Diary of the Dead (2007)

George Romero proves he's still the undisputed master of zombie films...

I've never seen a Romero film I didn't like. The man is brilliant; often hampered by a ridiculously low budget and a cast of complete unknowns (or actual non-actors) actors, his ideas & execution always manage to transcend these limitations. Taking the idea of "found footage", he re-boots his vision of the zombie apocalypse, only this time in the form of a video documentary, filmed by a group of survivors.

Diary of the Dead starts with the filming of a student project, with a particularly amusing reference to the current "fast zombie" trend; this had me cracking up - I had to pause the DVD & replay it, just to hear the rest of the dialogue! The filming is interrupted by the news of strange goings on... And everyone scatters to try to find out what's going on, and to seek safety in familiar environments.

We end up with a sort of "found footage road movie", more than anything else; as the main characters proceed across country to reach a variety of "safe" destinations, they encounter a fair sampling of the kinds of unpleasantness you could expect when law and order break down. These are, of course, extremely well-handled by Romero, and have that feeling of gritty realism that is a hallmark of his films.

One of the most interesting inclusions is the (sparing) use of CGI to add to the usual makeup effects; as noted by Rick Baker when making An American Werewolf in London, you can add makeup to a person, but you can't take stuff away (he had no option but to use a puppet for the final encounter with the decomposing Jack in the theatre scene), and this is where CGI has a distinct advantage. There are several scenes where CGI is used to great effect in this regards; one involves a zombie's head partially dissolving, and the other... Well, let's just say it's quite disturbing, and you really can't miss it! Of course, like all of the best well-executed CGI effects, I may be wrong; maybe it isn't...

Anyway, if you're a Romero fan, or if you like your zombie movies, this is an absolute must-see. I won't say it's better than it's predecessors, but it's certainly on a par. Given that this is his 5th "Living Dead" film, that's saying something.

Outlander (2008)

They spent $50 million on this film, and then, apparently, just hung it out to dry. The distributors certainly didn't seem to do anything much to try and get their money back. With a total, worldwide, gross of just under $7 million, they'd better hope that it sells a lot on DVD/Blu-Ray. Oh, no, hang-on. I've never heard of it. And, neither, apparently, has anyone else...

Why is it that some films, for whatever reason, just disappear into the crowd? I've heard that it costs about as much to distribute and advertise as it does to make a movie; while not strictly true, the real blockbusters certainly have millions spent on their advertising budget. Long before Avatar came out, there wasn't a single person in the western world who didn't know it was coming. So, if you have confidence in your product (or, maybe, if you just think you can bluff your way to at least some initial returns on your investment), you have to spend some money and effort getting it into the public consciousness. If you have no confidence, you can always let it sit on a shelf for a year or two while you try to work out what to do. What you shouldn't do, however, is just release it to a couple of theatres, and then forget all about it.

The most surprising thing, when confronted with a film that you've never even heard of, is when it turns out to be, not just good, but bloody great fun. We're not talking Gone With The Wind, here people; it'll never make anyone's top 10 list. But it sure as hell at least deserved a chance to make its money back. When Amazon suggested I buy Outlander, I figured "Well, the DVD's got a spaceship on the cover - I might just check it out and see if it's any good".

The basic plot is pretty simple - An "alien" (played by James Caviezel, from the excellent remake of The Prisoner) crashes into a lake in Norway, around about 700 AD, and ends up being taken prisoner by some of the locals. When it turns out that one of his enemies stowed away on his spaceship, and is now killing the locals, they all join together to fight back.

I use the term alien loosely, as humans are, supposedly, descended from an earlier, abandoned, alien colony. Seems improbable, but, what the hell, it's as good an excuse as any for allowing the main character to be both a technologically advanced alien and a human at the same time. In reality, this is probably the only completely implausible element in the story, harkening back to an earlier age of science fiction, when we had less of an understanding of evolution and genetics.

