Diary of the Dead

Zombies, Zombies, Zombies.

George A. Romero is one of those filmmakers who shouldn't need an introduction. If you're a horror fan at all, you should be intimately familiar with his Dead series by now, and if you're a movie fan at all, you should at least know 1968's Night Of The Living Dead and 1978's Dawn Of The Dead, the first and still the strongest entries in the genre. It's no hyperbole to say that Romero essentially invented the zombie movie, gave it the structures and tones that have relentlessly followed the genre through 40 years of movie history.

Diary Of The Dead, Romero's 2007 zombie update and latest entry into the 5-part series, is a return to the form and feel of his original classic Night Of The Living Dead. The three movies in between (the classic Dawn, hit-or-miss Day and severely underrated Land) showed a world consumed by destruction and fear, already well past the point of no return in an unthinkable apocalypse. Diary takes us back to the beginning, taking place during the first few days of the attacks, documenting how a group of college students (and one drunken professor) cope with the crisis growing around them.

There will be trouble.

Kill me, but please don't spoil the shooting!

The hook of the movie is that what we're seeing is not presented in a typical film fashion, but instead as a series of homemade video clips made by the characters themselves. While shooting their own low-budget horror movie, the students are interrupted by the sudden, jarring realization that freshly dead bodies are coming back to life and attacking people. What follows is a documentation of their quick departure from their suddenly deserted campus and their long trip to home, safety and any sort of an answer.

If the plot description has you thinking of The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield, the comparison ends with the initial conceit of horror via home movies. There's no shaky-cam addled suspense here, and you won't ever feel motion sick. The camera's presence in the movie serves to give a heightened feeling of suspense and immediacy. Unlike most other zombie movies, there's no outside camera telling the story, letting us know where the zombies are and when they're coming. We follow the characters through the movie, and the threat of danger is always palpable, even when nothing on screen is particularly frightening. Hitchcock once said that surprise was a bomb going off under a table unexpectedly, while suspense was letting the audience know there is a bomb under the table while the characters remain unaware. Diary is a movie with thousands of bombs waiting under thousands of tables, waiting to explode every time the camera turns a new corner.

After Land Of The Dead, a great movie that felt buried beneath a huge budget and massive studio interference, it's great to see Romero returning to his indie roots. Diary is entirely his own movie, and he gets the tone perfect. The campy scares and the gross-out gore explosions are all present, and will delight fan boys to no end. (They sure got some big laughs out of me.) But what Romero does best is suddenly switch from fun to disturbing when you least expect it. The best moments of Diary come when the gory thrill ride comes screeching to a halt and everything suddenly becomes all too relatable, entirely too real. These are the moments that will stick with you after the gory brain-splatter effects have lost their novelty.

Not without a fight, asshole!

If you got me nude like this you should at least diddle my skiddle before killing me you moron!

Shit!

Diary isn't quite a perfect movie though. Occasionally the hand-held camera device becomes too distracting and begins to get in the way of the story. The movie takes too much time rationalizing why the characters decide to film the events, rather than trusting the audience to go along with the idea. At times it feels like the movie is apologizing for its own concept, which it definitely does not need to do. We don't need to know the details of why the movie is edited, or why music has been added. The explanations slow down the movie, and only highlight problems instead of fixing them. Also, the pace slows down quite a bit in the third act, which is when Romero movies usually jolt up to a fevered pitch. Stick it out though, because the movie's last sequence, and especially its last line of dialog, are worth the price of admission alone. This is most likely not the end of the Dead saga, but if it were, it could not have come to a more perfect conclusion than the jarring, horrific last shot Romero gives us. 

Here's the movie trailer:

Night of the Living Dead 3D

Get ready to feel the power of my 3D shovel.

