and it's way sweeter than the old one. Movies Online posted this with a link to a trailer, which I have not watched (I don't wanna get anymore hyped on a film I might not see for half a year or more).
8.29.2007
New Zombie Diaries Poster
and it's way sweeter than the old one. Movies Online posted this with a link to a trailer, which I have not watched (I don't wanna get anymore hyped on a film I might not see for half a year or more).
8.23.2007
Gangs of the Dead (aka Last Rites)
I had read a little about Gangs of the Dead last year and was pretty excited for it. I thought it sounded very action oriented and I was happy to see a zombie genre film that wasn’t white washed or set in the country. So when it showed up in the discount bin at the used movie store I picked it right on up for $9. Does it deliver? Rachel (her comments in red) and I find out.
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Urban
BEST ZOMBIE: Homeless hoody zombie from the film poster (green space puke, good stuff)
IS IT SCARY?: No
PAIRED COCKTAIL: a 45 of King Cobra in a brown bag will do you just fine
Right off the bat I was impressed by the make up on the hobos. As the camera looks upon them while an apocalyptic street preacher rants from a soapbox we see them looking very diseased and infected. These homeless are already zombie-like, inferring that the transition to living dead might actually be a step up for these poor souls. However we never get to explore this idea as the hobos are promptly smashed by a green comet and resurrected.
Then we rush to the main gangster characters on their way to an arms deal. I was really impressed by all the performances from the thugs; they gave the film a real edge. They weren’t acting like gang bangers; they are gang bangers. These characters could have easily be picked up from this film and dropped into Training Day (in fact you’ll recognize lead Noel Gugliemi from Training Day), Higher Learning, or even Boyz N the Hood. The cast is rounded out by Reggie Banister who fans will know from the Wishmaster series; and James C. Burns from a mobile Prison Break spin off doing his Richard Dean Anderson impression.
First we meet newcomer Ethan Ednee as Mac T and Ryan King as Snake Dog (really? Did these guys grow up in the hood in Grand Theft Auto?). Mac T is waxing philosophical on the status of his soul. He’s found the original zombie, Jesus, and wants to give up clockin’ for the straight life, after this last score of course. This scene evokes Samuel L. Jackson’s character Jules from Pulp Fiction. Enjoy this moment between these two characters, because it’s the last thing even close to character development we’ll get out of Gangs. The exchange between these two characters had an amateurish tone to me I blame the writing, possibly an inadvertent example of just how difficult it is to write dialogue that appears effortless. For all those people who accuse Tarantino of being a hack its moments like these, with earnest attempts from both actors that you have to appreciate the artistry of rapid-fire-humorous dialogue.
As strong as the male actors were, the female leads were let downs. This wasn’t the fault of the actresses; they just got lame characters. Characters so lame that they are capable of activating dormant feminist indignation. With only three women in this film each character falls prey to a different misogynist humilation. One appears to either be mentally retarded or have the mind of a child, she actually cries for her mommy, another gets two lines into a sentence before she’s called a dumb bitch and told to shut up or simply “bitch slapped” and the third is hardly used as a character at all. For the first two acts there is no place for women in this movie they’re either dumb, abused or ignored completely. Ultimately, a sadly missed opportunity in a genre that is no stranger to a woman kicking some ass and being a surprisingly powerful character—even the 11th hour twist involving one of the women characters falls painfully short of empowering. Latasha, played by Dayana Jamine, goes crazy after the opening slaughter, pulling a Barbara from Night of the Living Dead, and regresses into childhood. It didn’t work for me in Night, and it didn’t work for me here (however, in Night’s case I think I didn’t enjoy it because I saw the Savini remake first and loved the ballsy Barbara from that film).
In Gangs, two rival gangs, one African American, the other Hispanic, meet in a warehouse with the arms dealer Mitchell (Reggie Banister) who is playing both ends against the middle. The cops are spying on them and right as Dean Ander… James Burns gives the order to arrest; the zombies attack the cops. A few surviving cops end up in the warehouse with the gangs and all three try to work together to weather the storm. And then not much happens. There’s so much time given to the groups trying to backstab each other the zombies get put in the back ground. The action that is there is very poor; especially compared to the high standard their opening action sequence set. The Latinos find some foam 2x4s that they use for some cheesy zombie bashing. Even in the scenes where the actors were just holding the boards, you could tell they were using the foam ones instead of the real thing. There wasn’t much of a sound effect to go with the 2x4s either, just a wussy little thump instead of sickening crunch. Plus there was no gore in this part. I expected these gangsters would be capable of really fucking these zombies up, but I ended up being reminded of the pre-Bonnie & Clyde era of film violence where the characters clutch their chest and fall to the ground after getting shot. The action gets pumped up a little at the end, but the film had already lost my attention.
