ZomBlog Review: "Shaun of the Dead"

“Shaun of the Dead”
2004
U.K.
Stars: Simon Pegg, Kate Ashfield, Nick Frost, Lucy Davis, Dylan Moran, Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton
Writers: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright
Dir: Edgar Wright
100 minutes

I just can’t do it. I can’t. To attempt this right now would be a disservice. I’ll come back when I sort my life out…

Crap. Nothing has changed … But neither did anything for the hero of this great horror-comedy gem for which I have been badgered about since the inception of this tiny blog. For so many lovers of “Shaun of the Dead,” I have met just as many detractors.
“It’s too funny; zombie movies should not be that funny.”
“I guess it is funny. It had a moment or two where I laughed, but I thought it was too boring.”
“It was just an excuse to reference better movies.”
For a film I now feel is beloved and embraced in zombie-lore, I thought it prudent to point out not everyone loved it. The first time I watched it, I have to admit, I was laughing and shaking my head rather than embracing the not-so-subtle Romero/Tarantino/zombie film etc., references.
And, from me, to the detractors, I have a week-old litter box you can lick.
Of course, the film opens with some drinking, creative swearing, flatulent humor, and obvious horror film references (Shaun works for Foree Electronics, mentioning co-worker Ash is a bit under the weather), which, at first, took this nerd out of the movie. It later sent me giggling like a moron while at the same time embracing it as the love-letter it is to classic zombie lore.
You know the story by now. Zombies break-out. Lines are drawn. And everyone winds up going to the Winchester to have a pint and wait it all out.
Well, not quite.
Shaun is a resolute screw-up. His relationship with his girlfriend Liz is about to end, he adores his Mum (whom calls him “Pickle”) but often forgets about her, and his best friend, Ed, might be holding him back from doing anything with his life worthwhile. Liz’s friends think Shaun is a loser, and one of them might have designs on making sure Liz leaves Shaun so that he might have a chance at her.
Shaun thinks he is still in college, where playing “Timecrisis II” every night, getting drunk and listening to “electro” with flatulent Ed are the highlights of his day. Doldrums, routine, and familiarity rule his life. At the chance he might lose the cute blonde woman of his dreams amid a zombie uprising, Shaun finally kicks into action, with the aid of his leeching friend, a fat, potheaded louse who not only finds humor in the zombie invasion, but also suggests probable armaments, inopportune photo-ops, that a trophy gun over a bar is loaded, and that dogs can look up.
Some of the more hilarious moments of this film take place before the zombies show up. For me, the drunken scene in the Winchester with music from “Phantasm” pinging in the background as Ed describes the former lives of patrons is a huge highlight; the out of doors drunken mixmaster session with a zombie down the street is also great; the switching of television stations to piecemeal together reports mimicking “Dawn” and “Night” dialogue was rather amusing; but, anyone who has seen the film has to remember the record collection moment. Our heroes did not wax nostalgic, but rather spun the hits their own way. And we all laughed. Hardly 30 seconds would pass before something else had me laughing. Zombie movies should not be this much fun, but “Shaun” is.

Romero Rules Followed: Every single one from the original trilogy is followed.
Gore factor: For a comedy about zombies, the gore factor is plenty, but not excessive, just enough to get red on you.
Zombies or Wannabees? Zombies
Classic, fine, or waste of time: 10 out of 10 classic
Additional comments: “Shaun” is one of the most quotable, enjoyable, unhinge-your-jaw laughing films you will ever see while watching zombies lumber about. It is a life-long ambition made to fruition by perfect comic timing, embracing of the source material, British influence, a solid cast; and I know too many people, whom I respect, who disregarded it as, “OK.”
You are forgiven, Mum. Liz has your flowers. I will be over later to kill Phillip. We’ll have a pint and wait for this all to blow over.

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: "28 Days Later"

“28 Days Later”
2003
U.K.
Stars: Cillian Murphy, Naomi Harris, Christopher Eccleston, Megan Burns, and Brendan Gleeson
Writer: Alex Garland
Dir: Danny Boyle
113 minutes