Although I am a huge George A. Romero and horror fan, I saw this movie pretty impulsively and without giving it much thought. In fact at first look I thought this was the original 1968 Night of the Living Dead, but with the added 3D technology, ahahha, such an ass! As soon as I watched the trailer I knew it was a remake and thought that it looked like your typical direct to video, shot on video, low budget whatever movie and left it at that. The fact that it had Sid Haig in it, or that it was 3D, were if anything just deterrents. I had no idea it was theatrical, though.You know I'm not necessarily opposed to remakes as savagely as many other horror fans are, although some remakes scare the hell out of you, but not because they're good! on the contrary they fail miserably trying to pull off a sustainable 90 minutes story. Anyways, I think I'm kind of neutral when it comes to remakes, you know the eye of the beholder shit explains it quite good.

that said, Night of the Living Dead 3D is a competent enough and, thankfully, relatively straight horror film that I personally thought was enjoyable. this is a quiet, reserved zombie movie vs a balls to the walls gorefest or whatever that many people might expect going in, but don't let that deter you - if anything, it just means the filmmakers are more interested in characters, story and atmosphere than wasting time on the usual cinema overused clichés. I wish it had more nudity & sex though, you know, to grant you the full B movie experience you are required to add some cheap shots to your movie.

You should see a doctor mum, you don't look well.

I shoulda gone to the dentist!

Your hands are the hands of a wanker!

If you look for reviews about this film, you will find a lot of other people having cited the acting and dialogue in the film as terrible, but I think everyone did a fair job in their roles and the writing of the characters and storytelling is completely respectable. I can't say any of the actors are real standouts, but I sympathized with the characters and cared about what was going on. Sid Haig does the typical Sid Haig thing which I find borders on self parody a little bit too much, but I thought his "zombie explanation monologue" was awesome.

I thought the zombies and makeup effects were top notch - more of the return of the living dead/EC comics style zombie look than the more modern, KNB effects version, which I personally think looks hokey. to clarify, these zombies do not run! they lumber around and groan and moan and are pretty classy numbers. I liked the overall dark look of the film - everything is cold and dark and desaturated, and there's always plenty of fog rolling around everywhere. what else do you want? bats? I guess they could have thrown some in there.

Fucked up zombies are coming, and they'll find me ready!

I don't like gangbang, I'm no a fag you scum!

I think the sun got onto me.

the 3D in the movie is, ironically enough, the films weakest link. there's just no reason for it. the filmmakers try their best to include some 3D gags, but you can tell its mostly just going through the motions and to satisfy the title. The 3D thing has now become a standard in film making and though, the red and blue 3D technology is outdated, the new 3D will not last long cause it's just overrated. The film had its release on both the standard 2D format and the 3D fever format. I prefer the 2D over the 3D, and I tell you why: All of a sudden film makers are set to make everything in 3D, I say, what for? is it really necesary? I don't think so unless you're James Cameron's Avatar.

a Good old' fuck in the barnyard.

She was hired for this.

After a good fuck, it's time to get the hell out.

Brianna Brown, the lead role. Oh god!

in conclusion, check Night of the Living Dead 3D out, but without any expectations, and stop being so damn cynical too! it's clear these guys were just trying to homage one of their favorite horror movies and make something the fans would enjoy. the movie doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's solid enough and worth a gander. Now, if you want to find a gore fest, this movie will probably dissapoint as there are thousands of slasher/gore fest films that paint everything red. If you wanna watch nasty zombies, look for Porn of the Dead, a parody that is far from giving a boner, unless you're a complete pervert.

So, that's it for today, be sure to continue visiting my blog, even if you don't read my reviews and just come here for the nude scenes pictures you still kind of make my day.

Here's the movie trailer:

The Incredibles

Old School superheroes with CGI powers.

I have never been a fan of the latest trends in movies that are aimed at the youngest audiences. In fact, when I was a kid, I never really bought any of the Disney stories that were being sold in those days. I was more impressed with  live action movies aimed at kids, like E.T. the Extraterrestrial, The Neverending Story, The Goonies and stuff like that. However I loved cartoons, shows like Robotech, Transformers, Silverhawks, Thundercats and others just made my day. But as my brother grew up I had to follow him to the movie theaters and/or Blockbusters to watch the latest in kids movies. So I got the chance of watching the rise of the latest Disney/Pixar CGI movies. I never liked a single one of them. There was only one big exception, which I believe it was an obvious exception cause the movie was not only aimed at children. Yes! I'm talking about the amazing Dreamworks saga of Shrek. He made my day, I even bought the Blu Ray box set featuring the 4 films, and I had a  blast as I still have when I decide it's time to revisit Shrek's legacy. So, after watching many films I didn't like, I met my way with another big exception: The Incredibles.