Sub par computer generated graphics are something I’m slowly getting used to in low budget horror films. When used right it can really add a lot to the films. I remember when I saw my first head shot done with CG, or gun shot done in After Effects I was really impressed. But then it seemed everyone was trying to fit these things into films that didn’t need them. I was expecting a lot from the CG in this film since director Duane Stinnett resume includes graphic work on computer games like True Crime, Starcraft, and Diablo. The comet that opened the film was passable, but all the explosions and flame added with CG looked flat and took me out of the moment. The real thing is always the way to go with special effects, and CG should be used to augment the real footage. Don’t “Do it in post.”
All this being said, I still liked this film. Gangs of the Dead strikes out to escape the cookie cutter formula, and they succeed in respects to setting and acting. Plus this film is great looking, very high quality video. However, the good gore at the beginning and end just point out the lull in the middle, and like the novel Xombies, there is not enough zombie action in the 2nd act.
2 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
© D.L. Noah 2007
STAT SHEET
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Urban
BEST ZOMBIE: Homeless hoody zombie from the film poster (green space puke, good stuff)
IS IT SCARY?: No
PAIRED COCKTAIL: a 45 of King Cobra in a brown bag will do you just fine
Right off the bat I was impressed by the make up on the hobos. As the camera looks upon them while an apocalyptic street preacher rants from a soapbox we see them looking very diseased and infected. These homeless are already zombie-like, inferring that the transition to living dead might actually be a step up for these poor souls. However we never get to explore this idea as the hobos are promptly smashed by a green comet and resurrected.
Then we rush to the main gangster characters on their way to an arms deal. I was really impressed by all the performances from the thugs; they gave the film a real edge. They weren’t acting like gang bangers; they are gang bangers. These characters could have easily be picked up from this film and dropped into Training Day (in fact you’ll recognize lead Noel Gugliemi from Training Day), Higher Learning, or even Boyz N the Hood. The cast is rounded out by Reggie Banister who fans will know from the Wishmaster series; and James C. Burns from a mobile Prison Break spin off doing his Richard Dean Anderson impression.
First we meet newcomer Ethan Ednee as Mac T and Ryan King as Snake Dog (really? Did these guys grow up in the hood in Grand Theft Auto?). Mac T is waxing philosophical on the status of his soul. He’s found the original zombie, Jesus, and wants to give up clockin’ for the straight life, after this last score of course. This scene evokes Samuel L. Jackson’s character Jules from Pulp Fiction. Enjoy this moment between these two characters, because it’s the last thing even close to character development we’ll get out of Gangs. The exchange between these two characters had an amateurish tone to me I blame the writing, possibly an inadvertent example of just how difficult it is to write dialogue that appears effortless. For all those people who accuse Tarantino of being a hack its moments like these, with earnest attempts from both actors that you have to appreciate the artistry of rapid-fire-humorous dialogue.
As strong as the male actors were, the female leads were let downs. This wasn’t the fault of the actresses; they just got lame characters. Characters so lame that they are capable of activating dormant feminist indignation. With only three women in this film each character falls prey to a different misogynist humilation. One appears to either be mentally retarded or have the mind of a child, she actually cries for her mommy, another gets two lines into a sentence before she’s called a dumb bitch and told to shut up or simply “bitch slapped” and the third is hardly used as a character at all. For the first two acts there is no place for women in this movie they’re either dumb, abused or ignored completely. Ultimately, a sadly missed opportunity in a genre that is no stranger to a woman kicking some ass and being a surprisingly powerful character—even the 11th hour twist involving one of the women characters falls painfully short of empowering. Latasha, played by Dayana Jamine, goes crazy after the opening slaughter, pulling a Barbara from Night of the Living Dead, and regresses into childhood. It didn’t work for me in Night, and it didn’t work for me here (however, in Night’s case I think I didn’t enjoy it because I saw the Savini remake first and loved the ballsy Barbara from that film).
