ZomBlog Review: "The Zombie Survival Guide"

“The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead”
2003
U.S.
Writer: Max Brooks
255 pages

I know I am a few days late in posting this, but listen to me: Get supplies, store them; grab the guns, load them; know the area, patrol it.
Any dabbler into zombie lore has been approached and has an answer to the “What would you do?” question when it comes to a zombie apocalypse.
Me? I would high-tail it to Andrews Air Force Base in lovely Suitland, Md., where the presidential Air Force One goes from engagement to engagement on a fairly weekly basis. Hell, if the security there is sound enough to protect a president, then it would be great for an outsider, right?

Fuck, no.

I would be shot at the gates in the event of a zombie uprising.
Author Max Brooks spent a whole lot of time researching real-life scenarios, realistic situations, terrains, weaponry and various other contributing factors in putting together his fantastically interesting, if not overly-researched, “The Zombie Survival Guide” back in 2003.
When Brooks put this modern-day “Anarchist’s Cookbook” together, zombies were not yet en vogue. Brooks splashed a great mortar-hole into zombie-lore with “World War Z” and started kicking rules into brains with this guide which tells the reader — if you take the subject matter as realistic (um, look, zombies are going to rise up; it is just a matter of when) — how to prepare for every possible encounter, on every possible terrain, with every possible weapon (crossbows are nice, but reloading takes too long [sorry to my fellow close-range fans; I will be a machete and sawed-off shotgun person, myself), then this is a must-have guide to surviving what could be the end of mankind as we know it [yes, this was a shallow attempt to shatter Andrew’s long-ass bracketed/parentheses laden entry a few months ago].
Brooks succinctly examines every detail, even those that laymen might forget (dangers of terrain, the possibilities of sleep-deprived paranoia, having not one but several escape plans, the weight of supplies, etc.). He concludes the book with several “documented” scenarios of undead attacks throughout recorded history, some based on actual historic events, others based on nothing more than spirited imagination. As a nice little touch, he includes an appendix where the modern-day survivor might keep a journal and checklist for supplies.
While I admit I was not a fan of the repetitious parts, there were many moments where I had an, “Oh, wow, I never thought about that” moment. Again, for anyone to take what we write on this blog too seriously is a waste. We know zombies are a non-threat (today). We are unafraid of zombies rising up and taking over the world (at this moment). Those stinking rot-gutted, slow-moving slack-jaws are of no concern to me (until I close my eyes and live the apocalyptic showdown night after tedious night).

I might be kidding.

Romero Rules Followed: Brooks loves the slow-moving, bite-spreads-disease zombies. And, the known method for killing the suckers is a brain-blast. All are followed.

Gore factor: Very descriptive in how the undead are dispatched, but if this were a high-school how-to-guide, it would easily be PG-13. So, fairly low.

Zombies or Wannabees? Absolute Zombies (I need to patent that vodka drink)

Classic, fine, or waste of time: Classic.

Additional comments: Look, if someone can spend as much time as Brooks did in researching a fictitious scenario as how one could survive an undead uprising, you know it will be an entertaining read. And it is, at times. Sadly, his attention to details detract from the actual fun at points. I still love the book and chuckle at certain points (his entries about idiots hauling tons of supplies across a waterway always makes me smile). Oh, and not to draw too much attention to myself or the blog, but THIS IS ENTRY NUMBER 50, SUCKERS! In all seriousness, we thank you for caring as much as you do for our endeavor. We appreciate your attention to our mistakes, details, and that you just come along for the ride. At least I do.

Andrew appreciates nothing.