The movie has an undeniably cool retro feel to it and it shows not only in the design of the picture but also in the music, which definitely sounds like something out of a 60's 007 flick. It is also unusually dark, especially for a Pixar flick. I'm not saying it's dark where people are getting their heads delivered to someone in a box or family members are sleeping with each other or anything like that but there were moments where I found myself wondering if a little kid might be able to deal with the intensity of what was going on on screen. Maybe it was the fact that the heroes were in very real danger most of the time. The bad guys weren't out to catch them as much as they were out to kill them. When you discover who the film's villain is, you can literally feel his anger coming off the screen. I may be over-exaggerating a bit but then again, it really is to the film's credit that it deals with human emotions in the way that it does.

Old School comic book heroes are back!

It's not easy for a retired superhero to cope with regular people's life.

You're about to meet a family of superheroes.

Even though you are watching a film that is populated by CGI characters, the emotions they convey in what they say and do come across as purely believable. Whether watching Bob Parr interact with people at his job or just sitting at his desk was something that rang true to me, just in the feeling of it. Everything about this movie has a very concrete feel to it, even while looking like something you'd see in a comic book. The computer graphics in general were absolutely amazing and the voice acting is excellent across the board, so good in fact, that I really can't pick a favorite from the entire cast. I have to say that Craig T. Nelson and Holly Hunter were very good as Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl respectively. They had a moment near the end of the film that actually touched me but you can see that for yourselves. Samuel L. Jackson was hilarious and thankfully, he wasn't overused. Dash and Violet were realized so well that every time they came up on screen, I loved every minute of it. Dash, in particular was one of the funniest characters in the movie. Jason Lee made for a formidable villain as Syndrome. I loved the fact that he was your typical antagonist but was also aware of the conventions surrounding such a role, like when he chides himself for 'monologuing'. He was also one ruthless bastard, I'll give him that. Even the bit part characters were hilarious. There was a kid on a tricycle in this movie who comes out twice and made me laugh out loud both times. 

Ultimate heroes.

a former fan can be a real pain in the arse

With The Incredibles, not only are the main characters great, but every other character they run into makes some kind of impression on you. That's exactly how The Incredibles is such a kick. Every character that appears will make you laugh or intrigue you in some way. I have to admit that I was laughing myself throughout the entire movie, especially with the character of Edna Mode who almost steals the movie. Man, even the end credits are awesome! I have to give the director Brad Bird a big thumbs up for this one. He pulled it off and hopefully this will attract attention to his other animated film, "The Iron Giant", which was sadly overlooked when it was released and is also a really great film.

Yes, cosplay erotica is always there.

Incredible shaved twat.

All in all, I can't recommend this movie enough. I left very satisfied and felt no need to compare this to the rest of Pixar's movies. This one is just as good if not better than any other animated movie released to date and rightfully deserves its place among the best animated movies of all time. The Incredibles were re-released to home video last year in the wonderful  HD format of the Blu Ray disc. The transfer is amazing, if you wanna buy it, go now and buy the Blu Ray edition. I own the 2 Blu Ray 1 DVD edition which features all of the interesting extras that complete the experience to make it incredible. 

Here's the movie trailer:

Child's Play

Dolls have never been so fucked up before.

Continuing with horror films that made my day, it's time to talk about a 1988 masterpiece: Child's Play, AKA Chucky el Muñeco Diabólico. For such a laughable premise, Child's Play delivers quite a thrilling experience. Everyone knows the story. A serial killer known as the Lake Shore Strangler (Brad Dourif) is mortally wounded by a Chicago cop Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon). He manages to break into a toyshop, and with his dying breath, says a voodoo chant that transfers his soul into the body of a doll (yes, that's the laughable premise) Some would say only in the 80's such a silly story would be consider as a serious, strong plot. I agree.

