Never Check the Basement

I just wanted to draw some attention to my brother's blog, Never Check the Basement. He also reviews horror movies over there. He was a big influence on me becoming the horror movie fan I am today, so do yourself (and me) a favor and check it out.

Diary of the Dead

Go go Gadget Blog Revitalization! Sorry for the three month lapse in activity folks, but hopefully I'll be able to get back in the swing of things with today's review of Diary of the Dead. Now, I love a good zombie movie. Hell, I love a bad zombie movie, too. Romero's Diary of the Dead falls somewhere in between.

Unfortunately, this film didn't see a US-wide release until after Cloverfield was released, which could lead to viewers seeing the cinematography as derivative. However, it's important to realize that Diary of the Dead was screened at the Toronto Film Festival in September 2007, a few months before Cloverfield was released. With that in mind, the cinematography does have a few major differences from that of Cloverfield. The biggest difference is that Diary is presented as having been shot by film students and then later edited, so it has a soundtrack and some strategic editing. Also, Diary has more than one camera active at points in the film, when it shows more than one character's point of view.

My brother has always said Romero always does a good job making zombie films which aren't necessarily about zombies. This is especially true for Diary, but unfortunately Romero is anything but subtle about it. A lot of the dialogue preaches about the horrors of modern media and the inhumanity of mankind to the point where mid-way through the film I was thinking "Yeah, we get it, how about some more zombies now?" Also, several of the characters are just plain annoying with their outright cynicism over everything that's happening in their lives. There is one particularly enjoyable character in the deaf/mute Amish guy, but unfortunately he is only around for a few minutes.

So, to sum up: zombies = good, preachiness = bad, movie = entertaining.

Three and a half stars out of five.

30 Days of Night

I'd been looking forward to 30 Days of Night since I first saw the trailer. The world was in desperate need of a good vampire movie and this looked like this could satisfy it. Of course, given my anticipation for its release, it was only fair that I ended up having no one to see it with until it came out on DVD.

Let's start with what works in 30 Days of Night. The atmosphere is terrific. The filmmakers really give you a sense that the inhabitants are alone and completely cut off from everyone. They also capture the claustrophobia and paranoia which ensues very well. The relationships between the characters are very good, with a few exceptions (Josh Hartnett's and Melissa George's characters' relationship is fairly stereotypical and boring). The vampires themselves are also really well done, with great acting and makeup.

OK, now for why I'm not a huge fan of 30 Days of Night. There's really no explanation for where the vampires come from or why they're doing what they're doing. They just kind of show up and say "god damn humans, let's kill them in the most conspicuous way possible while cursing each other that we're not killing inconspicuously." And the third act. Simply put, it pales in comparison to the rest of the film. There's no sufficient explanation given for Hartnett's final actions in the film, and one of the final scenes was so completely ridiculous I was laughing (and a comedy film this ain't). It's as if the writers forgot they were in a serious, dark graphic novel and thought they were in some cheesy superhero comic. Well, I've got a comic panel for the writers detailing my disappointment in the ending:


'Nuff said.

Three stars out of five.

Trend Talk: Remakes of Asian Horror Films

First off, sorry I haven't been around for quite a while, but being back at school I don't have quite the access to horror films as I do at home. Plus, there's this whole "schoolwork" thing that happens to take up a lot of my time. But don't worry, I haven't forgotten about this blog.

Now, on to the first of my Trend Talks (catchier name coming, if I can think of one). The other day I saw a commercial for yet another American remake of an Asian horror film, this one the 2004 Thai film Shutter. This remake extravaganza has been going on for the past several years with such notable films as The Ring, The Grudge, and Pulse. It should be noted that Shutter, The Ring, and The Grudge were all produced by Roy Lee, who is apparently a fan of remaking Asian horror.

First, let me tell you the problems I have with this trend. First off, remakes stifle creativity. If remakes continue to be easy money for movie studios, they will stop looking to writers for new ideas and simply grab any ol' existing movie off the shelf of their local Blockbastards and remake it. Eventually this will just lead to watching the same movies over and over again and not watching anything new.

Additionally, there's a bit of a culture gap between Asian moviegoers and American moviegoers. Take the American film Pulse and it's Japanese progenitor, Kairo. In Kairo, the plot focuses mainly on the bleakness of death and the afterlife, as well as the dangers of technology. When a character dies in Kairo, he is replaced by a black stain on the wall. My brother made a good point when he drew my attention to the fact that this is similar to the fate of those killed by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Pulse focuses more on ghosts entering the world through technology (not that technology is dangerous in itself, more of as a conduit of the dead).

Don't get me wrong, this trend isn't all bad. There are some good Asian horror films which the general American audience simply doesn't have access to. Remaking them is one way to introduce them to more viewers. However, I would prefer it if instead of remaking these films, companies would just get the rights to distribute them in America. Though, the fickle American movie viewer generally doesn't enjoy subtitles. Something about "reading's for squares."

Then again, maybe all my problems with this trend stem from the fact that Asian horror films scare the everliving shit out of me. Who knows?

Hatchet

This review is probably going to be on the short side because there's really not that much to say about Hatchet. You've got a group of people who are stranded in a swamp inhabited by a deformed maniac (played ever so brutally by the great Kane Hodder). One by one they are killed while looking for a way out. Pretty generic, right? Well, that's one of Hatchet's strengths.

Hatchet bills itself as "old school American horror," and this is where it succeeds. It knows exactly what kind of movie it is. It's a great, entertaining way to spend an hour and a half. The entire movie boils down to Hodder killing people in all sorts of ways, and it's ever so much fun. The kills are creative and pretty bloody, but not an uncomfortable, why-am-I-watching-this Hostel or Saw kind of bloody. I don't want to go into the details of each kill here because it would ruin the laughably cringe-worthy surprise.

There's really not much more to say other than to reiterate how much fun it is to watch Kane Hodder mercilessly brutalize people in a swamp.

Three and a half stars out of five.

Dead Silence

OK, ladies and gentleman, today I've got a review for Dead Silence, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Wipes and Blue Filters. First, a bit of the plot. Evil ventriloquist (yeah, I know) Mary Shaw was killed by her neighbors (reminiscent of Freddy Krueger) in retribution for the disappearance of some kid who heckled her at a show. Now her ghost is back for revenge with a little help from her dummies. Jamie happens to get a dummy in the mail one day and then the people around him start dying, having their tongues ripped out by the ghost of Mary Shaw.

This movie is blue. The entire movie looks to be shot through a blue filter in what I can only guess is the filmmakers' failed attempt at creating tension in the setting. I suppose the filter is supposed to make the setting seem bleak, but all it did was draw attention to the fact that I was watching a movie. I honestly don't think it's even possible for a place to be as blue as the setting the film. Another piece of overused cinematography in this film are wipes. At one point, the film wiped from one scene into Jamie's eye (as the observer of the scene) and then immediately wiped again into his eye in a different scene. Absolutely ridiculous. The shots of the dead clearly take "inspiration" from The Ring. Corpses are shown with disfigured, twisted faces (due to having their tongues ripped out). They are also apparently posed in photographs by Shaw, which brings to mind the twisted photographs of the deceased in The Ring. Acting-wise, no one does a very good job. Donnie Wahlberg seems to be either medicated or just really, really bored. Ryan Kwanten is a generic pretty boy who apparently can only act broodingly.

To put it bluntly, this isn't a very good movie. It's derivative, boring, and most of all, blue. Sure, it's creepy at times (and only once is a quality scare), but creepiness does not a good horror movie make.

One and a half stars out of five.

Resident Evil: Extinction

Resident Evil: Extinction is the third movie to be based on the game series, following a quality Resident Evil and a terrible second Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I expected the trend to continue and for this movie to be an affront to Jesus and eleven of his twelve apostles. Thankfully, the movie ended up simply being very mediocre, and even has some pretty good things going for it.

In Extinction, most life on Earth has been eradicated by the T-Virus and the few remaining survivors wander the desert in search of a sanctuary. Meanwhile, the friendly neighborhood Umbrella Corporation is trying to use the blood of clones of Alice (Milla Jovovich) to domesticate the zombies. However, Dr. Isaacs (Iain Glen) is secretly using the clone blood to make super zombies. And, of course, Alice is still pissed at Umbrella. I should also mention that the film doesn't really follow the plot of any of the games at all, even though it uses characters from them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the majority of films using some sort of source material don't really adhere to closely to it.

One of the big problems with Extinction is that there are very few moments when the characters actually seem to be in any danger. Sure, the opening voice-over describes a world in which the convoy of survivors can't stay in one place too long lest zombies find them, but that never seems to happen. The only time danger is apparent is during actual attacks on the convoy, which only happen twice during the entire movie. This is also when the zombie design breaks down. The opening shots of zombies are pretty well done, with good variety and a believable weathered look. However, when the super zombies show up, they all look exactly the same, which is to say like Viktor Yushchenko in a jumpsuit. It makes the whole movie seem low budget. These zombies also run, which is something I'm not a fan of in zombie films (I prefer shambling), but at least this film gives a reason why the super zombies can run and the other zombies can't (the clone blood mutation). Finally, there's Alice's psychic abilities. They're used as a sort of deus ex machina and nothing more. Just when it looks like our heroes won't make it, Alice slips into psychic mode. It's pretty ridiculous, even for a zombie movie.

I don't want to make it seem all bad. The desert setting works fairly well, as does the convoy element. It's a nice departure from the usual small, claustrophobic settings of zombie films. Surprisingly, Jovovich does some pretty decent acting in this, given the somewhat ridiculous role she had to play. The crow attack was also pretty intense, though it only lasts a few minutes. And, of course, it's a zombie movie, which always nets some points in my mind.

Two and a half stars out of five.