— ROB

Running Vs. Shambling: The Endless Debate

I used to jump into arguments with reckless abandon every time someone would spurt the words “‘28 Days Later’ is so awesome … those zombies were actually frightening!”
The running versus shambling/shuffling/slow zombie debate may never reach a satisfactory end.
But, if you know me, or have read this blog for the past several months, you know I have opinions.
Lots of them.
I am taking myself into a deep, dark cavern in order to examine this topic, which I will not be able to fully address in a single post. What I hope will happen is this post will spurn a heated debate.
As my counterpart has done with his reviews, he has made a case for and case against zombies or wannabes while kicking the crap back into the flicks he has suffered through. On several occasions, I have relented on the debate: “The Return of the Living Dead” and the aforementioned “28 Days Later” are two of my all-time favorites when it comes to not only zombies, but horror films overall. And the fricken undead/rage victims in both run like madmen.
Yet, despite my hatred for running undead, I enjoy them to the fullest.
For what reason? Great directing, a solid script, characters I give a rat’s ass about, a purposely fast-paced storytelling angle, and limited directorial masturbation — and by that last statement, I mean the directors of both films kept the film moving along while not boring the audience with incessant details, shoehorning stupid plot points into the narrative, and bogging the whole movie down.
While praising those two films, I think my real hatred for running zombies came with the remake of “Dawn of the Dead,” which has yet to be reviewed on this site, but it will get its due.
I despised that remake. Absolutely despised it. On second viewing, I thought it was alright. On the third viewing, I hated it again.
Yes, your humble reviewer watched that fucking thing THREE TIMES to decide my ultimate decision on it. And, the biggest problem I had with it boiled down at the base level to the fricken running undead. Make no mistake, I have enormous problems with the film, with plot holes large enough to drive a ridiculous RV through, terrible acting, a moronic attempt at a sympathetic “rooftop buddy” for Ving Rhames, zombie baby, etc.
But. The. Fricken. Running. Zombies. Not only running, but the fuckers are so mobile, agile, and smart they pose a nearly supernatural/super-powered threat in the film.
OK, I get that slow zombies seem dumb to modern audiences. “You can just run past them, el oh el! Dum zombees! Twilight roolez!” (posted on twitter by some dipshit teenage girl with a tramp-stamp, nose ring and emotional/self-image issues … allegedly).
But the slow, creeping-up-on-you impact of a horde was always the frightening point up until “Return of the Living Dead” made those suckers run (and, arguably, there are several lesser known films that beat ROTLD to the punch, including a yet to be reviewed Andrew-bashing-hall-of-famer).
The zombies in the gold-standard “Night of the Living Dead” nearly literally showed up one at a time. One was enough of a threat; 50 were a nightmare. And even slow-moving, they managed to kill seven people in less than eight hours. People, mind you, who were armed, watching television updates, getting a good idea of what they were up against. The original “Dawn” upped the ante with two trained SWAT team members. And one of them was dispatched by the slow munchers. As was a dimbulb member of the group. Trained marksman and pilot both get killed by making human mistakes. Fast or slow, the shuffler zombies/rage victims/running pussheads capitalize on human error. Human error. Nothing more. In my book, it is worse to be killed by an enemy that you, on paper, should be able to outrun, outgun, and outsmart, than to be chased down and defeated by a group of superhuman maniacs.
So, discuss amongst yourselves, run vs. walk; there is not a cohesive point to be made with this post. This is simply to provoke the discussion. I will tackle that argument with teeth in future posts. To be continued…

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: "Return of the Living Dead Part II"

“Return of the Living Dead Part II”
1988
U.S.
Stars: James Karen, Thom Mathews, Dana Ashbrook, Marsha Dietlein, Philip Bruns, Michael Kenworthy
Writer: Ken Wiederhorn
Dir: Ken Wiederhorn
89 minutes

The sacred rule of any sequel is, in my book, to continue the story, respect the original, stick to what worked in the former, and, if possible, improve on the original.
Like many ’80s films, the sequel to “Return of the Living Dead” fell victim to a terrible plot device: a kid is smarter than anyone else in the damn film.
For criminy. The base-film had all the elements that actually worked: characters the audience cared about, actual funny moments, plenty of gore, and plenty of zombies, all while keeping it at an R-rated adult level. Yes, I admit some of the characters were supposed to be deadbeat, lazy, punk-rocking teens, but they were still close to being adults.
The sequel, however, decided to up the ante with the comedic elements of the former and it falls flat. While the budget seems to have been slightly elevated, the fun of the first film takes a backseat to ghetto-talking disembodied heads, sight gags, spandex, hair-gel and a little dipshit I wished would have been devoured in the first few moments I laid eyes on him.
Again, the 1980s suffered a plague of movies where children were the heroes and more intelligent than any military member facing the Cold War, understood computers better than fogeys, and always survived any peril facing them. I remember being a child during the time, wishing death on certain child characters and envying others.
I never envied this wad, Jesse Wilson, played by Kenworthy.What begins as a continuation of the first film quickly spirals into typical ’80s film. A kid is being bullied, his older sister wants to get laid, the town loser wants to lay her, there are a couple of comic relief characters (James Karen and Thom Mathews nearly identically reprise their roles from the first film), and the military is inept.
Jesse and his two bullying brats inadvertently burst one of the infamous Trioxin containers — which happens to have fallen out of a military truck — containing reanimating gas and a zombie corpse, unleashing both contents into a cemetery and into the town.
Yeah, there are some moments that are amusing (“Michael Jackson” makes an appearance late in the film), but the clichés bog this movie down and make it tedious and a by-the-numbers bore-fest. A scene in a hospital is the sole reason for the film dodging a PG-13 rating. It would have sailed through the ratings board these days. PG-13 horror is rarely worth your time. Or mine.