At any rate, the cast is good (including John Hurt and Ron Perlman), the script is reasonable, and the action sequences are well put together. The effects are above average, and the depiction of the Norse way of life had the feeling of authenticity to it. All-in-all, I just can't understand why the studio didn't realise that they had a winner on their hands. People that stupid deserve to lose money!

Still, the other people involved don't, so, do them a favour and, if you like a bit of science fiction with your viking action, at least rent the film. Personally, I'm going to take Amazon's advice and buy it. I liked it that much. In fact, I'd have to say that it's the best viking science fiction film I've ever seen, and their should be more of 'em (more than one, at least!).

The Descent, Part 2 (2009)

Aah, sequels... They're mostly shit, but, every now and again, you come across a really good one, as good as, or (extremely rarely), even better than the original film. Unfortunately, The Descent, Part 2 definitely falls into the first category.

I really enjoyed The Descent. Like all of Neil Marshall's films, it is excessively gory, ultra-violent, and action-packed. Also, like his other films, its execution creates an atmosphere where it is incredibly easy to suspend disbelief. It tells the story of a group of female thrill-seekers who decide to go pot-holing in the Appalachians, only to discover a group of inbred, carnivorous mutant cave-people sharing the cave with them. For anyone who hasn't seen the first film, you should probably stop reading now!

One of the better aspects of the first film is its depiction of tough, self-reliant women. They are well-prepared (although not well enough - It's hard to prepare for inbred mutant cannibals when noone told you to expect them), and more than capable of taking on any ordinary challenge. Anyway, by the end of The Descent, there is one survivor from the group, who manages to find a way out of the caves.

We join her at the beginning of Part 2 in hospital, where the police would like very much to know what happened to all her companions. They then drag her back down (ignoring her warnings, which are not helped by her partial amnesia) into the caves to help them locate the rest of her friends.

The majority of the film is quite well done; it has action, gore, and tension, and is really well constructed. Where it completely falls apart is at the end. Another major spoiler warning here, as I'm just about to do an "end of film" spoiler; the worst kind of spoiler there is.

Okay, still here? Good... Now, I'm a big fan of films where everybody dies. When I look at my DVD rack, pretty much every second film falls into this category. However, all of them have one thing in common - It is completely logical, and not unexpected, that everyone will die. They quite obviously had no chance, and this was obvious from fairly early on, either because we know more than they do about what they're facing, or, sometimes, because the odds they face are simply overwhelming. Nevertheless, we enjoy the film, and root for the heroes, even on second viewings, and even when we don't believe that they have a snowflake's chance in hell of getting out of the mess they've found themselves in.

Other films, however, are set up differently. Many, many films require the hero (and maybe some others) to survive in order to preserve the narrative and satisfy the audience. We root for them, they pull through against ridiculous odds, and we cheer at the end when they stand up, often drenched in blood, and roar their challenge at fate and the Gods. The Descent gave us this satisfaction, as did Halloween, Die Hard, and many others.

The Descent, Part 2 has a great climactic scene, where the survivor of the first film sacrifices herself so that the hero of the second film can escape from the caves. It is unfortunate that, as the hero is running through the trees to her freedom, she is inexplicably hit in the head with a shovel by this guy we met at the beginning of the film, and dragged back to the cave mouth to be eaten. There is no explanation for this. It just happens out of the blue, and for no apparent reason. The guy seemed genuinely scared at the beginning of the film, before they went down, and had no apparent motive, nor any obvious connection to the subterranean mutants.

And that feeling you get, when the hero has survived against incredible odds? After another character has heroically sacrificed themselves so that the hero can live? Dashed. Destroyed. Irrevocably wiped. Defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Completely unsatisfying, and a total let-down after such good story-telling up until that point.

The Awakening (1980)

I noticed The Awakening in the TV guide a couple of weeks ago, in the middle of the night, on one of the new digital channels (in Australia), and thought it sounded interesting. Charlton Heston, Susannah York, and based on a Bram Stoker novel. What could possibly go wrong?