I wouldn't be too surprised if after reading that paragraph, you might think Child's Play was an idiotic film. But thanks to Tom Holland's confident direction and the taut editing, what we have instead is a very effective horror film, not to mention satisfying because the sheer amount of enjoyment to be had is so unexpected.

Let's fucking play, you motherfucking piece of shit!

Chucky has become quite an infamous figure since its origin in 1988. As the sequels progressed, it has skirted the waters of controversy with the Jamie Bulger murder, and eventually evolved into black comedy when Bride of Chucky was created in 1998. But with the original film, no-one had ever heard of him, and didn't know what to expect.

Child's Play is a horror film through and through. But it also has traces of light humour, elements that would be further expanded upon in the future. Holland shows a style of horror-film directing similar to Wes Craven. The scene where Maggie is babysitting Andy (Alex Vincent), the lad who ends up with Chucky, she is being stalked by Chucky. In the background, the TV is showing a horror film, almost acting as an internal commentary of the events.

I'm such a tender doll.

Now where are the fucking pots! I wanna get high!

Holland's direction is truly excellent, allowing Child's Play to transcend it's admittedly slender plot, into a gripping, suspenseful horror show. This is a film that doesn't insult the intelligence of it's audience. It toys with our expectations, giving us enough subtle hints to tip us off of what's going on, but not too much that it doesn't give the game away.

For the first forty minutes, we don't even see Chucky moving around. Except for the occasional blinking, head turning, and mumbling the dialogue the doll has been programmed with. These are all things the doll can do anyway, and they're incorporated into the plot whenever it demands it.

But as Chucky plots revenge on those who betrayed him, we realise there will come a time when we will see him in all his glory. And that time comes when Karen Barclay (fiestily played by Catherine Hicks), Andy's mum, threatens to torch Chucky, and he comes to life right in her hands. This is when the puppetry comes into play. And for 1988, they're not half bad.

Some of the facial expressions they get on Chucky are alarmingly sinister. And some of the movements Chucky makes took me by surprise. In one single continuous shot Chucky walks from one end of a room to another, and we actually see him climb up onto a bed. Or another one where he is in a fireplace, and kicks the grate away. This goes to show what puppetry can be capable of when given the chance.

Brad Dourif lends his voice to the character, making Chucky into a frightening presence, complete with put-downs, puns and maniacal cackle. There are times when his voice isn't always synchronised with his mouth like it should be, but the effects are well above average for the time.

So, I ain't your favorite toy no more?

Some of the plot elements concerning Chucky possessing Andy's body before he becomes trapped in the doll permanently are a bit hard to swallow, just because he was the first person he told his secret to. I don't see why that should be true, but the events are kept moving at a fast enough pace that you really won't care.

Child's Play is a very entertaining horror film, with a bit more originality than you might expect. It all builds to a suspenseful climax with Chucky being slowly destroyed before he can possess Andy. It does occasionally lapse into unintentional amusement at the events, but I still believe this is a reasonably diverting motion picture.

Die!!!!

I love the ironic gag Holland adds at the end, with the final shot of an open door. Symbolising that the door has been left open for many sequels to follow. 

Here's the movie trailer:

Heavy Metal

Cyber Punk lives on!

 You know most of the cartoon films have been for ages segregated to kids audiences, and although cartoon/animated flicks do make it to become blockbusters, most of them age as you do, so you just don't want to revisit your Disney classics no more. However, there was another cartoon/animated growing industry that had its target audience set on adults only. Several examples were made during the 70's, but It was in the early 80's where the adult animation industry would become the real thing. Heavy Metal, is the real thing.

This film was actually started in 1978, and finally released in 1981. It is based on the adult fantasy sci-fi America version magazine "Heavy Metal". The actual origin of the magazine is French, very adult, very graphic, very sci-fi, lots of nudity accompanied with excellent and compelling storytelling. The key phrase is "Adult, Fantasy, Illustrated". Just because its a 'cartoon', does not mean its for kids, or do you still think Southpark it's kid stuff? I don't.

Looking at the Animation now in 2002, its dated. In the mid-80's Japanese Anime has set and kept raising the bar on this kind of adult anime genre. This early mainstream American attempt was good, for it had a good model, the magazine, Heavy Metal.