Romero Rules Followed: For the most part, they are all followed. However, the reanimation process mostly takes place due to the gas spurted from a drum. So, in this case, about 90%.
Gore factor: Mostly moderate until a pivotal hospital scene. Which was cool. And a strong point.
Zombies or Wannabees? Zombies
Classic, fine, or waste of time: Waste of time
Additional comments: Andrew and I have been at odds over the quality film “Return of the Living Dead.” I absolutely embrace it, while he just says it is a big bucket of “OK.” I can point to this sequel (which includes cameos by Forrest J. Ackerman, founder of “Famous Monsters of Filmland” and Mitch “Shocker/”X-Files” Pileggi) as an example of when a superior idea gets warped and raped. So much promise, so little to show for it.
And I hope Andrew attacks Part III before I do.

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: “George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead”

“George A. Romero’s Land of the Dead”
2005
U.S.
Stars: Simon Baker, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, Robert Joy and John Leguizamo
Writer: George Romero
Dir: George Romero
97 minutes

“Zombies, man. They creep me out.”
Let’s set the stage, shall we? It had been 20 years since Uncle George decided to revisit his creation — the living dead. 1985’s “Day of the Dead,” for most people, was the closing chapter of Romero’s trilogy of flesh-eating undead. In those 20 years, countless rip-offs, spoofs, and other varying incarnations of zombies have either graced the silver screen or squandered space on video rental store shelves (or tricked you into adding them into the Netflix queue, nowadays).
It was a glorious day when I went stumbling around the numerous geek-run movie websites back in 2004 and learned Romero was going to take on zombies once again — and this time on a larger scale, both monetarily and talent-wise. He would have big studio backing, a larger budget than he had ever been given, and could hire a handful of well-known (and even cult-status) actors.
“Finally,” 2004-Rob thought, “we will get a real apocalyptic zombie film.”
Well, sort of.
2005’s “Land of the Dead” was the result of several ideas and germs that never fully developed from “Day of the Dead.” Romero wanted to have an army of zombies, trained to take out other zombies in “Day.” He develops an army of zombies in “Land.” And, as with the original script for “Day,” the zombies in “Land” are much smarter than the headshot-fodder we’ve come to know. Led by a gas station owner/attendant, zombies in “Land” learn as they go. They’re tired of being slaughtered by the well-organized scavengers who come by now and again looting supplies to take back to Fiddler’s Green — a city surrounded by water where the poor and blue collar live on the streets while the privileged live in a swank mall/apartment complex, complete with all luxuries of the “old world.”
The organized scavengers, led by Riley (Baker) and Cholo (Leguizamo), travel around on motor bikes and a rolling fortress: Dead Reckoning, a massive $2 million armored mobile transport, fully equipped with .50 caliber machine guns, short-range missiles — and fireworks to, you know, put on a show for the zombies (seriously — zombies seem to like fireworks in this movie). After a raid on a nearby town for supplies, the zombies, led by a leader dubbed in the credits as “Big Daddy,” decide to follow the looters back to Fiddler’s Green and launch a primitive assault on the island city.
Much to the zombies’ advantage, Cholo and Riley have both called quits to their scavenger days, calling the last supply raid, the one where the zombies get the gumption to follow them, their final one. Riley has decided to take a gassed up car he purchased and head north into Canada, where there is nothing (he said it, not me — but it’s true). Cholo has decided he would take his earnings for taking care of Kaufman’s (Hopper) “garbage” (i.e. people he does not want in his little paradise). When Kaufman decides Cholo isn’t worthy to live among the wealthy, he casts him out, but not before Cholo takes Dead Reckoning and threatens to destroy Fiddler’s Green with a couple missiles. Riley is bribed by Kaufman to recover Dead Reckoning and stop Cholo.
Yup, pretty simple plot there. This would have been a Charles Bronson or Chuck Norris movie 20 years ago, sans zombies. But the zombies, and the threat that they are “evolving,” adds to what little drama there is to be had here. The real show-stopper with the zombies happens about halfway through with a horde of them realizing water is not a boundary. Those brief moments are pretty awesome to look at. And, of course, there are the numerous feasting scenes. Where Romero once used to hold back until the climax, he decided to inject some spurts prematurely all over this one, giving the special effects team free reign to come up with zombies eating and ripping people apart that had not been seen by audiences before.
While “aw, man, did you see that?” is sometimes fine by me, I wanted more with this outing. I wanted characters I cared about. While Asia Argento is very easy on the eyes, her constant battle with her Italian accent in delivering American dialogue was distracting. Riley’s friend Charlie (Joy) was amusing at times, but by 2005 I was tired of what I call the Giovanni Ribisi School of Acting: act mentally handicapped, garner audience sympathy. Yes, Riley seemed to be a great guy, but his desire just to head north and get away from it all never made me want to care if he lived or died, no matter how many minor plot elements were thrown in to make him appear as a “good guy.” Leguizamo just seemed to be around for a paycheck. So did Hopper.
So, Uncle George gets a big budget, some B-list talent, and free-reign … and he punted it. Now I know why Romero prefers to direct independently — he can’t contain himself.
Much like another George I’ve come to malign.