In Gangs, two rival gangs, one African American, the other Hispanic, meet in a warehouse with the arms dealer Mitchell (Reggie Banister) who is playing both ends against the middle. The cops are spying on them and right as Dean Ander… James Burns gives the order to arrest; the zombies attack the cops. A few surviving cops end up in the warehouse with the gangs and all three try to work together to weather the storm. And then not much happens. There’s so much time given to the groups trying to backstab each other the zombies get put in the back ground. The action that is there is very poor; especially compared to the high standard their opening action sequence set. The Latinos find some foam 2x4s that they use for some cheesy zombie bashing. Even in the scenes where the actors were just holding the boards, you could tell they were using the foam ones instead of the real thing. There wasn’t much of a sound effect to go with the 2x4s either, just a wussy little thump instead of sickening crunch. Plus there was no gore in this part. I expected these gangsters would be capable of really fucking these zombies up, but I ended up being reminded of the pre-Bonnie & Clyde era of film violence where the characters clutch their chest and fall to the ground after getting shot. The action gets pumped up a little at the end, but the film had already lost my attention.
Sub par computer generated graphics are something I’m slowly getting used to in low budget horror films. When used right it can really add a lot to the films. I remember when I saw my first head shot done with CG, or gun shot done in After Effects I was really impressed. But then it seemed everyone was trying to fit these things into films that didn’t need them. I was expecting a lot from the CG in this film since director Duane Stinnett resume includes graphic work on computer games like True Crime, Starcraft, and Diablo. The comet that opened the film was passable, but all the explosions and flame added with CG looked flat and took me out of the moment. The real thing is always the way to go with special effects, and CG should be used to augment the real footage. Don’t “Do it in post.”
All this being said, I still liked this film. Gangs of the Dead strikes out to escape the cookie cutter formula, and they succeed in respects to setting and acting. Plus this film is great looking, very high quality video. However, the good gore at the beginning and end just point out the lull in the middle, and like the novel Xombies, there is not enough zombie action in the 2nd act.
2 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
© D.L. Noah 2007
Zombie Honeymoon
I had picked up this week’s flick, Zombie Honeymoon, on the cheap at the used video store with a few others. When I was perusing the letter column at the end of Walking Dead #39, I was excited to see Robert Kirkman say “Zombie Honeymoon. GREAT film. If you haven't seen it, you really should. It's heart wrenching tho.” about this film. Well, this was actually a misprint, it looked like Kirkman was saying this, but it was actually one of his readers, so I was a little duped. Any who, Pablo (comments in blue) and I decided travel to the Jersey Shore and put up a do-not-disturb sign.
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Chick Flick
BEST ZOMBIE: Surfer zombie. The only other zombie in this film actually, but I like how he was dressed like the main character, foreshadowing what is to come. He reminded me of the Italian school of zombies
QUOTES: “All I’m trying to do is kill as few people as possible before we get on that plane tomorrow!” – Danny
“Is there any tofu in there?” – Danny
INFLUENCES/REFERENCES: ROTLD3, Zombie (video store clerk was wearing a T-shirt for this), Dead Alive
IS IT SCARY? No
PAIRED COCKTAIL: Champagne to toast the newlyweds.
The other characters were even less impressive. Tonya Cornelisse playing the Maid of Honor struck me in the first scene. She was loudmouthed and screamed without any type of intonation in the first scene, but was so in a really quirky way. But when she shows up later in the film she has none of that quirk. There was also the creepy police officer Carp (played by Neal Jones), but he didn’t push the character very far. There have definitely been much creepier cop characters.
This film was a “Showtime Original” (which technically wouldn’t make it an ‘independent,’ but I bet you Showtime picked it up after the fact) and the camera did a good job of giving that soft core Red Shoe Diaries feel. It all looked very ‘made for TV.’ Most of the shots were handheld, which is a tricky style of cinematography, and I can’t really explain why I like it in some projects and not in others, but it got old for me in this. Although I did like it when they referenced Dead Alive with a shot of a piece of the husbands face dropping into his soup at dinner.
The editing got a little excessive with the montages. To be considered a feature film a movie has to be at least eighty-eight minutes long (this is important for festival entries) and I think a lot of these montages where put in to help the film reach that mark. For crying out loud there was a driving-to-the-store montage, not a going-into-the-store-and-shopping montage, just driving emotionally and listening to what I gather was a greatest hits of Lilith Fair CD. These extraneous montages did absolutely nothing to advance the plot or develop the characters.