Cyber Punk patterns are everywhere in this movie.

70's Sci-Fi and japanese animation are to blame for the Cyber Punk genre's origin.

If Heavy Metal had waited to be produced until now, with all the advancements on technology, animation, graphics, art we have at our disposal, I only wish that the popular artists and storytellers of the magazine Heavy Metal were involved. It would be a different film indeed, and it would get an NC-17 rating. The only pieces that were trademarks of the Heavy Metal magazine were "Soft Landing"/"Grimaldi" "Den" and "Taarna".

More specifically, "Taarna" WAS exactly what the American Heavy Metal Magazine was all about and uncredited was Jean Giraud who has done a hell of a lot of work in the magazines history....both American and French versions is the cause for that. You may know his work by his other more famous name, "Moebius".

If you ask me, the film could have gone one of two ways: just like the magazine story by story without the silly connector of the green orb, or with just the one story of "Taarna". Back in 1978-1981, I would assume the Studio Executives could not venture into that manner without getting squeamish about box office so what we have is a tip-toe cross blend between the two. On one level it works, on another it does not. Its a viewers decision.

Taarna, the sexiest animated warrior woman of all times.

Taarna's white bush. Original animation cell.

Kill me!

I like this 1981 version of the movie Heavy Metal, although a few stories didn't live up to the level of the magazine content..or were not presented as such. "Neverwhereland" should have NEVER been cut, I would have taken it over "Captain Stern" any day. "Neverwhereland" seemed to be along the lines of the magazines' content, too bad it wasn't included. "Harry Canyon" I could have taken or left, made no difference.

Additionally, I JUST loved "Den" and "B-17". I loved the soundtrack, for Metal is America. But just like the magazine, it was adult, it was fantasy, violent at points and contained nudity. It was early "R" Adult Animation American Style. (I know...Fritz the Cat was an "X" rated Animation that instead of using humans, used felines. Besides, Fritz was Ralph Bakshi's ticket outa Disney Animation and Robert Crumb is the 70's counter culture!)

So, what made Heavy Metal a defining moment in the cyber punk animation genre?

Taarna, it was Taarna. This was the first animated woman in an American made mainstream animated adult feature film that the world needed, that the world depended upon, that was tough, that was independent, not a size four but voluptous, and was still very sexy. Yesterday's female characters were all like Snow White, you know, weak, powerless and submissive. Heavy Metal changed that for good.

Taarna, a tough lady.

These aren't the droids you're...what???

Don't eat me mean green bublegum!

Taarna flesh & bone tribute. It lacks the gray bush though.

When I read a few stories in the adult magazines Heavy Metal from the late 70's to the early 90's, both American and French versions, the women in the majority of the stories, although drawn by European men and set in uncertain futures, wear...and in many cases...don't wear at all... and involved in explicit sexual situations..the women WERE the heroes!!

All in all, keep in mind Heavy Metal was made for an adult audience, just like the magazine. It's not just for the teenaged guys, its not just for the stoned and metal heads, its not just for the trekies or x-filers. It's a good effort for its time but if you're expectting work like in late 80s/90's Japanese Anime like "Katsuhiro Ôtomo's Akira", etc., or 2001's "Taro Rin's Metropolis" remember its 1981, and American, and NOT quite like its name sake Magazines, but its still good. 

Here's the movie trailer:

 and the Heavy Metal song:

Videodrome

You haven't lived a decent life if you haven't watched Videodrome.

David Cronenberg has turned out a lot of films that range from the bizarre to the slightly less bizarre to the stupefying, though that doesn't mean is movies suck. I used to think that his update of The Fly was his masterwork, as it certainly is an improvement over the original in every sense of the word. Videodrome, however, is entirely his idea, and what an idea it is. Filmed at a time when VHS and Betamax were still at war for market share, and television was still beholden to some standard of public service, it is hard to imagine what the public of 1983 made of Videodrome. Twenty-nine years on, it looks so prophetic that it is truly a wonder Sony or Toshiba are not employing Cronenberg to attempt to anticipate consumer reaction to their consumer format ideas. Shot in a Lynchian shoot-first, work-out-story-later manner, it is testament to Cronenberg's skills as a storyteller that the 'drome works as well as it does. It is also testament to the film's accuracy that in this era of so-called reality television, nobody in a remake-crazed system is trying to remake Videodrome.