Romero Rules Followed: He created a couple new ones here, mainly the zombie learning curve. In this film, zombies evolved faster than apes in “2001: A Space Odyssey.” But, I’ve referenced zombies using tools before in a Romero film, so, for the sake of argument, these suckers are still in the Romero realm.
Gore factor: Goriest of the Romero flicks thus far, although I was not a fan at all of some of the CGI effects. Stay practical with my zombies.
Zombies or Wannabees? Zombies
Classic, fine, or waste of time: Fine
Additional comments: This is the first Romero film to call the undead “zombies,” while the preferred term in the film is “stenches.” While the “thinking zombie” aspect is a bit intriguing, it was much too much for this outing. It should have been slowly introduced over the next couple of films (yeah, Romero has been cranking them out as of late), which would have probably made this one slightly better and made the two that followed a bit more bearable. Instead, Uncle George is just all over the place. And he lost the one thing that made me care — well-developed characters.
I like caring about zombie films. I wish George did this time around.

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: "World War Z"

“World War Z”
By Max Brooks
2006
U.S.
Three Rivers Press
342 pages

This is the first book review for this blog (yes, we can read as well as watch). And, from my standpoint, this is a great introduction into zombie literature.
“World War Z” reads like a dossier, a documentary, and a well-written fan-fiction novel. Author Brooks captures all of the elements that zombie lovers have come to know and love: the apocalypse has happened, the undead are kicking and eating our asses, humankind seems powerless to stop it — and this is how the entire world responds.

Brooks takes the backseat as an author, assuming the role of a man seeking to interview the major players involved and report to all world governments the beginning, middle, and end of a worldwide zombie outbreak.

I spent the majority of my summer and fall months picking this book up, getting sucked in at some chapters, intrigued by others, and completely enthralled with others. The book jumps back and forth with the timeline of a war that took place over several years, over several continents and countries. Everyone from military strategists, to government advisors, to laymen, to religious figures are interviewed by the “author,” comprising a compelling read that I will not soon forget.

Among the standout moments of Brooks’ novel include a gripping tale of a Chinese submarine commander realizing that the best way of survival — and potential destruction at the hands of his own government — is becoming a deserter; a teenager in Japan who watched the apocalypse unfold over the Internet and suddenly realizing he not only was ill-equipped with intelligence to handle the war when it came to his door, but also that he had spent too many months staring at a computer screen that his lethargic form seemed to fight against him as he tried to survive; several accounts as to how modern military responses to the threat fell short (i.e. soldiers being trained to shoot for mass rather than the head, having to relearn on the fly how to destroy a force that upped its forces with every un-destroyed brain).

The novel, while completely based on the slow-moving zombies this blog has come to embrace as the triple-OG zombies, takes a few liberties with Uncle George’s rules, but very few.

It is a stretch to think about a real-life zombie apocalypse, but Brooks handles the subject matter and the story with respect, sound-research, and cultural understanding.

Romero Rules Followed: Practically all, but I will not ruin plot points with nitpicking

Gore factor: Well, deft description makes the mind an amusement park

Zombies or Wannabees? Zombies

Classic, fine, or waste of time: Classic

Additional comments: I was expecting a terrible Tom Clancy-wannabe, but was pleasantly surprised. This is a sincere recommendation if you have had enough with terrible fiction writing as of late. Also, there have been rumors that a big studio was willing to make a film, casting Brad Pitt in a role...While that may be a scary prospect, read the book and then picture who Mr. Pitt would play...As the narrator, he is perfect casting.

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: "Day of the Dead" (1985)

“Day of the Dead”
1985
U.S.
Stars: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joe Pilato, Richard Liberty
Writer: George Romero
Dir: George Romero
101 minutes