The dialogue quality was horrible with volume levels all over the place. We were turning it up at parts just to turn it back down in the next scene. It sounded like they were using the audio recorded on set instead of recording additional dialogue in post. The music was all done on a synthesizer like many of the other films we’ve watched, but it didn’t bother me. It didn’t impress me either.
Zombie Honeymoon has an incredibly slow pace for a zombie film and it feels like forever before you get to the stuff that all us gore hounds love. When we do get to the bloody stuff, it’s all done very well, but there’s not a whole lot of violence, and it certainly doesn’t redeem the effeminate nature of the movie. Too little, too late.
So what did work in Zombie Honeymoon? Well, there was some tasteful side-boob. I did like the husband’s gradual progression in zombie-dom. The unadorned nature of the Jersey shore seemed to reflect the purgatory-like nature of their degenerating marriage.
I think this film could have redeemed itself at the end, but the climax was as disappointing as the rest of the film. There’s a big fight scene which was well done, but then we have to wait another ten or so minutes before the actual climax of the story, and the climax itself was nothing special and had lost all the momentum from the fight. And then after the climax, another montage!
So I won’t rely on (not) Robert Kirkman’s taste in zombie films anymore (he would like a zombie film that was all talking). This film was too internalized and tragic, and couldn’t deliver in the areas that this kind of story relies upon, sympathy for the characters and pacing.
1 out of 5 on the decomposition scale.
© D.L. Noah 2007
QUICK STATS
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Chick Flick
BEST ZOMBIE: Surfer zombie. The only other zombie in this film actually, but I like how he was dressed like the main character, foreshadowing what is to come. He reminded me of the Italian school of zombies
QUOTES: “All I’m trying to do is kill as few people as possible before we get on that plane tomorrow!” – Danny
“Is there any tofu in there?” – Danny
INFLUENCES/REFERENCES: ROTLD3, Zombie (video store clerk was wearing a T-shirt for this), Dead Alive
IS IT SCARY? No
PAIRED COCKTAIL: Champagne to toast the newlyweds.
REVIEW
This is a film that seeks to personalize the experience of being a zombie, much like the British film I, Zombie. As you can guess, this is a film about newlyweds on their honeymoon and the husband becomes a zombie. It reminded me of the relationship between the main characters of Return of the Living Dead III. This film hinges on the couple; their believability makes or breaks this film. In the opening scenes you really get a sense of them being in new love, both actors are very sincere. But when their storybook romance starts popping stitches, you feel like your watching a soap opera, which is not too surprising since Graham Sibley, who plays the husband, Danny, has appeared on Days of Our Lives and The O.C. The big moments between them tend to consist of shouting matches followed by trite professions of love. You like these characters at the start of the film, but as you get further and further in, your interest runs cold and you don’t feel anything for them as the horrific stuff starts. I think these actors couldn’t play happiness very well but could do the tragic and inner turmoil stuff.The other characters were even less impressive. Tonya Cornelisse playing the Maid of Honor struck me in the first scene. She was loudmouthed and screamed without any type of intonation in the first scene, but was so in a really quirky way. But when she shows up later in the film she has none of that quirk. There was also the creepy police officer Carp (played by Neal Jones), but he didn’t push the character very far. There have definitely been much creepier cop characters.
This film was a “Showtime Original” (which technically wouldn’t make it an ‘independent,’ but I bet you Showtime picked it up after the fact) and the camera did a good job of giving that soft core Red Shoe Diaries feel. It all looked very ‘made for TV.’ Most of the shots were handheld, which is a tricky style of cinematography, and I can’t really explain why I like it in some projects and not in others, but it got old for me in this. Although I did like it when they referenced Dead Alive with a shot of a piece of the husbands face dropping into his soup at dinner.
The editing got a little excessive with the montages. To be considered a feature film a movie has to be at least eighty-eight minutes long (this is important for festival entries) and I think a lot of these montages where put in to help the film reach that mark. For crying out loud there was a driving-to-the-store montage, not a going-into-the-store-and-shopping montage, just driving emotionally and listening to what I gather was a greatest hits of Lilith Fair CD. These extraneous montages did absolutely nothing to advance the plot or develop the characters.
The dialogue quality was horrible with volume levels all over the place. We were turning it up at parts just to turn it back down in the next scene. It sounded like they were using the audio recorded on set instead of recording additional dialogue in post. The music was all done on a synthesizer like many of the other films we’ve watched, but it didn’t bother me. It didn’t impress me either.
Zombie Honeymoon has an incredibly slow pace for a zombie film and it feels like forever before you get to the stuff that all us gore hounds love. When we do get to the bloody stuff, it’s all done very well, but there’s not a whole lot of violence, and it certainly doesn’t redeem the effeminate nature of the movie. Too little, too late.
So what did work in Zombie Honeymoon? Well, there was some tasteful side-boob. I did like the husband’s gradual progression in zombie-dom. The unadorned nature of the Jersey shore seemed to reflect the purgatory-like nature of their degenerating marriage.
I think this film could have redeemed itself at the end, but the climax was as disappointing as the rest of the film. There’s a big fight scene which was well done, but then we have to wait another ten or so minutes before the actual climax of the story, and the climax itself was nothing special and had lost all the momentum from the fight. And then after the climax, another montage!
So I won’t rely on (not) Robert Kirkman’s taste in zombie films anymore (he would like a zombie film that was all talking). This film was too internalized and tragic, and couldn’t deliver in the areas that this kind of story relies upon, sympathy for the characters and pacing.
1 out of 5 on the decomposition scale.
© D.L. Noah 2007
8.13.2007
Feeding the Masses
Part 2 of our Modern American Independents series finds us heading from the plains of Texas up to Pawtucket, Rhode Island for Feeding the Masses, a zombie film focusing on the state of modern media. Imagine if the characters from Dawn of the Dead had never left the TV studio. Rachel (her comments in red) joins me again to tell you if you should tune in or change the channel.
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Media Satire
BEST ZOMBIE: The one on the DVD box cover, who, sadly, is not in the film.
MEMORABLE QUOTES: “Bitchy McBitch-Bitch”
“Praise Jesus!” “Praise Jesus? We’re Fucked!”
IS IT SCARY: There’s one ‘boo’ scare, and a little tension, but generally, no.
PAIRED COCKTAIL: “Coffee with enough Irish crème to choke a donkey” Are you kidding me?
We should probably begin this with a disclaimer. This is a truly independent film, and although I have no facts on this, it is more of a NO-budget movie than a low budget flick. If you are someone who can’t handle movies shot on DV, scenes using available lighting, cheap computer effects, then stay away. But if you can dig on filmmakers who tell their story with minimal resources, films that come from a true love of the genre, then keep reading.
Feeding the Masses starts in the early days of a zombie infection and follows three employees of a Rhode Island TV news station and their military escort as they report on the infection. The screenplay, penned by Troma alum and B-movie mogul Trent Haaga, focuses on the complacency of corporate media and its relationship with the government. The film itself seems unsure if it wants to be a media satire, a serious zombie drama, or an indulgent B-movie.
All of the acting in this film, like in Dead & Breakfast, is way over the top, however, unlike D&B, the overacting doesn’t feel self-reflective. It’s more like stage actors who don’t know to tone it down for the camera. When you’re on stage you have to entertain the people in the back of the house and this requires a different type of acting than for a camera lens only a few feet away. This being said Billy Garberina (who die-hard fans will recognize from The Stink of Flesh) is still a lot of fun to watch as Torch, the neurotic cameraman and star of the film. His character at best is like a megalomaniac with nothing to focus his angst on (think Ahab sans whale) and at worst is like an impression of Randal from Clerks. His costume also referenced Pvt. Joker from Full Metal Jacket. The rest of the performances were cable access quality, but still fun to watch, if a little flat.
The characters that really surprised me were two of the smaller roles. I loved Victor Martins as Fred Berman, a Leave it to Beaver-type character who will hunt down your zombie relatives and give them a humane re-killing. I also like Jeremy Owen (who was also the Assistant Director) as Tate, a seedy strip club bouncer. The scene where the two meet and come into conflict was one of the best scenes in the film.
Andrew Vellenoweth’s cinematography in Feeding the Masses doesn’t do much to support the performances. During Torch’s ranting monologue scene, the camera stays on one straight shot of him for the duration of his speech, lasting well over a minute. This is tough for an audience to take even with a well-known actor (one of these scenes that does work is Virginia Madsen’s speech about Pinot grapes in Sideways). All four of the main characters have these monologue scenes and the other three work better. Rachel Morris’ final report works really well because they inter-cut her broadcast with television viewers and the other characters’ reactions (up until she gets to the “Live every day as your last” crap). The army escort, Roger’s (played by Patrick Cohen) ‘monologue’ scene is a masturbation scene. Now I can’t imagine masturbation scenes are easy to do creditably as an actor, kind of like playing drunk, but Patrick Cohen does it well and it’s easily one of the best scenes in the movie which I’m not going to give away here. Well, I’ll give a little away. I was very struck by the type of sexual repression or even anger that Roger expressed in this scene, and the fact that he’s a soldier made me start to ask some serious questions as to what the military establishment does to a man’s sexuality in light of the recent Iraq rape scandal.