As it turns out, just about everything. This has to be one of the least scary "horror" movies ever. I don't know whose fault it was; Mike Newell certainly went on to better things (he's still making movies, and big-budget ones at that), and at least half the leads had names and reputations that (you'd think) they'd want to protect.

Heston is one of my least favourite actors; he was hammy, thought he was wonderful, and had no sense of humour. It's unfortunate that he was cast in so many of the best films of their time (Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, The Omega Man, come immediately to mind, each of which is amongst my favourites). While he detracts from good films, if The Awakening is any indication, he is quite capable of completely destroying an already bad film. He was practically the Nicolas Cage of his time; seemingly cast in every second film made, and always to the detriment of the production.

Of course, while Cage is the acting equivalent of Uwe Boll (i.e. an absolute guarantee that I'm gonna hate the movie), Heston was at least capable enough that you can look past his faults and appreciate the rest of the film. If there's anything to appreciate, of course...

The basic plot is simple enough; obsessed archeologist discovers the lost tomb of some un-named Egyptian princess, ignores all the dire warnings of what will occur if he enters the tomb, and dooms his unborn baby to becoming the vessel for the long-dead princesses return to earth. Nothing we haven't seen before, of course, only not as well done.

Anyway, the first 30 minutes or so are set 18 years in the past - And, in case you forget, or were late getting to your seat in the cinema, they'll remind you fairly early on when we get back to the "present". Heston's long-suffering, pregnant, wife (Jill Townsend in pretty much her last role), gives birth just as he's violating the tomb, but we know, of course, that, even though the baby is born dead, she'll be fine in a minute or two, just as soon as Heston releases the evil princesses spirit. Which, of course, he does. The baby starts crying, and he finally takes the time to go see his wife in the hospital. Too little, too late, so she leaves him, and takes little Maggie with her.

Heston isn't overly bothered, though - he goes onto an illustrious career as a university professor and marries his smart, practical, and attractive assistant, Susannah York. Oh, and anyone trying to interfere with his plans for the princess' mummy is conveniently killed in an "accident". These accidents, which occur off and on throughout the film, make it clear that this was a deliberate Omen rip-off. Only, as silly as The Omen was, it was at least fun and well-made.

Anyway, the rest of the plot will be obvious to anyone watching the film, and proceeds in a pedestrian manner to the Omen-like ending, so I won't talk any more about it. It's all been done before, only better.

What stood out, more than anything else, was the lack of build-up in the script. As an example, Susannah York goes from being supportive, sensible, practical, and scientific, to superstitious, fearful, and stupid instantly. No gradual realisation of the horror to come, just a light-switch change in personality. And the same goes for every other "scare" in the film - There is no gradual increase in tension at any point. Either you already know exactly what's going to happen next, because it's inevitable, or you are suddenly confronted with a complete change in a character.

The only shining light in the entire mess was Stephanie Zimbalist's performance as the doomed daughter of Townsend and Heston. She even won an obscure award for "Best Supporting Actress" for the role, and she really does the best she can with such appalling material.

At any rate, it does serve as a nice counterpoint to The Omen, if nothing else. While both films have very similar plots, the execution of each couldn't be more different. I'd recommend The Awakening to anyone who wants to watch how not to make a film. Garbage! I want my two hours back, please.

Big, Bigger, Biggest

A little while back I decided to have a "giant people from the 50's day"...

I started with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) proceeded to The Amazing Colossal Man (1957), and wound it all up with War of the Colossal Beast (1958). Let me say that, apart from sheer amusement value, none of these films is actually worth watching. They are all unrelentingly stupid - I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment.

So, let's start with the one with, at least, the best title. Attack of the 50 Foot Woman evokes everything that is best about 1950's B-grade movies. What it doesn't warn you about is that there isn't a single character in the movie who's even the least bit likeable. Nancy Archer (the titular character, played by Allison Hayes) is a spoilt (and stupid) rich woman with a philandering husband, who is obviously only after her money. She runs into an gigantic alien on the way home, with the result that she grows really, really big overnight.