The “Return of the Jedi” of George A. Romero’s first zombie trilogy, “Day of the Dead” was savaged upon initial release. Having been 8 years old at the time, I did not obviously see the film right away, but I sure as hell remember the teaser trailers on TV, with a ton of seemingly disembodied hands plunging through a cinderblock wall to grab a rather attractive woman.
That happens in the first moment of “Day.” It was a cheap attempt to scare the audience, but, at this point, we all know Uncle George was done trying to scare us. He wanted us to think and used a seemingly unstoppable foil to jumpstart our numb minds.
“Day” finds the human race nearly wiped out, with a handful of humans struggling to survive and stop the apocalypse above while hiding in an underground bunker. A sect of scientists — protected at the time by an increasingly paranoid and power-hungry military platoon — are losing time to figure out what causes the dead’s desire to look at the living as dinner, cure the plague, and return society to normal while continuing a search for survivors.
Many years have passed since Romero’s “Dawn.” While many critics were turned off by the numerous scenes of yelling and screaming protagonists, as a young viewer, I understood Romero’s vision: Humanity had reached its last thread of sanity. Desperation and animal instincts were ruling the survivors. Captain Rhoades (Pilato), serving as totalitarian dictator in his little kingdom, knows he has the opportunity and firepower to make every command a reality. He is the worst bully anyone could meet and Pilato, an inexperienced actor, does a fine job of making the audience hate him instantly. The audience can feel empathy for the non-military survivors: scientist Sarah (Cardille), helicopter pilot John (Alexander), and radio operator McDermott (Jarlath Conroy).
However, the most interesting and likable character is portrayed by Richard Liberty. As Dr. “Frankenstein” Logan, Liberty (who has sadly passed on) immediately engages the audience as not only a sympathetic doctor hell-bent on stopping the zombie virus, but also reversing it in a very unconventional way — creating zombie pets. His star pupil, “Bub,” phenomenally portrayed by Howard Sherman, expands Romero’s rules and humanizes the cannibalistic enemy, a risky turn for the director — a risk, which, in this instance, paid out in spades.
“Day,” again, leans heavily on its characters to further the story. One moment in the film, where John and Sarah wax philosophically about religion and Darwinism, stands out as a powerful, thought-provoking moment that would have seemed silly in other hands and films. Romero and the cast take that moment, and the moment in which it took place — Cold War America — and put a stamp on humanity that reads: “You are destroying us; maybe that isn't such a bad thing.”
While “Day” easily contains incredibly realistic zombie carnage, it also, in my book, contains the most realistic display of desperation since Romero’s “NOTLD” in its human characters. The audience certainly cares about some and absolutely wants to see others destroyed in the fastest and most painful way possible. And Uncle George delivers, again, this time ten-fold.
I may get my zombie expert card taken away for writing this, but I truly believe, along with “Night of the Living Dead,” “Day” really encapsulates a realistic reaction to a menace, and tops “Dawn” handily. Come on, take out the zombies and replace it with nuclear fallout, where a handful of survivors are trapped in an underground shelter, with some looking for other survivors and others simply looking to survive.
Now, tell me, which side would you fall on after three months?

Romero Rules Followed: New ones are created here with “thinking” zombies. But, George can make them up as he goes along as far as the OT* is concerned.
Gore factor: Over the top
Zombies or Wannabees? They are still slow, dead, and fleasheating. Zombies.
Classic, fine, or waste of time: Positively a classic
Additional comments: I have taken a beating over the years defending this one, but I stand firm. Even such revered critics as Roger Ebert had to go back and review “Night of the Living Dead,” which he initially beat with a log. Many critics came back to “Day” and then “got it.” Ebert wrote, upon appreciating “Day,” that he hoped George would “stop while he was ahead.”
Sadly, as you will see, George, like another George, didn’t listen. If you hated this one, give it another glance with wide-open eyes and mind. I enjoy it even more each time I watch it.
*Original Trilogy
— ROB

ZomBlog Tribute: "Night of the Living Dead"

“Night of the Living Dead”
1968
U.S.
Stars: Duane Jones, Judith O’Dea, Karl Hardman, Marilyn Eastman, Keith Wayne, Judith Ridley
Writer: John Russo and George Romero
Dir: George Romero
96 minutes