The film alternates between the regular shots and ‘in camera’ shots where the audience is looking though the perspective of a camera inside the story world. My biggest problem with the camera work was the lack of distinction between these two types of shots. If there had been a difference, it would have given the film some much needed stylization and gotten rid of the feeling that Feeding ambled along instead of proceeding with purpose. I think director Richard Griffin, who did a good job as the director of photography for Stink of Flesh, should have worn another hat and operated the camera on this film.
The unadorned cinematography didn’t help the plain locations either; all of the exteriors where fine, but the interiors could have been shot at their community college. For example take the diner scene; it looked like a prefab school cafeteria and not a real restaurant. Are you going to tell me that there are no authentic looking diners in Pawtucket? Independent filmmakers are always on the look out for ways to up their production value for cheap, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to shoot in as many real locations as possible.
But I don’t want to drop a steamer all over their cinematography. There was an amazing night shot with rotting zombie girl ambling up to a neon lit storefront. She slowly gazes in the window at a picture of a sales model. The juxtaposition of new and old, dead and alive worked really well.
The editing was mostly invisible in this movie, which is of course what a good editor strives for. Bad editing is impossible to miss, but good editing is invisible, and, outside of a continuity error, that’s what this film had. It also covered up instances where it looked like the scenes had been begun at one location and finished at another.
The score by Daniel Hildreth was as equally transparent as the editing. Although it was all original synthesizer music, it never came off as corny or overwhelming. They made a smart choice by keeping it in the background and never giving in to the temptation of a big music swell.
This was another film with some really bland zombies and boring gore. The zombies were all done using a cookie cutter formula, with gray face paint, some dried blood, and a little loose skin. Feeding the Masses is all blood and no guts. Whenever the violence comes, there’s plenty of fake blood, but no entrails being pulled, no limbs ripping from sockets, not even a decent shot of a rotting maw pulling a huge hunk of flesh off an arm or neck. These effects can be done cheaply but there were none here and the gore hound in me was very disappointed.
The area our opinions differed the most on was the special effects in the film. There was lots of CG gunshots, bullet casings flying, and explosions. I think the white muzzle flashes that accompanied the gunshots looked like the ‘bams’ and ‘ka-pows’ from the old Batman TV show, too cheesy for my tastes. I think going the extra mile with blanks would have made a huge difference, even if that meant they had to trade in their AK-47s for handguns. I disagree. I can appreciate these gunshots added in post when I think back to how these scenes were done in other films before this technology was available to everyone. It used to be when you fired a gun the camera framed the shooter where you couldn’t see the barrel, which is much cheesier to me than the computer solution. Plus a muzzle flash is about 1/60th of a second long, which if you are shooting on traditional film stock gives you about a 50% chance of actually capturing the desired effect. We both agreed though that the CG fires looked horribly flat.
Given all of this, I still wouldn’t discount Feeding quite yet. There was tons of stuff in this film that worked. All of the satire on the media and how we interact with it worked incredibly well. The commercial asides were varied and included commercials for zombie related services reminiscent of Stacy, militant manifestos from backwoods survivalists, a cooking show, newscasts, and a 50’s style filmstrip. Individually they were all funny, but added up together paint a picture of a full on propaganda war being fought by the government as brutal as the battles fought in the street. Other zombie films have certainly included newscasts before, but they were always giving out earnest information to help people. This film’s usage of media felt much more real to me. Would our current administration try to warn us, or keep us calm? Help us get out of harms way, or keep us out of their path? Feeding asks the question if the government spoon-feeds us lies through the media as policy, would anything change at the end of the world? This is an idea that even Max Brooks didn’t explore in World War Z.
I also liked how the film looked at the importance of TV in our lives. Torch’s roommate is glued to the TV as news reports come in. How many people did that exact thing after 9/11? However having up to the minute coverage still didn’t help him. When the Governor gives his address, he speaks though a small TV on a podium while Torch and other cameramen film the TV. Of course anyone who’s pointed their camcorder at their TV knows it won’t film right, and this adds to the disjointed mood.
