follows Night of the Living Dead? Why Dawn of the Dead of course! (no, not Dawna of the Dead) The zombie apocalypse is really starting to get into full swing now. A television reporter, a helicopter pilot and two soldiers hop in a helicopter and take off for "Canada", deciding along the way to stop at and eventually hole up in a shopping mall. A shopping mall full of zombies.

Shopping mall full of zombies. It should be apparent by now that this is an allegory about american consumerism. I knew this going in, so I was on the watch for it. With that said, I found the allegory to actually be quite subtle. In fact, if anything, it was UNDERdone, which I did not expect. It really only came out apparent in two instances. One was the generic shots of zombies shuffling through the mall. It makes you think "gee, if I went to the mall right now, I wonder if I could tell the difference." Two was the invasion by the biker gang, stealing junk from the mall even though in the apocalypse none of it is really worth anything. I.e. stupid senseless consumerism.

No, instead of a bashed-over-the-head allegory I kind of was expecting I found an expertly crafted film. Romero takes the material "dead" serious (I hate you Larry). He takes the story in a completely realistic path, even starting at the beginning where the police are rounding up both criminals and zombies, people are starting to snap (though I did find the arguing on television a little unrealistic), the ends are starting to fray. This group finds the mall, realizes that they may have a good situation and systematically goes about securing the premises and establishing security routines and mechanisms. The film is first and foremost about HOW these people are trying to survive, and other more subtle facets, such as the consumerism allegory and the interactions between the characters, are gently mixed into the main survival tale. In other words, the main cable of the film is the most important thing in the story: survival. And other parts of the film are strung from that cable. It's wonderfully realistic storytelling. I think this may Romero's strongest zombie film, myself.

Oh, and Stephen's zombie walk really WAS the best.

Grade: B+

Day of the Dead -

When the Dawn of the Dead bleeds into Day. The zombie apocalypse has has settled and entrenched completely. In fact, in a certain sense, it's "over". And the zombies won. Here we watch a group barricaded in a 14 mile cave complex in south Florida, a small military squad and an even smaller group of scientists. They cannot contact any other human beings, suggesting that they are, in fact, the only humans left alive. The scientists want to find a way to cure or control the zombies, the soldiers want to kill them. The two groups are at odds and everyone is walking a very thin line over the pits of insanity.

While the storying telling in this film is as good as any Romero film, I found the story itself a little bland. It doesn't do anything new with the zombie franchise, unless it's an allegory to something I'm missing. To me, it simply hearkens back to the Night of the Living Dead in it's message. That people are just too stupid to work together in the face of adversity, and our own natural tendencies will get us killed. That human instincts towards stubbornness and independence can be fatal weaknesses. And that humanity has a misguided sense of priorities (see the "tombstone" speech). Not that this message is bad or anything, or even poorly done. It's just that it has been done already. It was new and inventive in the first film. The second film used the zombie theme to explore a different message, which is what I am looking for from a sequel. Use the established material to explore a different topic. It seemed that Romero understood how to make sequels. Then we have this, which is just a reiteration. Not a bad one, just not new.

I also found some of the acting to be really overdone. Particularly by the military people. Though the lead actress did a very good job.

I've read that many people, including Romero himself, think this is his strongest film. While I agree that is perhaps is his cleanest, the production was VERY smooth and polished, I still think that Dawn of the Dead or Night of the Living Dead were stronger in terms of inventiveness and story-telling.

Also: CHOKE ON 'EM

Grade: B-

The Hills Have Eyes -

A "modern" family gets stuck in the desert and meet up with some very bad wild people. The more I think about this film, the less I like it. Don't get me wrong, the storytelling is actually pretty good. It has a good pace to it, a nice flow. It does a decent job of sucking you in to the plot. It's just....the villains. They are terrible. We are talking about people that EAT other people. We are talking about a pretty damn significant de-evolution of humanity. I'd expect them to be almost feral. Instead, they are pretty much rednecks. It's like the hillbillies from Deliverance developed a taste for human flesh. I mean, I've seen people less cultured driving through Georgia. As far as villains go, I was more scared of the mother than any of them. I think in order to convey any sort of terror, the family would have to be somewhere between man and beast. A feral human being, not a NASCAR fan.

Fact of the matter, I did not find this movie scary at all. It's a thriller maybe, but not a horror film. Yeah, I saw the torn Jaws poster, Mr. Craven. You can shove it, cause Jaws was 10 times scarier than this film. In premise, this was closer to Hitchcock than horror. An "everyday" family, through a twist of fate, gets thrown into a horrible situation. See: North by Northwest, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps, The Lady Vanishes, Saboteur.

Oh yeah, and someone teach Wes Craven how to end a film. The end goes like this:

ACTION, ACTION, ACTION
Enraged 70's Porn Star: YOU DIE NOW
Mullet Bob: BLARGH
Fin

In the immortal words of Tom Servo, "well if you want to be that way about it, movie, bite me."

Grade: C-