“They’re coming to get you, Barbara.”
In 1968, George A. Romero changed the horror film game once and for all. He wrote a solid script featuring creatures that were terrifying, assembled a cast of unknowns, and created a biting social commentary. “Night of the Living Dead” will, forever, remain one of the greatest horror films of all time.
Now, 42 years later, the creatures he created then are staples of pop culture. Romero has directed five sequels with varying degrees of critical and box office acclaim, and countless knockoffs have been spawned. Video games feature the cannibalistic undead, books dedicated to the subject are topping the New York Times Bestseller List, people around the world are assembling in massive gatherings to either r dance or shamble about city streets, and music groups are writing songs about them.
Yes, the living dead are more popular than ever, and it all began with one of the most iconic films — not just in the horror canon — ever made.
For those unfamiliar with the film (shame on you), the story begins with a brother and sister visiting their father’s grave in the countryside outside of Pittsburgh. Johnny (Russell Streiner) and Barbara (O’Dea) bicker back and forth, prompting Johnny to tease his sister as a strange man begins to approach them. After the man grabs and begins to claw at Barbara, Johnny fights with the man, ultimately winding up unconscious. Barbara flees from the attacker and runs into an apparently empty farmhouse. She is soon joined by another stranger, Ben, (Jones). This time, the new stranger fends off multiple more “attackers” and begins boarding up the house. Barbara, slipping into a catatonic state of shock, listens listlessly as Ben tells how the strange attackers are everywhere and no one knows what is really going on.
As time passes, Ben and Barbara learn they are not in the house alone, as two teenagers, Tom and his girlfriend Judy, and a set of parents — Harry and Helen Cooper, and their injured daughter, Karen, appear from the basement where they have hidden themselves from the attackers. Instantly, a power struggle between Ben and Harry ensues, each determined to control the situation and make the next decision for survival. While Harry appears to be driven to defend his family by staying in the basement, Ben makes it clear that he is in charge of the main floor — and the only gun in the house. While Ben measures each decision with logic and forward thinking, Harry’s reaction is to either flee from the house or barricade everyone in basement. The tension between the two men is at the center of the story as the refugees begin to learn what is going on through radio and television reports: the bodies of the recently dead have begun to rise from their graves and attack the living — in some cases, biting and devouring their victims.
As the numbers of the slow, lumbering undead begin to gather around the house, and make a couple attempts to gain entry, Ben and Tom lay out a strategy to take a pickup truck, drive to a gas pump outside of the home, fuel it up, pick up the refugees, and drive to the nearest shelter where the National Guard is sure to protect them.
The plan — fails terribly. Tom and Judy wind up becoming barbecue, and, for the first time on film, the undead decide to have a grand meal. Shot after shocking shot of human remains are seen either being carried around, fought over, or consumed by the undead.
The remaining survivors begin to become desperate and some take advantage of the horror and confusion, leading to the collapse of what little safety they had. A last attempt is made to survive — with middling results.
I have tried to be very spoiler-free with the plot synopsis here, but I almost feel I should talk about every, single, vital plot point in this 42-year-old gem. However, I realize there are still many people out in the world who have yet to experience it (although, if they are reading this blog, I really worry about them).
Also, I have refrained from using the term “zombie,” even though this is obviously what the “creatures” are in “NOTLD.” While the film never utters the Z word, instead calling them “ghouls” or “the recently dead,” the entire modern zombie phenomenon stems from this film. In fact, this blog holds all zombie lore to the standards and rules set forth by Romero in this film and his subsequent sequels.
What I did not mention earlier is something that has been up for much debate over the years. The character of Ben was played by Duane Jones, a black man. The year the film debuted was 1968, the same year Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. While the film had wrapped prior to King’s death, the fact that the lead in this film was a strong black man absent of racial stereotypes of the day made a huge impact on the film’s initial and cult success. Romero has denied on several occasions that Jones’ casting was a conscious political statement, simply stating that Jones was the best actor for the part. Conscious or not, the fact that Jones portrayed the only competent, strong, resourceful, and brave role in the film made a bold statement in a tumultuous time during the civil rights movement.
While the film was made for pennies, with most of the cast and crew assuming multiple production roles, it has gone on to become a goldmine both critically and financially — even though Romero has nary made a penny back from the film due to being young and naïve, failing to copyright the film upon initial release, and allowing it to slip into public domain. While Romero has remained an independent filmmaker for the majority of his career, his greatest feat doesn’t even belong to him. Ouch.
I have watched “NOTLD” more times than any other film — ever. Romero caught lightning in a bottle with “NOTLD”: a solid concept, a strong story, credible characters, and a frightening enemy — us. While the undead provide the catalyst of the threat, the real threat is humanity, and how, in desperate situations, humanity tends to turn on itself, with the most primal instinct — self-preservation — taking over and destroying what would seem to be the ultimate goal: survival of the species.
The zombies take on a pack mentality, overpowering their prey through strength in numbers. And, while their prey would be stronger if they took on that pack mentality, humans in Romero’s world devolve into individuals.
The zombies will win.

— ROB

ZomBlog Review: "The Return of the Living Dead"

“The Return of the Living Dead”
1985
U.S.
Stars: Clu Gulager, James Karen, Don Calfa
Story: Rudolph J. Ricci, John Russo and Russ Streiner
Screenplay: Dan O’Bannon
Dir: Dan O’Bannon
91 minutes