Apart from the blatant misogyny of the script, the biggest fault with this film is the fact that, quite often, you you can see right through Nancy as she strides across the landscape, and the giant alien is also transparent a lot of the time. Now, giant people are one thing, but giant transparent people seems just a bit stupid! At any rate, I can only recommend this film to all the people out there who, just like me, will just have to watch it because its famous and has a great title!

The Amazing Colossal Man is often considered to be the "Gone With the Wind" of giant people films, and with good reason. It has all the required ingredients (crazy explanation, stupid physics, even stupider physiology), some really good effects (and some equally shoddy ones).

Lt. Col. Glenn Manning (Glenn Langan) gets a little to close to a plutonium bomb explosion, and gets a little burned... Like, 3rd degree burns over just about his entire body. At any rate, he miraculously heals overnight, then begins to grow. And grow. And grow. Where it gets really silly, though, is in the explanation that his heart is, for some reason, not growing as quickly as the rest of his body. Why this should be is both never explained, as well as not making any sense at all, but there you go.

His small heart causes circulatory problems, which results in him having a really bad temper for most of the film, and leaving him really, really stupid at the end of it, when he goes on the obligatory rampage, before being "disposed" of. While the miniatures were excellent, and many of the other effects shots were equally impressive, there were some "transparent" moments as well, which detract from the overall affect.

Which brings us, at last, to War of the Colossal Beast, sequel to The Amazing Colossal Man, and, I think, a better film than either of the others. Lt. Col. Manning has made his way down to Mexico, where he is hijacking food trucks to feed his enormous appetite.

Where this film stands out is the makeup. Manning is left horribly disfigured after his "demise", with half his jaw exposed, and one eye missing. While obviously an "additive" effect (i.e. makeup over the actor's face), it is still very impressive, and quite gory. It holds up extremely well, despite the film's age. The miniatures are also very impressive, even if they don't always match the full-scale vehicles at all times! There were also far fewer "transparency" problems in evidence.

Manning appears to have lost his mind completely in this one, and is basically just a giant monster. He finds his way to California, with a climax at the Griffith Observatory which is a lot of fun. Oh, and his heart attacks don't seem to be a problem any more (he should be long dead, according to the experts in the first film!).

At any rate, of all of these "giant people" films, War of the Colossal Beast is, surprisingly, the standout. It's fun, silly, and has the best SFX. You really should watch The Amazing Colossal Man first, if only so you get the whole story, but it's probably not absolutely necessary (the original distributors certainly didn't think so - they didn't even bill it as a sequel). I know for a fact that, now that I've seen it, I won't be feeling the need to watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman again any time soon (or ever!).

The Mist (2007)

Well... What can I say?

I just saw The Mist.

An almost perfect adaptation of my all-time favorite Stephen King story, except it’s 2 minutes too long :-(

Stop reading now, if you don’t want to know any more...

It gets the paranoia right. It gets the hopelessness right. It gets the critters right. Then it tacks on the most depressing ending since 1984.

Apparently Frank Darabont made a deal with the producers that, if they let him keep his miserable ending as written, he’d make it for half as much money. They should’ve paid the full amount.

So, my suggestion? Watch the film till they run out of petrol, then turn it off. That way it’s up in the air, just like the original story.

What’s most amusing is that I normally like “Director’s Cuts” of movies. In this case, I’d really like to see a “Producer’s Cut”!

The ending itself is almost an “anti-Spielberg”... Instead of the standard Spielberg approach of tacking on a pathetically happy ending to an otherwise forlorn and depressing film, Darabont has taken the exact opposite approach. He’s tacked on a ridiculously cynical ending onto a forlorn and depressing film.

It all just makes me pine for more endings like Screamers... i.e. endings that, while incredibly dark and dismal, are totally in context, and stem from what we’ve already seen of the behavior of the characters. The one thing that stood out in the story, and in the film right up until that point, was that, in a hopeless situation, the one thing you can’t afford to give up on is hope.

No matter how impossible the odds, or widespread the catastrophe, if you give up, what’s the point of fighting before you give up? It cheapens and detracts from any previous effort.

It also reminds me of the beginning of Alien 3. Ripley never gives up in Aliens, and saving Newt is her moment of glory. At the start of the next film, however, Newt’s just dead. “Oh, I’m sorry, but that was all a waste of time and effort. You understand, don’t you”. I mean, how pathetic!

Oh well, enough of a rant. See it. Don’t see it. Whatever. The shame of it is that it’s just SO good right up until that point. What the hell was he thinking? Why, oh why, do people think they can “improve” on something that they proclaim to love?

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

A masterpiece.

No matter how dedicated one is to a genre, or even to film in general, there are always some classics that you just never get around to seeing. You know they're gonna be good (or at least they should be, with all the fuss that's made about them), but, for one reason or another, you just keep missing 'em on TV, or there's always something newer and shinier at the local video shop to attract your attention. Or, more and more often these days, you've seen the remake and it was pretty good, so why bother watching the old black & white version of the same story...

Invasion of the Body Snatchers lived up to its reputation. Taut, tense, and action-packed,  modern-day thrillers owe a lot to this film. It's only 80 minutes long, but it's got more action and suspense in it than most films manage to pack into 3 hours. I was literally on the edge of my seat for almost the entire time!

Directed by Don Siegel (who's other films include Escape from Alcatraz and Dirty Harry), and starring Kevin McCarthy as an ordinary GP who, upon returning from a medical conference, finds that an awful lot of people in his home town seem to have developed an identical paranoid delusion... Their relatives are not their relatives. They look like them, sound like them, and even remember things that only they could possibly know, but they are not who they appear to be. He investigates, and, slowly but surely, the evidence starts to accumulate, until even the "rational" Dr Bennell can't help but admit that something terrible is going on.

This has to be McCarthy's best role. His character is the absolutely archetypal small-town doctor. He's friendly, debonair, sophisticated, and caring. He's divorced, because his patients always came first. He's witty, charming, and handsome. Of course, by the end of the film, he looks like he's just escaped from a psych ward, but that's the beauty of it.

Of course, by this time he also hasn't slept for about 48 hours, not to mention the horrors he's just been through!

Dr Bennell's love interest in the film, Becky Driscoll (Dana Wynter) also goes from total glam (the dress she wears in her first scene is just gorgeous) to dishevelled wreck during the course of the film. This, of course, is something that we don't see very often, especially in films from this period - Normally, no matter what the heroine's suffered through, the worst that will happen is that she might have a little mud on her dress, and, perhaps, a misplaced hair or two!

As impressed as I was by Kevin McCarthy's performance and character, the cast highlight for me was the always exquisite Carolyn Jones. Her big eyes and delicate features (not as accentuated as they were in The Addam's Family, of course) always portray an extreme level of vulnerability, especially when she plays the role of "the woman who screams at the scary thing".

While described as metaphor for either the imagined communist threat of the 50's, or, equally, as a metaphor for the all-too-real threat of McCarthyism, none of that matters while you're watching it. As you're propelled from one chase scene to the next, and introduced to the exact nature of the threat one step at a time, you are simply buffeted along by the whirlwind. The last thing you care about is the politics; all you care about is whether the hero and his girl are gonna escape...

Yes, it's a bit dated. Some of the romantic scenes are a little flowery and over-the-top by today's standards, and the patriarchy of the 50's is, well, conspicuous (Becky is just a little bit too hopeless when she starts to get tired!). Nevertheless, this is a genuine masterpiece, and one that anyone who wants to make a taut, suspenseful action thriller could learn a lot from.