I carry my guns in my stomach, I ain't Robocop y' know.

Debbie Harry, a new wave legend who can act.

Of course, in a film with a theme as speculative as Videodrome, one needs to have a reliable performer. Just like you cannot portray someone going mad with fear a la The Fly if your actor is not up to snuff, one cannot portray a weird conspiracy without an actor of James Woods' calibre. Everything that occurs on the screen from about thirty minutes in is utterly unbelievable, but we buy it because James is so good at selling it to us. His disbelief graduating into terror graduating into acceptance is the rock upon which Videodrome rests, and the respect he gained from me in my recent viewing of Once Upon A Time In America went through the atmosphere during Videodrome. So many films are made with a singular star as its entire focus. Sylvester Stallone made a few, but Woods demonstrates he is more than up to the challenge here. The James Woods of the 1980s and the James Woods post 1990 are really two different people, or so one might think after seeing a film from both groups.

Videodrome turns Poltergeist into a melting icecream.

So you wanted HD 3D?

I knew those beans would make me explode!

The support cast are mostly adequate, with Deborah Harry demonstrating she could have been an actor. Not that she does anything particularly brilliant here, but she also manages to keep her part of the illusion solid. Sonja Smits helps twist the plot beyond its already unrecognisable shape as the daughter of one of the conspirators in the Videodrome experiment. While these two are secondary to Woods, they also add so much to the story that its hard to imagine the film without them. The world was changing in ways none could have imagined at the time, and as Harry's musical career was left in the cold as a result, her image in this film is iconic of an era. Jack Creley is puzzling as a guru tied into the conspiracy who appears only in video. To cut a long story short, Woods is a pinball, while Harry, Smits, and Creley are the bumpers off which he bounces. In that task, they do a brilliant job, and they are far from the only ones. Videodrome contains a literal cavalcade of actors one wishes they could see more of, just based on their moments here.

The summary in a previous comment says it best: "I don't think I could provide spoilers if I wanted to". I could tell you everything that happens in Videodrome, and it still will not even slightly prepare you for the utter bizarreness to be beheld. The imagery is both disgusting and strangely compelling, the story is beyond odd, and the references to the "new flesh" that pop up like skin cancer cells in the final reels are a mantra that will haunt the viewer long after the film is over. The constant images of videotapes and televisions flexing out to either imitate organic material or swallow the hero whole. It is the ultimate contradiction, that I can find this film so utterly compelling yet so utterly repulsive. There is an unofficial motto among defense lawyers: "if you cannot convince them, confuse them". Videodrome, thanks to its surreal imagery and story that could only be inspired by divergent thought, is both convincing and confusing. Such is the ultimate achievement in storytelling.

Facetime wasn't an Apple invention.

New Wave chick.

Yes, that's Debbie Harry's twat!

Fortunately, the question of whether one can separate their perception of reality from the fantasy they see depicted on a video source has been answered already. It isn't really even a question that needs asking here, as it has long been answered by film. No, Videodrome is about something more, although exactly what that is could be anything David Cronenberg desires. I chose to see it as an example of one man getting so wrapped up in his ideas or fantasies that they utterly distort his reality, an idea subtly hinted at when one character describes his hallucinations causing him a brain tumour rather than the other way around. The new flesh is the idea that drives a given machine, always mutating and altering itself. However you choose to interpret the story of Videodrome, I think the consensus we can all come to is that it is just plain odd. Most of us will never really see the things shown in Videodrome if we take a mix of heroin, crack, and LSD then wash it down with drain cleaner.

A sexy pair of new wave tits.

Debbie Harry's 80's bush.

It is mostly for these reasons that I gave Videodrome a ten out of ten. You have not stretched your imagination far enough if you are completely repulsed by its imagery. Do yourself a favour and see it now. Long live the new flesh. 

Here's the movie trailer: