As you may have guessed by now, zombies are my life. I live for the undead; kind of ironic really. So when I heard that there was only one (feature length) zombie film being shown at FrightFest this year I was, to be honest, disappointed. Wheres all the flesh-eaters?! But thankfully this one film was one of the greatest zombie films I've seen in a good while. And that film goes by the, rather appropriate, name of The Dead.
What The Hell Is It About?
According to the FrightFest booklet;
Known in the UK as the new Ridley and Tony Scott because of their similar commercial backgrounds, the Ford Brothers now burst on the high-class scare scene as a fresh force in the horror fantasy arena. In the very near future most of the world has succumbed to a living dead virus. After crashing off the coast of Africa in a plane, Lt. Brian Murphy battles for survival across inhospitable parched terrain in search of a way to get back to his beloved family in America. Saved by local military man Sgt. Daniel Dembele, who is also searching for his son, both men join forces to fight the ever present flesh-eating threat stalking the bush. Starring West African superstar Prince David Osei and Rob Freeman from Saving Private Ryan, The Dead features stunningly shot burnished landscapes, brilliant special make-up and visual effects and terrific dust devil zombies.
Was It Any Good?
Was it good?! What type of stupid question is that? To call this film anything short of a beautiful masterpiece would be an understatement. The entire film takes place in Africawhich instantly brings to mind one thing to all zombie fans. No, not Resident Evil 5, but a return to the roots of the zombie mythos; the Haitian zombies. In fact, I would argue that the whole of this film is a step into the past of the zombie genre. Clearly influenced by the films of Lucio Fulci, particularly prevalent with the extremely slow shamble of the somnambulists. The Ford brothers themselves announced to the FrightFest audience that they are huge fans of his work along with the indisputable king of the undead, Mr. George A. Romero. The very fact that these zombies are slow is quite a breath of fresh air when compared to the zombie trend of the past few years; fast, hectic living dead. As further elaborated upon by the Ford brothers, this again was a conscious effort to build tension and suspense rather than a frantic action zombie ride. This couldn't be more truthful. Whilst it would be completely wrong to suggest that the speedy dead lack the power to scare ([Rec] being an obvious example to demonstrate this), the undead in The Dead possess a terrifyingly bleak and empty feel not seen since Zombie Flesh Eaters.
Here's a very strange and odd little exploitation film. Complete with laugh-out-loud scenes (unintentional of course), a silly monster costume, obvious rip-offs and more guilty of more mistakes than a married couple of sex-obsessed catholics. This is one hell of a (rather bad) ride for all fans of cheesy b-movies, exploitation drive-in cinema or so-bad-it's-good films.
What the Hell is it About?
According to the DVD case:
A NASA scientist is ordered to take a vacation due to showing signs of stress while working on his latest missile project. Traveling to Japan, the scientist decides to indulge in his botany hobby and begins experimenting on a Venus Flytrap he brought along on his trip. Using radical techniques and falling into madness, the scientist eventually creates a plant creature that feeds on flesh and blood, which then sets off to find food in the form of the people of a nearby community.
Was it any good?
With a title like The Revenge Of Doctor X you can pretty much guess what your getting yourself into. But it deliver so much more...or less (depending on your taste in film). The film starts of with the credits...naturally. Only problem is, well, there the credits to the wrong film! Hello! What is this? An unseen Monty Python film?! According to the credits, this film was directed by exploitation 'legend' Eddie Romero, probably most famous for his Blood Trilogy (Brides Of Blood, Mad Doctor Of Blood Island (both 1968) and Beast Of Blood) as well as Women In Chains (1973) and The Beast Of The Yellow Night (1971; a film that almost made the DPP list). But unfortunately, Doctor Xwas instead directed by the nobody Norman Thomson who has only this film to his name. In fact, the majority of this film's cast have a career which spans only one film; this one! With the exception of Doctor X (actually Dr. Bragan) himself played by James Craig who also starred in Bigfoot (1970) alongside the late great John Carradine and The Tormentors (1971); a Nazi Vs. Jesus Christ film! Besides Craig the next biggest name is possibly James Yagi who plays exactly the same character in the Cult Classic, King Kong VS. Godzilla (1962). So, obviously this film isn't going to win any awards for its acting. And that adds to the film's enjoyability. Complete with over-the-top acting especially from Craig, who's main character seems to have serious hormonal problems - one minute everything's fine, the next he's SHOUTING HIS FACE OFF! But if any award was given (for best worst acting) it has to be to one of the side characters. A hunchback.
Next up on this marathon of new and upcoming horror films was another British horror film called F. Stupid title, I know. Before the film started, the director Johannes Roberts introduced it by comparing it to the excellent Assault On Precinct 13 (John Carpenter, 1976) and described it as an old-school horror film. What can I say; I was excited to say the least. But did the film actually live up to this hype?
What the Hell is it about?
Again, according to the official Frightfest booklet;
Welcome to the Class of 2010. The college day ends, the school building becomes a vast complex of dark corridors, eerily quiet classrooms, empty save for a few staff and children. What none of the remaining teachers and pupils realize is tonight is going to be a night they will remember for the rest of their lives. Viciously attacked by a pupil in the past English teacher Robert Anderson was devastated when the governing board refused to back his lawsuit to avoid bad publicity and scandal. Now a burned-out, world-weary alcoholic tyring to reconnect with his daughter, Anderson must finally face his most terrifying demons. For the school comes under relentless attack from a faceless thread intent on causing maximum mayhem. Alone Anderson must battle brutal bloodthirsty killers, and his deepest fears, in a desperate battle for the survival of those he holds most dear. Will lessons be learned?
Was it any good?
As can be seen in the above semi-synopsis, F has a much bigger focus on character than the previous piece of garbage, Isle Of Dogs. The characters are all believable and have their own flaws, fears, goals and problems. In essence the characters in this film, or at least the main characters, are multi-dimensional resulting in the audience actually giving a damn about them. It's no surprise that the most well-developed character is the star of the film, Robert Anderson, played by David Schofield who's career has included appearing in the 2010 Wolfman remake, Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 & 3 and even the horror classic An American Werewolf In London. Schofield plays his character in such a way that the audience empathises with his character who truly is a victim of circumstance - even though he constantly does the right thing nothing seems to go right for him. Instantly, I noticed parallels between the fantastic and highly underrated cult film Class Of 1984. Sadly though, whilst this film clearly benefits from having such a great character, it also hinders the film's enjoyability since it felt as though the entire film was building up to something slowly and, in the end, never really delivering it's promise or, more accurately, it's potential.
When I first heard of Teeth (Mitchell Lichtenstein, 2007), a film about a man-eating vagina, I was instantly sold. With a premise that could have resulted in a early-Cronenberg-esque film or a fun cheesy b-movie I had high expectations. Unfortunately, except for a couple of scenes, I couldn't have been more disappointed.
What The Hell Is It About?
Two words; Vagina Dentata. No it's not some sort of exotic salsa but something with a bit more bite. Dawn (Jess Weixler), a celebrate young woman with a slight teething problem realises that her womanly region is becoming, how shall I put it...hungry for cock.
What Is Any Good?
In my opinion, no. With such a great and rather innovative idea for a modern horror film, I feel as though this film could have been something special and maybe even legendary among the genre, but in actuality it turned out to be rather slow and cliched. The characters are about as stereotypical as the Mr. Men books with Dawn a typical goodie-two-shoes turned slut as she develops into womanhood, and Brad (John Hensley) her 'brother' who is nothing more than a cardboard cut out of a porn-loving, drug-smoking, horror-watching, metalhead. But if you consider the rather bad acting then perhaps this was the whole point. The film is, after all, very tongue in cheek. One of the best scenes in the entire film, the doctor's (Josh Pais) scene is played completely for laughs
The gore was very infrequent but when it did finally happen the audience is rewarded with leg-crossing, stomach turning scenes. The special effects/make up during these moments are excellent, as seen in the picture. However, there just wasn't enough knob-biting for my liking (so to speak) to make this film anything but a curiosity or at best a mediocre film.
Reading up on this film however it seems that a lot of people (male and female) were offended by the representation of men and indeed women. Though whilst it is certainly easy to argue that all the male characters are shown to be sex-mad and violent and analysing this film from a feminist angle would be interesting, I personally don't really care about gender representations so much as to stop my enjoyment of a film. Oh no, the biggest problem for me was the lack of violence and the frustrating stupidity and hypocrisy in the plot - most notably sleeping with Ryan.
But I seem to be in minority here as it's gained quite a big fan base. So, if you're looking for a tongue-in-cheek (though not particularly LOL) but not too much gore, then give this one a go. If not, I'd say skip it and watch Cronenberg's Shivers or Rabid instead for some true body-horror goodness.
Now this is a very strange film. If you like the sci-fi and Eurosleaze sexploitation genres then you’re in for a treat as this incredibly sleazy and camp film, The Beast in Space, mixes the two-genres like you’ve never seen done before. A quick look at the names associated with this film will give you a very good idea of what to expect. Alfonso Brescia helms the director’s chair for this; a man responsible for several other Italian Star Wars (George Lucas, 1977) rip-offs and cash-in such as the hilariously bad War of the Robots (1978). It also stars art-porn ‘actress’ Sirpa Lane, probably best known for her roles in Papaya: Love Goddess Of The Cannibals (Joe D’Amato, 1978) and The Beast (Walerian Borowcyzk,1975) which this film is a unofficial sequel to. Sleaze, stupidity and more sleazy. Sounds like a great film already.
The plot, as one would expect, is very simple indeed. It is so simple in fact that the whole shebang is more or less done in a very tongue-in-cheek style (either that or it was just unintentionally hilarious) especially the final robotic showdown. Then again, if you’re watching this film looking for an interesting, sophisticated plot then you’re, well, as stupid as this film, but possibly not half as much fun. This film makes up for the lightness of the plot with a plethora of sex. There’s sex everywhere - hence the whole ‘sexploitation’ thing. So if you’re watching this film for that then you won’t be disappointed. It’s a sci-fi fan’s dream come true! But what is particularly interesting about this film is the importance and significance given to the idea of forbidden and/or dangerous sex. Sondra (Lane) the female protagonist of this piece explains how she ‘suffers’ from a reoccurring nightmare involving her having sex with a half-man, half-beast creature. Yet as the film progresses and, sure enough, reality becomes more and more similar to her nightmares/dreams the idea of forbidden sex is complicated. Whilst it is clearly ‘wrong’ and prohibited to have it off with the Beast, she is clearly attracted to this idea. Rape fantasy complex? Mmm, maybe. On the topic of ‘the act’ the Shameless version includes scenes which have been removed from the softer versions, most notably (!) the Beast’s large...how shall I say it...wangdoodle. So big in fact it scares Lane’s character off at first.
Bigfoot - The big hairy guy that's supposedly one with nature; a kind and caring creature. Often represented as being a shy and timid beast with only one problem: that's just too damn boring! No one cares about love-giving, tree-hugging yetis with flowers in their hair. Nope. Everyone prefers the flesh-eating, brain-smashing, rib-cracking, human-killing, psychotic-son-of-a-hairy-bitch beast from Hell that lurks in the darkness of the woods ready to rip any and every man, woman and child apart and feast on their steaming innards.
Or maybe that's just me.
Well if, like me, you prefer you Sasqatch scary then this extremely graphic graphic novel is right up your alley! Created by Rob Zombie (a man best known for his admiration of horror films, his music and his own films - less said about his Halloween remakes the better), Steve Niles (a king among graphic novels with work including 30 Days Of Night, Criminal Macabre and 28 Days Later: The Aftermath) and Richard Corben (the creator of many of the awesome Meatloaf CD artwork and Heavy Metal) this comic is a must for fans of Bigfoot horror.
The plot of these (a total of four comics) is very straight forward and doesn't provide the Sasquatch Horror 'genre' with too much that is new; except of course a crazy body count and quite a bit of sex, typical of a RZ film. It tells the story of a psycho Bigfoot that bursts into a cabin and kill a young boys mother and father in front of his eyes. A few years later the boy (now a man!) is back in the town...and so is Bigfoot who's mighty pissed off. Like most yeti films, there's a large portion of 'Bigfoot? There's no such thing!" dialogue followed by the characters realising they're wrong and going off to kick some hairy ass. Only difference is, as previously mentioned, is the body count. Often characters are brought into the story merely to stack up the pile of bodies. They're literally in it for just afew frames before they're killed off!
If you enjoy horror films, science-fiction cinema, exploitation and B-Movies in general, then be sure to check out the below two sites for some absolutely cracking reviews!
Planet of the Apes (1968). Who hasn't heard of this? A film so amazing it quickly spawned one of sci-fi cinema's greatest franchises, a TV-series, tones of rip-offs and cash-ins (even the spanish Blind Dead zombie series attempted to cash in), merchandise and even a (crappy in comparison) remake. This is a true cinematic masterpiece which I urge all to see. This film blows other so called sci-fi classics such as Star Wars (1977) clean out of this solar system.
What's it about?
Well the plot is pretty straight forward and I'm sure most of you will know it. A group of astronauts are traveling to a nearby planet however something causes the ship to suffer from a few problems. Next thing they know they've landed on a strange planet, 2,000 years into the future. Upon further investigation of their new home they come across, what appears to be a primitive and mute version of man. Their plans of ruling these humans are quickly thwarted as several man-sized gorillas riding horses capture them. Only one survives, George Taylor (Charlton Heston) only to find that this planet is run by man-sized apes. Will he escape? Will he survive? Or will he be experimented on by the monkeys and kept in a cage for the rest of his life?
Review
Often described as being one of the greatest science fiction films ever to be made, it's easy not to see why, and I for one fully agree with this statement. Every part of this film (besides the occasional problems with the ape make-up) is perfect. Each of the characters, from Taylor to the apes, are fully dimensional (and fantastically acted by an incredible cast) - there are no stock characters here with little to offer than cliched stereotypes. The music by Jerry Goldsmith is just incredible as is the Gaudi inspired sets of the ape landscape. The plot and the pace of the story is another breathtaking part of this film. With moments as slow and provoking as the best scenes in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey of the same year and other moments full of action and suspense.
