The Crazies

It’s rare that audiences get treated to good horror movies.  Luckily, a filmmaker or two comes around to deliver one.  Off the top of my head only a few flicks of the last year even come to mind.  “Drag Me to Hell” was a return to form for Sam Raimi fans, and while it’s arguably a straight-up comedy, “Zombieland” was a solid dose of fun.  “The Crazies” hits screens as a remake of a George A. Romero film from 1973 that most (including me) haven’t seen.  So taken on its own terms, this 2010 film works adequately at what it’s setting out to do.

The film opens during a little league baseball game.  A rigid old man, formerly the town drunk, walks onto the field with a rifle in hand. Timothy Olyphant, the bland star of “Live Free or Die Hard” and “Hitman,” and the bright spot of “A Perfect Getaway” and “The Girl Next Door,” plays small-town officer David Dutton.  He confronts the man only to find himself staring down the barrel of the gun before having to make a split-second decision.  He discharges his sidearm and takes the old man’s life.  From here on out, the town becomes stricken with multiple obscure cases involving individuals going mad and attempting/committing murder.  Dutton and his trusted deputy soon discover something has gone terribly wrong with the town’s water supply, turning its inhabitants into vicious killers before becoming zombie-like monsters.  Eventually the whole area becomes quarantined by the U.S. army, and Dutton must fight to protect his wife and unborn child.

Of the many recent zombie films, “The Crazies” fits right in.  I know many horror buffs claim that this isn’t exactly a “zombie” film because the infected people have some form of human consciousness–but come on, they get an infection, start attacking people, and turn into the perfect visual aid of a zombie.  So if I continue to refer to them as such you’ll just have to deal with it.  While I wouldn’t say this movie ranks quite as high as “28 Weeks Later” or the 2004 “Dawn of the Dead,” it’s a close call.  Director Breck Eisner (of the forgettable 2005 “Sahara’) knows how to instill some raging intensity in a scene. Granted, most of the sequences here have a certain familiarity and standardization to them especially within the genre, but he isn’t simply selling truckloads of gore. Sure, there is some of that, but he never forgets that the horror rests not ultimately with the zombies, but with human versus human confrontation.  The most interesting aspect of “The Crazies” is the fact that there is some form of humanity left in these monsters.  They have thoughts and memories, but with a damaged mind–driven to murder.  M. Night Shyamalan should have waited and taken notes from this film when developing the atrocious “The Happening.”  “The Crazies” also features a few memorable scenes, making it more than disposable horror, and ones concerning ‘the living dead.’  The tone of the movie never falters, and it also never loses sight of moral questions and dilemmas, providing the right commentary to give reason for the movie.  It’s still not a spectacular movie, or the horror film to reinvent the genre, but with solid performances across the board, excellent cinematography and unnerving tension the whole way through, “The Crazies” makes a standard zombie affair quite entertaining.

[Rating:3.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Time Machine

60s poster 2In 1894, H.G. Wells published his novel The Time Machine, which, while short and simplistic, was in interesting thought experiment regarding mankind’s hopes for the future. Wells, a student of Marx, expressed a belief through metaphor that there could never be true equality, and there would always be those above, and those who served them. None the less, he told an ironic tale of how those on top would eventually get theirs.

Wells’ novel was made into a movie by George Pal. The film was released in02 poster 1960. A second version, starring Guy Pierce and Directed by Simon Wells, H.G.’s grandson, was released in 2002. I have yet to meet someone, besides me, who has read/seen all three versions, which is really too bad. People often ask me which version is the best. The truth is, it’s really hard to pick one, because they are all so different, and each one is strangely apropriate to their time. You might say, reading the book and then watching the movies is a trip through time in itself. I’ll explain.

book coverIn the book, the “Time Traveller,” who is never named, believes that if he travels far enough into the future, he will find mankind in a perfect state. No further explanation of this belief is ever given. Wishing to see mankind’s triumph, his first time-trip is a non-stop journey to the year A.D. 802,701. (Does this seem strange to anyone else? I mean, there’s a reason the Wright Bothers didn’t take their first flight over the Grand Canyon, and early sailors didn’t try to cross the Atlantic.) Once he stops, the Time Traveller first meets the Eloi, a society of childlike people. They live in small communities in futuristic yet deteriorating buildings, doing no work and eating a frugivorous diet. His efforts to communicate are hampered by their lack of curiosity or discipline, and he concludes that they are the result of humanity conquering nature with technology, and adapting to an environment in which strength and intellect are no longer advantageous.

Returning to the site where he arrived, the Time Traveller finds his time

Artist's conception

Artist's conception

machine has been dragged into a nearby Sphynx with heavy doors, locked from the inside. Later, he is approached menacingly by the Morlocks, pale, apelike people who live underground, where he discovers the machinery and industry that make the above-ground paradise possible. He alters his theory, speculating that the human race has evolved into two species: the leisured classes have become the ineffectual Eloi, and the downtrodden working classes have become the brutish, light-fearing Morlocks. Deducing that the Morlocks have taken his time machine, he explores the Morlock tunnels, learning that they feed on the Eloi. His revised analysis is that their relationship is not one of lords and servants but of livestock and ranchers, and with no real challenges facing either species, they have both lost the intelligence and character of Man.