“Brrrrraaaaains!”
Sorry, such an easy go-to for this entry. And if you are familiar with that phrase, it may have been your first introduction to zombies.
You see, in 1985, a highly-publicized horror film hit the screens. The TV spot and trailer featured an incredibly detailed, tar-covered skeleton with huge eyes barking “More, brains!” at the audience.
Obviously, that movie was “The Return of the Living Dead,” one of the best examples of how a horror film can achieve greater heights by capitalizing on a decent cast, simplistic, traditional effects, and a well-written and executed script. “ROTLD” is one of my personal all-time favorites. The film, despite it’s age, has held up incredibly well, and, while many die-hard horror film fans have issues with comedy mixed with their gore, this film is the gold-standard in how to do it right, as comedy and horror may seem like the odd couple, but, in capable hands, can mix like peanut butter and chocolate.
“ROTLD” starts off suggesting the audience should take it seriously, claiming the film was based on true events. Teenager Freddy (Thom Matthews, who would later battle the first appearance of “zombie” Jason Voorhees in “Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives” as Tommy Jarvis) is getting a tour of a medical supply building (Uneeda Medical Supplies), where he has just landed his first job. Frank (Karen) jokes with Freddy as they tour the facility on July 3, 1984; the boss, Bert (Gulager), has left to start his holiday weekend early. Frank decides to try and spook Freddy with a fantastic tale: That movie, “Night of the Living Dead” was based on a true incident.
As Frank explains, the military in the early 1960s used a chemical (trioxin) to spray on marijuana crops, and, while experimenting with it, they learned it had moderate reanimating effects on corpses, causing them to “jump around, as though they were alive,” Frank explains. According to Frank’s story, George Romero “stole” the idea and the military threatened to sue him if he told the true story, causing a young Romero to change his story around. Frank also tells Freddy that a couple of the containers holding the once reanimated corpses were shipped to Uneeda as a result of a “typical Army fuck-up.”
Frank takes Freddy into the basement, shows him the metal containers, and smacks the container holding one of the corpses, spewing a spray of the trioxin into Frank’s and Freddy’s faces, cueing the opening credits and a montage of what the trioxin can do.
Yes, all of what happened above happens in the film’s first seven minutes.
Cut to a serene scene several states away where a haggard military general comes home to his wife, checks into a computer console in his bedroom and then explains heatedly to his wife that they may never find the canisters they — the military — are actively searching.
The audience is introduced to Freddy’s friends, a group of jobless rag-tags that appear to be a mix of ’80s punk rocker, hipster and square (the square being Freddy’s seemingly token horror film virgin girlfriend, Tina). The group decides to party in the nearby cemetery, the appropriately named “Resurrection Cemetery,” to await the end of Freddy’s first shift at Uneeda. So, Tina, Trash, Suicide and the rest drink, play loud punkish music, strip and dance on graves (well, only Trash, played by scream queen Linnea Quigley) to pass the time.
Meanwhile, Frank and Freddy have called Bert back to work to survey the situation. Bert returns to find a container busted open, a cadaver screaming in the freezer, and Frank and Freddy getting increasingly more ill from the fumes they breathed. Thankfully, his mortician friend, Ernie (Get it? Bert and Ernie?) is next door working late in the morgue. And Ernie has access to a crematorium. So, chopping up the screaming cadaver (and a few other reanimated medical props) and burning them seem to be a way for Bert to save his business and contain the situation.
But, as the audience learned in the opening credit montage, those trioxin fumes have a way of escaping — and a convenient rainstorm brings those trioxin chemicals right back down to earth, and into the nearby cemetery, unleashing an assload of zombies from the grave.
Now, let’s discuss the zombies: They are fast, they talk, they are smart, and they only want brains. Well, there is a reason they only want brains. And I am not going to spoil this gem any further. Just go to Netflix and get it right now.
Just a couple notes before I wrap this one up: As I mentioned, the zombies run, and, yes, they move like track runners. They even trick their prey to bring their brains to them. So, my friends, I think the running-zombie debate should have begun 25 years ago, not in the last decade. Also, this film was written with the help of John Russo, a longtime Romero collaborator, and Dan O’Bannon, who is better known for his script for the stellar “Alien.” O’Bannon also shares directing duties with “ROTLD.”
If you are in the mood to be entertained, look no further than this excellent, funny and all out fun flick.

Romero Rules Followed: I give this one a pass for referencing Romero while making the zombies badass and fast; 4/5
Gore factor: Squirting arteries and munching brains are aplenty here.
Zombies or Wannabees? No hesitation: Zombies
Classic, fine, or waste of time: Top-10 of all time classic (I would even make a great argument for top five).
Additional comments: This movie still works as a blast of zombie-fueled entertainment. Plenty of gore, witty dialogue, great performances (James Karen and Don Calfa are particular stand-outs), and respect for source material make this a must have, not only to view, but to add to your collection and recommend to friends.
If you don’t enjoy this one, there is something wrong with your brains.