So, here we are, at the one film, THE one film that really pinnacled the running/slow zombie debate. The film that made fanboys around the globe either jump up and down or crap themselves with the argument of “zombies don’t run!” or “running zombies rule!”
But, the one thing that all horror/zombie fans can agree on: this film kicks major ass on nearly every level.
And, knowing I am opening up myself to major criticism, the sequel also delivers on many, many levels and, in a handful of ways, surpasses the former.
So, let’s sink our teeth into this surprise.
“28 Days Later” is a film that should need no introduction; it’s director, also, should not demand an introduction, but, on the off chance you have never seen “Trainspotting” or “Slumdog Millionaire,” just know for sure that Danny Boyle received the greatest attention via this flick prior to his Oscar© win with “Slumdog.”
It’s a simple set-up and one that has been done several times before: A man wakes up in a hospital bed, completely alone, and tried to figure out where everyone went. What he later discovers is that the United Kingdom has been decimated by a plague, a rage virus that nearly instantly turns each infected person into a violent, fast-as-hell maniac with the only desire to rip apart or spread the virus by vomiting blood onto or biting a subject.
What I like about this film is that the “rage virus” begins the spread in the movie typical way: The virus is contained in a facility; a few hippies break in and try to free the experimental animals, having no clue what they are doing. And I have never, nor will I ever be, a fan of radical animal activists. So, I apologize in advance for smiling like a donkey when an infected monkey rips into one of the dumb ass activists and immediately makes the “activists” realize they just screwed up big-time.
Political statement aside, “28 Days Later” is a firm study in how mankind simply wants to survive and how, no matter the odds, mankind will find a way to do so.
Case in point: Our “coma” patient Jim awakens to find himself alone and immediately begins to search for humans.
And when he finds companions, Selena and Mark are not exactly what he was hoping to find. Selena and Mark have been surviving and battling the “infected” for nearly a month, and have figured out how the infection and the infected operate. And, while they may seem cutthroat to the audience, the audience quickly realizes survival is the only motivation they have.
Another case in point: Jim wants to visit his parents, and the three travel to his parents’ home, only to find they have committed suicide. With nightfall approaching, the trio agree to stay in the home. And the rage victims find them, moving at lightning speed, with frenetic camera-work and quick edits adding to the tension (according to IMDB.com, Boyle used a specific camera and filming technique to make the rage victims not only appear faster than human, but also to heighten the chaos; unfortunately, a lot of other lesser-talented filmmakers have warped the technique and ruined the frantic effect Boyle perfected and used for dramatic effect. Sad.). Anyways, the brutal attack takes place in Jim’s home, wherein he is hardly effective. And, in a moment which will forever live in my mind, Selena sees Mark has been injured. Before he can even explain the injury, Selena marches over and hacks him into pieces. No choice, no humanity; Brutality at its core.
Selena and the thankful Jim continue to travel Britain’s barren landscape and discover a father and daughter whom have somehow survived the infestation and join up with them, hoping to meet the source of a radio message that promises not only a cure but protection: an Army, fully-loaded and ready for whatever danger they face.
Parts of the message may or may not be true. If you are one of the few to have not seen this gem, I do not want to ruin the outcome. But, I will say this: the instinctual nature of mankind to figure out how to survive despite all odds is the key factor in this film. It makes it flow. It drives it. That is the story, zombies or rage victims be damned.
And here, this is the hardest part for me…

Romero Rules Followed: The “rage victims” fall to an unruly virus, die, and are reborn…They have the instinctive need to infect their prey; while they are not looking for food, they are searching for recruits, an instinctive need for any zombie.
Gore factor: Over the top, including a rather gore-less eye-gouging that will forever haunt my brain.
Zombies or Wannabees?: F*ck it. Boyle argued convincingly that each generation has it’s own version of a zombie, and this hyper, over-the-top running crazed-out version was the modern version. Reading all of his arguments, I have to give in: They are zombies.
Classic, fine, or waste of time: Absolute modern classic
Additional comments: I hope, really, really hope I take a lot of heat for this one. I have railed for a long time that if it ran, it wasn’t dead. A revisit to some of my favorites, including “The Return of the Living Dead,” helped change my tune. This film is a great introduction to the mythos, but I encourage those who loved this one to go back and review the classics. *Hint, some are here on this very blog…And if they are not, they will be. Andrew and I work moderately hard to put up new recommendations each week. You are more than welcome to ask us why, where, and when our true favorites will appear.
We have real plans for all of them.
“Do you think they saw us this time?”
— ROB

A Grave Mistake

Graveyard of Horror
Dir. Michael Skaife
1971
To call Gaveyard of Horror (aka The Butcher of Binbrook) a traditional zombie flick would be a stretch beyond Gumby’s famed elasticity. While there’s certainly a genetically mutated, vaguely undeady … thing… at the center of Michael Skaife’s 1971 exercise in failure, Graveyard of Horror is actually structured more like Italy’s giallo films of the 1970s with the mystery of the monsterized thing at its center.
Which basically means any discussion of its zombie qualities is going to be inherently spoilerish (but they put the goddamned monster on the cover), so forewarned is forearmed and all that. Not that I’d ever recommend you inflict this maundering hash of a film on yourself, anyway.
Michael Sherrington is just your average harmonica playing douche who was so wrapped up in his business that he happened to be out of town when his wife and baby died during childbirth. Hell, the family had enough time to bury the poor lady (the kid never seems to get mentioned) and for the grave to smooth over before Mike comes gallivanting back into town to dispute the official version of his wife’s death. Not that the film ever really gives us a satisfactory reason for his doubt other than the necessity of the plot – or why he digs her *gasp* empty grave up while wearing Jim Morrison’s leather pants.
So the film zig-zags through time with several flashbacks as Michael goes about town grilling the assorted bizarre locals with grating, horrible harp flourishes drowning out every supposedly shocking revelation he learns. Oh yeah, his brother, Robert, the local lord, has also gone missing. Michael doesn’t seem all that worried – and neither does his family – since it doesn’t even come up until halfway through the film. Turns out Robert is some local science muckety-muck who’s been performing experiments on himself, which leads us to…

Zombology: The mysterious throbbing patch of dirt in the local cemetery that be-masked locals have been feeding with IV bottles. As I’m sure you’ve figured out just reading this, Robert had been performing experiments on himself as part of his research into the transmutation of human cells. Seems Robert thought it would be a bright idea to turn himself into a zombified-crocodile-Frankenstein-monster thing that has to be kept buried and fed via tube or he breaks out and goes on a flesh eating rampage because his new existence involves “transitory moments of savage behavior requiring human flesh.” And that’s what passes for an explanation in this painful exercise in shock-free tedium.

It says a lot about a film when the best thing you can say about it is it sets up a protagonist and then pulls a To Live and Die in L.A. and seemingly bumps him off halfway through, shifting perspective to the locals as they begin to slowly mill about asking questions about the supposed body count (all off screen). But even that sort of cinematic legerdemain cannot rescue this zombie farce. And for that it earns a 77 percent on the Hell of the Living Dead scale of shitty filmmaking.