Rod Taylor as H. George Wells

Rod Taylor as H. George Wells

In the 1960 film, the motives of the Traveller (now bearing the name George, and a license plate on his Machine that reads “H. George Wells”) are a bit more clear, if not much more sensible. In 1899, George (Rod Taylor), a brilliant physisist, has been offered a contract by the government of England to design weapons. Being a pacifist, he finds this horrifying and longs to discover man in a perfect, peaceful state. Believing that somewhere in the future he will find such a civilization, he sets off through time. He watches the world change rapidly around him until he sees his windows boarded up in the year 1914. Curious, he stops the Machine and gets out. He strolles across the street and meets the son of his friend from the beginning, David Philby

The Morlocks of 1960

The Morlocks of 1960

(both played by Alan Young). He learns that Philby has been killed in the First World War. Obviously, he decides to keep going. Back in the Time Machine, he makes a brief stop in 1940, where he sees London being bombed by the Nazis. He then continues to 1966 (six years in the future at that time) where he sees everyone walking around in radiation suits. He once again meets Philby’s son, who remarks that he saw George on the same spot in the same clothes 52 years before. Sirens begin blaring and every one runs, shouting “get to the shelter!” Philby points to the sky and says to George, “There, an atomic satelite zeroing in!” He tries to drag George to the shelter, but George refuses to leave his Machine, so Philby abandons him and runs for safety. Seconds later, a blast rips through London, resulting in some impressive (for 1960) miniature work. George, narrating, lamants “The labor of centuries gone in an instant!” A lava flow heads for the Time Machine, and George has to rush to activate it before the flood hits. He suddenly finds himself traveling through time inside a wall of rock. He is forced to keep traveling through time at breakneck speed, lest he be crushed. Unable to move his machine in space, he has no choice but to wait for time to wear down the mountain he is inside of.

George meets Weena.

George meets Weena.

When it finally does, he sees futuristic buildings springing up around him, and notes there doesn’t seem to be weather. He asks “had man finally learned to control the elements … and himself?” He stops at the year A.D. 802,701 once again, and meets the Eloi, who in this version are still human, although their frail bodies and pale skin are reminiscent of the creatures from the book. The Eloi still speak broken English (no explanation for this), and have little interest in technology or the past. George is so disapointed by the “perfect” world he has discovered that he berates he Eloi “What have you done?? Thousands of

The Sphynx.

The Sphynx.

generations of men struggeling and sacraficing, and for what? So you can swim and dance and play! I’m going back to my own time. I won’t tell them about the useless struggle, but at least I can die among men!” Upon attempting this however, he finds that his Machine has again been dragged into the Sphynx and he is trapped.

Lambs to the slaughter.

Lambs to the slaughter.

In this version, the Morlocks provide the Eloi with food and clothing, as in the book. However, instead of snatching them one at a time, they use (of all things) air-raid sirens to lure them underground in droves (left). In one scene, the siren cuts off, and the door to the Morlocks’ slaughter house slams shut, denying entrance to the Eloi still outside. George shakes one who seems to be in a trance (below), and the Eloi tells him “it is all clear,” meaning the air raid has ended, essentially.  Apparently, the Morlocks are able to do this because humans are so conditioned from fleeing underground at the sound of sirens ever since 1960. shake

Eventually, a girl named Weena (Yvette Mimieux) leads George to a room full of “talking rings” which seem to be surviving records of Earth’s past. The rings hold the voices of people describing nuclear and other wise horrible wars; the last recording annouces that Earth’s atmosphere has been all but destroyed and most of the human race is fleeing underground to escape the Sun’s harmful rays. A few have decided to “take our chances in the sunlight, however small they might be.” George deduces that those who fled underground were the ancestors of the Morlocks and those who remained were the ancestors of the Eloi.

And so, in both the book and the 1960 film, the division of humanity is caused by a social evil that preocupies the author, resulting in one side becoming a race of monsters that preys upon the other. In 1894, when Marxism was popular among the wealthy elite of Europe (did you note the irony there?), the division was caused by the oppression of the lower classes. This resulted in a kind of ironic justice, when the upper classes became food for the lower classes. In 1960, when everyone feared the Bomb, the division was caused by the continuing folly of war, which finally drove one side underground. The element of ironic justice is

George fights the Morlocks in their labyrinth.

George fights the Morlocks in their labyrinth.

conspicuously lacking here, which may be why the script calls for George and the Eloi to triumph over the Morlocks. While the Traveler simply returned to his own time in despair of Man’s future, George follows his beloved Weena into the Morlocks’ slaughterhouse. Once there, he is able to inspire the Eloi to join him in fighting against the Morlocks. Once they escape, at George’s direction, they throw large amounts of dry wood down the wells that connect the surface to the underground to stoke an underground inferno. The Morlocks’ lair caves in. Shortly after, George returns to his own time and tells the tale of his adventure to several collegues who leave, scoffing at him. Except Philby. A few minutes later, Philby and George’s housekeeper (Doris Lloyd) discover that George has once again disapeared in his Time Machine, and that he has taken three books from his library with him. Having searched for his purpose for years, George has apparently found it in rebuilding civilization in A.D. 802,701. And, of course, being with Weena.

Joey Film GeekIn the 2002 version, which also starts in 1899, the time traveller is Alexander Hartdegen, a physics professor who wants his students to abandon the expectations of society and conquer nature with technology. His fiance, Emma (Sienna Gullory), feels like he’s more attracted to model T cars than to her. Philby (Mark Addy) asks Alexander if he thinks Man could ever go too far whith technology. Alex scoffs “No such thing.” That night Emma is killed by a mugger in the park. He decides to use his skill with technology to change the past and bring her back. He works for four years on a time machine. When it’s complete, he

"In a week, we'll have never have had this conversation."

"In a week, we'll have never have had this conversation."

dresses in his best and gets into a chair with parasol-like apparati above and below it that spin, generating a sphere around the machine in which time does not pass. The scene changes before we see his journey. He goes back to the night Emma died, meets her, and steers her away from the park. He extracts a promise from her to go home and stay there until morning. Just when he thinks he has triumphed, a model T goes hay wire and runs her over.

The Time Machine of 2002. Also makes a great cup of jo.

The Time Machine of 2002, often mistaken for a coffee maker.

In the next scene, Alex mutters to himself “Why can’t I change the past? I could come back a thousand times; see her die a thousand ways. I can’t find the answers here … not here … not now…” Only then do we see his now archetypal journey forward as the sun becomes a blurred line overhead and trees spring up like gysers around him. We see a pull-back shot in which a biplane, then a twin prop, then a modern jet and finally a satelite fly over Alex, before we see a shuttle landing on the moon. Alex’s attention is caught by an advertisement declaring “the future is now!” and he stops in 2030 (28 years in the future at that time). A pedestrian looks at his time machine and remarks “bet that makes a hell of a capuchino.”

The advertisement is for realestate on the moon, where a colony is being built. Alex walks into the Fifth Avenue Public Library, drawn by all the new techonology, where he meets Photonic (Orlando Jones), a sarcastic computer program who walks inside panes of glass and offers to retrieve data from the library’s system (below). When Alex asks to learn about time travel, Photonic

"Live long, and prosper."

"Live long, and prosper."

rolls its eyes. Disapointed, Alex gets back into the time machine and travels forward another 7 years. When he sees chaos around him, he stops. Military vehicels race through the streets, and the ground shakes violently. Upon dismounting, Alex is accoasted by several soldiers who urge him to come with them underground. He demands to know what’s going on, assuring them “Yes, I’ve been living under a rock!” They tell him that the demolitions for the lunar colony over the past 7 years have changed the moon’s orbit, and caused the moon to start breaking up. Alex looks skyward and sees the moon, much larger than ususal, and riddled with cracks. At that moment a crack opens in the earth. Alex races to his Machine before the crack destroys it, and mangaes to throw it into gear just in time. However, his Machine is rocked by the disaster, and he hits his head, and is knocked uncouncious.

Samantha Mumba as Mara.

Samantha Mumba as Mara.

Out of control, the Machine hurtles through time. We see glacers come and go and the ground rise above the timeless sphere and then fall back below it. Rivers carve canyons in the blink of an eye. Alex eventually regains conciousness just long enough to stop the Machine at (you guessed it) A.D. 802,701, before slipping back into oblivion. He awakens in a bed somewhere with a bandage on his head. He walks out into a community of huts built on the side of a cliff. He is confronted by people he is unable to communicate with, until a woman named Mara (Samantha Mumba) asks “Do you know my words?” in perfect English. It turns out that the Eloi in this version have discovered “the Stone Language” carved in stone and concrete relics from our time, and have kept it alive as a tradition. Most Eloi lose the ability to speak it by adulthood, but Mara teaches children, so she has retained it.

Quite different from the Eloi in 1894 and in 1960, the Eloi of 2002 are highly industrious, growing crops, and building windmills. There is no evidence of anything being done for them by anyone else. However, they live under the opression of a fear that they refuse to speak of. Alex suspects it has to do with the reason none of the Eloi seem to be older than their early twenties. He awakens one night from a nightmare in which he is being drawn toward a frightening statue in the forest. Mara tells him “we all have that dream,” but refuses to say more. We later learn that that same night, Alex’s pocket watch was stolen by Morlocks, which explains why the Eloi have no machines. Alex gazes up at the remains of our moon, now a collection of chunks that make a spectacular stream across the sky, and thinks “You were right, David. We did go too far.”

He learns what the Eloi’s unspoken fear is when the Morlocks first attack. The Morlocks of 2002 are considerably more formidable than in the other versions, traveling fast on all fours, and then fighting on two legs. They bear more resemblance to the Uruk Hai from The Lord of the Rings, stalking between rows of their machines. After Mara, along with others, is dragged underground in an

Guy Pierce gets mideval in the 8000th century.

Guy Pierce gets mideval in the 8000th century.

attack,  Alex demands to know why the Eloi will not fight back. An Eloi replies “those who … ‘fight’ are taken first.” So between 1894 and 2002, the relationship has made a full transition from ironic justice to shameless opression. The Eloi lack technology not because of laziness, but because the Morlocks use coordinated attacks to keep them helpless. The end result, however, is essentially the same, as Alex finds out. He discovers Photonic again, its panes of glass tarnished and cracked, but still functional (after 800,000 years. Right). Photonic directs him to the statue he dreamed of, this version’s Sphynx. He climbs down into it and discovers a grizly slaughterhouse scene that audiences were spared in 1960. After being captured, he sees Mara locked in a cage and meets the “Uber Morlock,” brilliantly played by Jeremy Irons, though he is well hidden in a great makeup job.

Spy Morlocks mark targets for Hunters.

Spy Morlocks mark targets for Hunters.

The Uber Morlock extends peculiar hospitality to Alex, protecting him from the bestial Morlocks, answering his questions and even returning his Time Machine and pocket watch. He explains:

“After the Moon fell from the sky, the Earth could no longer sustain the species. Some managed to stay above, while others escaped below, and centuries later when we tried to emerge into the sunlight, we found we could not. So we bred ourselves into casts.”

The hunter Morlocks are bred to be predators but also to be controlled. The Uber Morlock is of a cast that concentrated on expanding its cerebral abilities. He says that without control the hunters would exhaust the food supply in a matter of months. He also controlls the Eloi and keeps them fearful.

The Uber Morlock calls Alex by name and knows who he is and why he has traveled through time. He also projects pictures into Alex’s head, putting him back in his laboratory with Emma. Alex learns learns that some Eloi, like Mara, are not consumed, but instead are used as“breeding vessels” for Morlock colonies (yuck).

Alexander is reunited with Mara.

Alexander is reunited with Mara.

Finally, the UM explains to Alex “You built your time Machine because of Emma’s death. If she had lived it would never have existed, so how could you use it to save her? You are the inescapable result of your choices, just as I am the inescabable result of you (?).” He then shows Alex the Time Machine. “You have your answer. Now go.” At this point, Alex has to be thinking “I came 8,000 centuries for a lame explanation like that?” This is the first version that tries to adress paradox in time travel, but it completely ignores exerything besides Emma’s death that Alex changed by going back.

Tell me this isn't scary.

Tell me this isn't scary.

Long story short, Alex kills the UM. After outsmarting a creature that has demonstrated the ability to read and controll his thoughts, Alex uses his pocketwatch to jam his Machine. Mara asks “What are you doing with it?” He replies “Changing the future.” The jamming results in a sort of explosion of time, that rusts metal and rots Morlocks in the blink of an eye, and destroys their lair. This, while undeniably ham-fisted, is also undeniably cool. He saves Mara and they live happily ever after.

Rather than inequality or war, this version is concerned with rappidly

The Time Machine of 1960, now in a museum.

The Time Machine of 1960, now in a museum.

expanding technology. Once again, the social evil warned of in 1899 creates havoc in the near future that forces part of humanity undergroud to evolve into monsters, who return to feed on those above. The time traveler once again abandons what he set out to find, and finds happiness in the time he has traveled to.

All three versions suffer a certain weakness. The problem with basing a story that covers 800,000 years on a single societal concern should be obvious. 800,000 years eclipses all of recorded history aproximately 100 times. And yet, even the near future is hard to portray acurately. George Pal’s portrayal 1966 looks quite droll only 50 years later. Simon Wells’ portrayal of 2030 will no doubt look the same in 2050. It’s rediculous for a writer to asume that what’s on his mind at the moment will be shaping the world so far down the road. Good science fiction will, of course, include some social critisism, but there’s a reason most science fiction stories don’t take place so far into the future. The book comes the closest to acknowledging this, as it doesn’t try to tell a story that weaves all the centuries together. Wells’ hero simply leaves Wells’ time, goes to a time when the world was unrecognizable, comes back, and tells the tale. However, this also makes the book the least engaging and most depressing version.

George comes home, looking how I felt at 1 am after finishing this review.

George comes home, looking how I felt at 1 am after finishing this review.

For dramatic purposes, Pal’s version is a clear improvement over the book, because it takes the same basic plot and makes it into a story of rebirth, rather than degeneration, and of good triumphing over evil. It’s rather hard to buy the hippie philosophy 50 years later, however. The 2002 version seems to be the least preachy of the three, and while it does at times sacrafice thought for Hollywood sensationalism, it has some good messages about facing your fears and finding what’s truly important in life. Each version is a noteworthy embodiment of the values of its time. In sum, I would have to say I liked the version from my century the best. But of course, I would.

The book

[Rating:2/5]

1960 version

[Rating:3/5]

2002 version

[Rating:3/5]

Paranormal Activity

paranormal-activity-poster“Paranormal Activity,” an $11,000 horror-wonder, has used its marketing and word-of-mouth among the college crowd to succeed as a $100 million hit for Paramount Pictures.  While a post-Halloween review of the film may be a little late in the game, the film is still having an impressive impact at the box office and will likely add another $10-15 million to its unbelievable haul.  Only unbelievable in comparison to its budget, the film really is 2009’s “Blair Witch Project,” another handheld documentary-esque horror film that kickstarted this whole shaky-cam push for the “it’s-really-happening” approach–a film that also managed to gross over $100 million.

I do appreciate a well-constructed horror film.  Too often ‘horror’ as a genre fails to reach beyond the cliche-riddled approach of the slasher flick, and now the ‘torture porn’ arena that has exploded in cinemas with movies like the “Saw” canon and “Hostel.”  While it may appear that the shelf life of splatter cinema is dying out (look at Saw VI’s box office), “Paranormal Activity” retrospectively plays on some of the horror genre’s greatest strengths–spirits, ghosts, demonic possession, haunted houses, and all those unearthly entities that cannot be beaten.

The story here actually centers around a seemingly “typical” American couple, Katie and Micah, terrorized by an unseen force in their house.  Warnings from a local ghost-whisperer warn the pair that the spirit is no ghost, but an angry demonic presence that he cannot deal with.  The couple is strapped for options, and so Micah sets up a home video camera to capture the events occuring throughout the day and night, and of course, creepy images abound and the terror increases over time.

Audiences have overall been praising this one, overhyping to unbelievable levels–or at least that’s what I read all over the internet.  Anyone I’ve actually talked to about the film in person seems have only been mildly amused by the film’s proceedings.  I mostly agree.  While “Paranormal Activity” deserves props for its atmosphere and its accomplishments with such a small budget, the film still takes too much time between the events taking place.  This is a film that really stretches out the patience of audiences not initally gripped by its very proposal of a potential demonic spirit.  Doors slam, crash noises occur, lights flick on and off, and grunting noises come through a digital audio feed.  By that time the film has reached beyond its halfway point, and when creepier things do happen, the pacing picks up some.  But I couldn’t help but feel underwhelmed by the ordeal.  The film also preys on the character’s isolation quite a bit.  Of course it helps to maintain the sense of dread and confinement, but I constantly questioned why Katie and Micah simply don’t leave the house.  Yes, their ghostbuster guy tells them that it won’t matter if they leave (the demon will follow them), I find it hard to believe they would put up with some the film’s later events without giving it a shot.  Also, these characters seem normal other than the fact that they’re home all the time.  Do they not have normal everyday jobs?  Are they not around several other people?  I don’t know, but if my house was haunted– first, I’d be out of there, and second, the world would know about it.  These two choose to stay in this house of horror, and somehow manage to sleep at night.

Unfortunately, the film was a bit of a letdown–an admirable step in the right direction for the genre, but one that misfired for me.  A lot of the hype probably had something to do with it, and the fact that the home-video style has worn out its welcome for me.  The ads on TV mostly showcase audience reaction to the film rather than actual footage of the movie, and while that’s an awesome approach in marketing, I sat in a packed audience that never screamed at the screen.

[Rating:2.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

Zombieland

Z-land posterWhat is with all these zombie movies?? Is our culture really so morbid that we can’t get enough of seeing human bodies hacked to pieces? Zombieland (Dir. Ruben Fleischer) is only the latest in a veritable flood of ketchup-splattered, limb-laden flicks from the past few years in which humans are transformed into flesh-eating monsters and terrorize the few souls unaffected by the radiation, virus, or whatever.

The zombie phenomenon began as a trickle in 1968, with Night of the Living Dead (Dir. George Romero), whose two sequels didn’t arrive until 1978 and 1985. Those three movies were later re-made, however, along with new sequels City of the Dead and Land of the Dead. Add to that the Resident Evil series (Dir. Russell Mulcahy) and 28 Days Later and its sequel 28 Weeks Later (Dir. Danny Boyle), and it becomes clear that what once appeared to be a few strange but isolated incidents is now an epidemic sweeping the world. Indeed, a trip to the movie section at Wal-mart will turn up no end of little-known, low budget zombie flicks that never made it to theaters, each boasting its “gruesome” and “shocking” qualities. And now, we are soon to be hit with a remake of the Worst Movie Ever Made, Plan 9 fom Outer Space.

Night of the Living Dead; the first zombie movie, and probably the best.

Night of the Living Dead; the first zombie movie, and probably the best.

The term “zombie” originated in Afro-Caribbean folklore, in which the dead could be revived by a “bokor” or sorcerer. By the 1950s, zombism (well, it’s a word now) was caused by radiation, just like everything else back then. More recently, zombism is usually caused by a virus, as in 28 Days or Zombieland.

As the bard will tell you, all fiction eventually becomes a satire of itself. Such was the case in Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead in 2004. Shaun is not the best of films, but nonetheless demonstrates a certain comedic brilliance in the way it backhands the zombie sub-genre. Our hero, Shaun (Simon Pegg), is staggering through his mediocre life, working the same dead end job, day after day, having problems with his girlfriend, etc. Which is why the trailer asks “do you ever feel like you’re turning into a zombie?” As luck would have it, Shaun’s world is overrun by real zombies. But even with a zombie apocalypse is in full swing, it takes Shaun a long time to notice that anything is amiss. One morning, he stumbles, half awake, across a street, past a burning car and a distant crowd of zombies into his neighborhood quick shop. He retrieves a beverage from a refrigerator inside, oblivious to the bloody handprints on the glass door, and proceeds to the counter, barely pausing when he slips in something all over the floor. Finding no one at the counter, he drops some money on it and heads for the door. As he’s leaving, the clerk, now a zombie, comes shambling out of the back room. Shaun yells “hey Eric, I left the money on the counter,” and leaves.

Shaun: A hero must rise. From his sofa.

Shaun: A hero must rise. From his sofa.

Shaun and his friends survive one scene by pretending to be zombies; something that Zombieland borrows. Perhaps uniquely among zombie movies, Shaun ends with the crisis actually being solved by the authorities – and the zombies being employed in the service industry. The final scene is of Shaun playing video games with his roommate, who is now a zombie and chained to the wall, lest he take a bite out of Shaun. The point of it all being: If the recently dead did reanimate and seek to feast on human flesh, things really wouldn’t be that different from the way they are now.

But is that such a fresh message? Zombie stories always implied that civilization was inherently fragile and left us wondering if humans were that different from zombies. Dawn of the Dead takes place in a shopping mall, after all. Heck, zombie fiction was probably spawned by the breakdown of societal relations.

Zombieland is definitely more comedy than horror. It’s not even scary, unless you count the occasional cheap shock (industry term for when something jumps out at you). I laughed pretty hard, though. It’s hard to believe a movie that goes through so many drums of corn syrup could be this lighthearted. The main part of the action kicks off in Garland, Texas (“it might look like zombies destroyed it, but that’s just Garland”), where we meet our narrator (Jesse Eisenberg), who identifies himself only as “Columbus,” the city he’s from. He explains his rules for surviving Z-land, which are superimposed on the screen as amusing graphics. He then has a chance to demonstrate them in an encounter with three zombies (below).

Columbus practics Rule 3: Beware of bathrooms.

Columbus practics Rule 3: Beware of bathrooms; only one way out.

This 3D text actually provides a major source of entertainment for the film, being knocked over by running characters and spattered with gore.  You kind of have to see it to appreciate what I’m talking about. Columbus, a virginal nebbish who spent his pre-Z-land life playing World of Warcraft, comments “I might seem like an unlikely survivor, with all my phobias and irritable bowel syndrome, but I have the advantage of not having any family connections or close friends.” However, as he trudges down an abandoned highway, he has to admit, it would be nice to see a familiar face, or just any face without blood dripping from its lips and bits of flesh between its teeth. His wish is granted when he meets Tallahassee, a gun-slinging, whisky-swilling, zombie-killing machine (Woody Harrelson). No sooner have the pair begun to get along than they meet Wichita (Emma Stone) and her sister Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who swindle them out of their guns and transportation – time after time. Once again, it seems that even those unaffected by the virus are behaving like zombies – as Sweeny Todd put it, man devouring man. Columbus comments, “I’m not sure which was more depressing, the fact that all my family and friends were gone, or that fact that I’d never really had a family.”

Zombie kill of the week?

Zombie kill of the week?

Z-land diverges from from most of the sub-genre however, because amid all the gore, what it’s really about is the forming, not the destroying, of relationships. After risking his life to save Witchita’s, Columbus concludes “In Zombieland, if you don’t have somebody, you might as well be a zombie.” It’s an odd feeling as the credits roll, and you suddenly realize that what you just saw was actually a feel-good movie.

This flick has some genuinely fun moments, including one of the cleverest cameos I have ever seen, and a climactic scene in which Tallahassee runs through an amusement park with a huge arsenal, doing what he does best. All this, of course, is set amidst a giant playground of unlocked doors and all manner of goods and material comforts, abandoned by man kind. Maybe that’s what it is about all these zombie movies: the thrill of having everyone else out of the way and the world at your fingertips. Plus there’s the allure of a fun war – no remorse about “killing” the enemy. I have yet to meet a reanimated corpse or virus-induced cannibal in real life, but I think with our materialism and violent tendencies, a zombie apocalypse would be the least of our worries.

[Rating:3/5]

Alien

alien_posterFew horror vehicles remain as important and seminal as Ridley Scott’s groundbreaking incarnation of the first ‘Alien’ picture.  The film came together during a time when science-fiction in film had just been regaining some traction with the enormous success of ‘Star Wars’; a time where the ‘slasher’ picture unknowingly birthed its invincible genre with John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween.’

Based on a B-movie screenplay by Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett during 20th Century Fox’s race to discover the next big space opera, ‘Alien’ received the greenlight despite its glaring departure from the world and joyous ambiance of that George Lucas phenomenon. The film opens similarly to ‘Star Wars’ during an unspecified future with a giant spaceship towering its way across the screen.  The ship withholds twenty-million tons of mineral ore being brought back to earth when the crew’s voyage becomes interrupted by the interception of a signal from an unknown planet. The crew made up of seven engineers, led by Dallas (Tom Skerritt), is ordered by their governing company to investigate.  Whether the signal is an SOS call or a warning remains unclear until they reach this planet and find a stranded alien spacecraft.  Three members of the team, including Dallas, and two others (Kane, Parker) enter the craft to the discovery of a giant fossilized space pilot and a plethora of voluminous eggs.  Ultimately, the curiosity of the crew members turns to terror as ‘Alien’ unleashes a deadly monster, hidden in the shadows and vents of the humans’ spaceship.

Having no prior knowledge of the film or series that it spawned works significantly to understanding the unpredictability of the advancing story, its impact upon its release in 1979, and its current status as a pioneer of the horror genre.  ‘Alien’ works as a rare breed, a film that takes all the time it needs to reveal its heading and its monster.  The pacing and editing are perfectly matched at building inescapable dread. The confinement of the mining ship traps the audience in its darkness.  The quiet, hovering score of Jerry Goldsmith strays from forcing the audience into the mood and tension of a scene, and rather allows the unknown and unseen to become far more effective at tantalizing the nerves.  The film also strays from the conventional in making its cast an ensemble without a dominating star or presence. The audience knows these people will be picked off in some order,  and there are survivors, but the writers intentionally left out first names in the script to allow for male or female characters.  All of them are equally endangered.

The alien creature itself remains an interesting and ambiguous design.  The eggs harvested on the alien craft birth, surprisingly, not the monster itself–but a parasite that attaches itself to the face of a living host and implants an embryo through the throat and into the chest of its victim.  Through the victim births the monster.  What an original and horrific concept.  Director Ridley Scott toys with the alien’s sexual nature: its underlying act of ultimately raping its prey to spawn its existence, and the physical design of the creature itself in shape and form.  The creature is constantly changing as well.  The parasite, following its host’s impregnation, leaves the victim and dies shortly after.  The actual monster itself begins life in a small phallic shape, but increases in mass very quickly.  The audience doesn’t see the process of this transformation, but the alien, while never fully explained, seems to have a short life-span.  Each time it takes the screen, it is bigger than its last appearance.  That notion adds more terror.  While the audience has witnessed the creature, their uncertainty continues to linger regarding what they might witness around the next corner.

alien2Even if the right elements are in place for a technically accomplished horror film, a usual downfall rests on its casting.  Not the case here.  Sigourney Weaver plays Ripley, an intelligent, by-the-book  young pilot.  She thinks before she acts, plays by the rules, and rarely investigates uncertainties. Tom Skerritt plays the captain of the ship as an experienced officer that knows the ropes and simply wants to get the job done to move on and return home.  He cares for his crew and often dismisses standard operating procedure in conjunction with instinct.  The cast rounds out with Veronica Cartwright, Yaphet Kotto, John Hurt and Harry Dean Stanton as the other officers, along with Ian Holm as Ash, a mysterious science officer somewhat reminding of Star Trek’s Spock character.  This cast actually proves to be very effective, carrying both the inner-terror and inquiry required to make the audience care and believe in this nightmare.

Of course ‘Alien’ is probably best remembered among all these accolades for one rattling scene that has become legendary for its time.  And without saying more for the few left uninitiated, it is still mostly a remarkable scene for the slim exception that the puppetry has not exactly held its weight in longevity for today’s audiences.  The performances and surprise of the scene have made it stand the test of time.

I will add that the version I recently viewed was the 2003 re-release cut titled “Director’s Cut” with a disclaimer by Ridley Scott that this is simply an alternate cut for the wishes of his fans, and not his preferred version.  His newly edited version slightly trims a handful of scenes and adds in a few others–with only one remaining all that significant and possibly controversial.  I enjoyed this cut immensely for this particular cut sequence toward the film’s climax, a scene that would further continuity with James Cameron’s follow-up ‘Aliens.’

‘Alien’ has spawned three varying sequels and two dopey spin-offs.  Ignoring the other works and taking Ridley Scott’s film on its own merits, it is a true cinematic classic that takes B-movie monster material and makes an involving and very realistically human film out of the science-fiction.  The film has seen its share of imitators, but none have matched the intelligence and elegance of this exceptional startler.

[Rating:4.5/5]

-MJV & the Movies

District 9

district9_poster-689x1024I love a movie that doesn’t just serve up passable or forgettable entertainment, but one that gets me giddy about movies–a sort-of recharging of the batteries after suffering through some big disappointments this summer: Transformers 2, Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, The Taking of Pelham 123, G.I. Joe.  The only saving grace for big budget action this summer seemed to be ‘Star Trek,’ a movie I really enjoyed that revived a lacking franchise, and also the latest ‘Harry Potter’ installment which might not exactly qualify as big budget ‘action’. Neill Blomkamp’s ‘District 9’ doesn’t just revive a franchise, or a genre, but it revives a seasonal drought.  I admit to falling under its spell early on with some intriguing high-concept trailers, but for the most part the movie remained under the radar, with most of its marketing stemming from that of the viral sort.  Nothing prepared me for how suspenseful and nail-biting this Peter Jackson produced feature would ultimately be.