— ROB

Everything You Wanted to Know About Romero Zombies (But Never Cared To Ask)

Part 2 of an ongoing list of Romero rules

The gold-standard of the zombie film undoubtedly begins and ends with George A. Romero. I will argue (and win) with anyone who claims to believe the contrary. Romero set the stage with “Night of the Living Dead” in 1968. And, while there will always be the unending debate over “fast” or “slow” zombies, some rules have been carved into stone tablets, smashed against a mountain, and encased in a golden vessel, all thanks to George. Here are a few, and this time, I am expanding to include a nod to Romero’s sparsely-made sequels to NOTLD, the 1979 classic, “Dawn of the Dead” and the somewhat maligned, but loved by me, 1985’s “Day of the Dead”:

4) Destroy the brain, kill the zombie
This rule is one of the universal ones. It is simple: Aim for the head. Destroy the brain. The zombie flops dead instantly. In NOTLD, the principle is put forth in two ways. Ben uses a tire-iron to dismantle a particularly aware zombie who made his way into the farmhouse. The tire-iron is driven right through the skull. Later, Ben uses multiple bullets to disable the undead, despite hearing the television broadcasts informing the general public to destroy the brain. Hey, even heroes have their faults

5) Zombies have the ability to remember important things from their former life
When our four protagonists arrive at the best place for a stance against the undead — a shopping mall — in “Dawn of the Dead,” they find themselves with a great deal of company — zombies. Steve “Flyboy” muses that “this must have been an important place in their lives.” While Romero was making his not-so-subtle commentary on American consumerism, he also instated another rule: Zombies can hold onto deep-seeded memories, something else he later expanded on in “Day of the Dead” with Bub, the zombie pet. While the stumbling, bumbling undead may seem to only seek flesh, they also seek connection to… something…maybe a shopping mall…maybe to their atrocious prick of a parent (hence Harry’s demise in NOTLD).

6) One-on-one, you might have a chance; against a horde, you are screwed
Romero’s zombies, while slow, seem to add strength in numbers. While human protagonists are making epic mistakes, the zombies are gaining traction on the prize. In NOTLD, Ben makes a heroic stand at the farmhouse while sending young Tom and Judy to fuel the truck he barreled into the movie with. They screw it up and give the audience the very first feasting scene in any zombie film. While it seems cordial, tame and dated these days, it was beyond shocking back in 1968. In “Dawn,” Romero once again gives the audience and his protagonists a false sense of security: all the doors are locked, all the windows barred. What they don’t plan on is a group of bikers breaking through the initial barricade and all the zombies find a weak point to the protagonists hidden stronghold — and inevitably find a way to push through. While the zombies in “Dawn” had a bit of help, the zombies in NOTLD were focused and headed for the one opening they saw, like a football running back through a hole in the defense.
Romero zombies do not get tired. They will stick around until they see a hole in the defense. And they all seem to push through at once…hmmmm...

More rules to come. Chew on these for awhile...
-ROB

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Romero Zombies (But Never Cared to Ask)

Part 1 of an ongoing list of Romero rules

The gold-standard of the zombie film undoubtedly begins and ends with George A. Romero. I will argue (and win) with anyone who claims to believe the contrary. Romero set the stage with “Night of the Living Dead” in 1968. And, while there will always be the unending debate over “fast” or “slow” zombies, some rules have been carved into stone tablets, smashed against a mountain, and encased in a golden vessel, all thanks to George. Here are a few:

1) Zombies are the recently dead and buried
In NOTLD, it was made clear through various television and radio broadcasts that an unknown phenomenon caused the recently deceased to claw their ways out of their graves. Most of the zombies in that film seem slightly rotted or simply dazed and slow. In later films, the dead are in advanced stages of rot. One could argue these were the zombies who evaded headshots, fire, or other forms of zombie destruction.

2) Get bit, get turned
Johnny was the first bitten, but the last to show the audience what happened should a hungry undead flesheater get his hands on a living member of society. The bite acts as a virus, demonstrated by Harry’s daughter’s slow turn into a zombie, as if she caught the flu and slowly developed symptoms. A long sleep, murmurs of consciousness, and, ultimately, full-on zombie, wherein she eats dad and mom…but she eats mom with the aid of an instrument, which brings us to this next rule…

3) They can use tools
The famous “cemetery zombie” (played by Bill Hinzman, whom I will never forgive for participating in a George Lucas-esque “special edition” of NOTLD 30 years later, which I am ashamed to own, let alone have viewed) used a rock to break a car window to get at his prey, Barbara. Later, zombies surrounding the farmhouse, use various instruments to knock out headlights, and to attempt entry into said farmhouse. Zombies, in Romero’s stories, degenerate into cavemen-like mentality. Simple tools, but they serve the basic purpose. As an ape learned to shatter bones with bones in Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” a zombie can figure out how to survive…or at least follow its animal instinct: get the food.

More rules to follow. Stay warm-blooded, kiddies.

— Rob