I’ll try to remain vague with the plot. The story sets up the concept that an alien spacecraft came to earth twenty years ago on accident, having run out of fuel. The aliens inside were discovered starving, and thus, a camp was set up for them to live in known as District 9, located in Johannesburg, South Africa, mostly separating them from humans. The population of the alien species, known as prawns, grows over two decades to roughly 1.5 million, which brings us to present day where a government outfit attempts to relocate them to a type of concentration camp that will further distance them from humans.  More developments ensue, but I’ll stop there.

‘District 9’ is a flat-out masterpiece in every regard, surpassing even high expectations amongst the isolated hype surrounding it.  The movie is socially conscience with something to say, generating strong and interesting conflict in its approach to the age-old alien invasion film.  The movie also looks incredible, and this is done with a budget of only $30 million, a staggering decrease from Transformers’  and ‘Terminator Salvation’s’ $200 million.  The intensity of the film is uncompromising, and it has some incredible, violent action.  Neill Blomkamp is already quite a talent, and an interesting name to watch for.  His observation of the alien creatures and human reactions to them call upon great controversy that helps give the film an added weight that most films of this subject matter would easily dodge.  The special effects, I can’t stress enough, are just remarkable at their cost.  The aliens looks great, the action looks great.  All the right elements combine to make the best, most ambitious and engrossing movie of the summer.  I can’t recommend it enough.

[Rating:5/5]

Bram Stoker’s Dracula

BSD posterIn one of the most important chapters in Bram Stoker’s novel “Dracula,” Lucy Westenre tells the story of how she received three marriage proposals in one day. We gain a chuckle by reading it, but we also learn how good Lucy’s heart is and how kind and humble she is, as well as see the character of her suitors.

But there is a fourth man in Lucy’s life, a certain Count we all know. He visits her at night, and she begins to be found in the morning at the brink of death, almost totally drained of blood. Her three suitors rally around her and, with the help of Dr. Van Helsing’s transfusion equipment, literally pour their life into her. So it goes for many pages; the Count steals her life away by night; the men who love her exhaust themselves by day in a desperate battle to save her life. Van Helsing trims her room with garlic. The Texan suitor, Quincy Morris, patrols the grounds around her home all night. But the Count’s craft is too great and Lucy finally succumbs. By this point the characters are sufficiently developed that the reader feels their loss almost as acutely as they do.

But of course, Lucy becomes a vampire. She preys on local children for awhile until once again confronted by her suitors and Van Helsing. Dr. Seward, narrating this part of the story, describes “the thing in the coffin” as a “mockery of Lucy’s sweet purity.” They put a stake through her heart, and watch her turn back to the woman they once knew.  There follows a beautiful paragraph about redemption, eternal life and contrasting inner beauty with the perverse eternal youth of a vampiress.

Would that I had sufficient space to fully describe the literary riches in Stoker’s masterpiece, but that will have to do. Imagine then, my disappointment at Francis Ford Coppula’s attempt to film “Dracula.” To do justice to the book would have required a long movie; probably around three hours. Coppula seems determined to cut it off at two, so that the movie, even in its best moments, is nothing more than a watered-down version of the book. To make matters worse, Coppula crams in a sub plot in which Mina Murray dates Dracula while her fiancé struggles across Europe. Taking a page from “The Mummy” Coppula seems to imply that Mina is a sort of reincarnation of a bride of the historical Dracula. The movie never explains this, however. In fact, the editing of this film is downright schizophrenic. The story I told above takes all of 10 minutes to fly by in the film, and begins with a shot of Lucy lying on a park bench, apparently being raped by a werewolf (I can only assume this is Dracula in some other form, but this too is never explained). Far from being Stoker’s figure of “sweet purity,” Coppula’s Lucy is essentially a 19th century valley girl. Seward and Quincy are barely given any screen time, and with no back-story, Arthur’s lines about how he would give the last drop of his blood to save Lucy are as flat and unbelievable as anything in Hollywood. Even her two death scenes seem insignificant.

drac, mina

Gary Oldman sucks in "Dracula."

To be sure, a proper film version of “Dracula” would get slow at times, bogged down in dialogue and character development, but it was precisely these things that made the book great. It takes the reader through the loss, the grief, the struggle and the eventual triumph of the seven main characters. If we didn’t feel their bravery, their love for each other, and their iron faith, reading the accompanying horror story would have been a waste of time. Perversely, the only genuine affection in Coppula’s film seems to be between Mina and Dracula.

In typical Hollywood fashion, Coppula tries to compensate for this lack of substance with spectacle. Disembodied shadows creep across walls, water flows uphill and blood flows out of inanimate objects for no reason. This entertains for a few minutes, but it’s a poor substitute for a story. It might even be scary, if any of it looked real, or if there was any reason to care.

Coppula’s film is to Stoker’s novel what a vampire is to the person he or she was in life: the same thing, except stripped of its soul, its passion, its humanity, and marked by lurid signs of cruelty and bloodlust.

The book

[Rating:5/5]

The movie

[Rating:0/5]