There was also kitsch in this film, but it was handled so weirdly I couldn’t tell if it was intentional or not. When Torch drops in the middle of the street and screams “NO!” at the top of his lungs, they’re going for camp. But other times aren’t so obvious, like in the big pot-smoking scene where the lights dim and the porno music comes on. It sounds campy when you read it, but they gave it such serious passion you would have thought the filmmakers where Jamaican. It was this lack of conviction with the tone of their film that hurt them the worst I think. Was it serious? Was it Kitsch? Was it satire? It tried to be all three and ended up mediocre.
2 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
copyright © D.L. Noah 2007
STAT SHEET
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Media Satire
BEST ZOMBIE: The one on the DVD box cover, who, sadly, is not in the film.
MEMORABLE QUOTES: “Bitchy McBitch-Bitch”
“Praise Jesus!” “Praise Jesus? We’re Fucked!”
IS IT SCARY: There’s one ‘boo’ scare, and a little tension, but generally, no.
PAIRED COCKTAIL: “Coffee with enough Irish crème to choke a donkey” Are you kidding me?
We should probably begin this with a disclaimer. This is a truly independent film, and although I have no facts on this, it is more of a NO-budget movie than a low budget flick. If you are someone who can’t handle movies shot on DV, scenes using available lighting, cheap computer effects, then stay away. But if you can dig on filmmakers who tell their story with minimal resources, films that come from a true love of the genre, then keep reading.
Feeding the Masses starts in the early days of a zombie infection and follows three employees of a Rhode Island TV news station and their military escort as they report on the infection. The screenplay, penned by Troma alum and B-movie mogul Trent Haaga, focuses on the complacency of corporate media and its relationship with the government. The film itself seems unsure if it wants to be a media satire, a serious zombie drama, or an indulgent B-movie.
All of the acting in this film, like in Dead & Breakfast, is way over the top, however, unlike D&B, the overacting doesn’t feel self-reflective. It’s more like stage actors who don’t know to tone it down for the camera. When you’re on stage you have to entertain the people in the back of the house and this requires a different type of acting than for a camera lens only a few feet away. This being said Billy Garberina (who die-hard fans will recognize from The Stink of Flesh) is still a lot of fun to watch as Torch, the neurotic cameraman and star of the film. His character at best is like a megalomaniac with nothing to focus his angst on (think Ahab sans whale) and at worst is like an impression of Randal from Clerks. His costume also referenced Pvt. Joker from Full Metal Jacket. The rest of the performances were cable access quality, but still fun to watch, if a little flat.
The characters that really surprised me were two of the smaller roles. I loved Victor Martins as Fred Berman, a Leave it to Beaver-type character who will hunt down your zombie relatives and give them a humane re-killing. I also like Jeremy Owen (who was also the Assistant Director) as Tate, a seedy strip club bouncer. The scene where the two meet and come into conflict was one of the best scenes in the film.
Andrew Vellenoweth’s cinematography in Feeding the Masses doesn’t do much to support the performances. During Torch’s ranting monologue scene, the camera stays on one straight shot of him for the duration of his speech, lasting well over a minute. This is tough for an audience to take even with a well-known actor (one of these scenes that does work is Virginia Madsen’s speech about Pinot grapes in Sideways). All four of the main characters have these monologue scenes and the other three work better. Rachel Morris’ final report works really well because they inter-cut her broadcast with television viewers and the other characters’ reactions (up until she gets to the “Live every day as your last” crap). The army escort, Roger’s (played by Patrick Cohen) ‘monologue’ scene is a masturbation scene. Now I can’t imagine masturbation scenes are easy to do creditably as an actor, kind of like playing drunk, but Patrick Cohen does it well and it’s easily one of the best scenes in the movie which I’m not going to give away here. Well, I’ll give a little away. I was very struck by the type of sexual repression or even anger that Roger expressed in this scene, and the fact that he’s a soldier made me start to ask some serious questions as to what the military establishment does to a man’s sexuality in light of the recent Iraq rape scandal.
The film alternates between the regular shots and ‘in camera’ shots where the audience is looking though the perspective of a camera inside the story world. My biggest problem with the camera work was the lack of distinction between these two types of shots. If there had been a difference, it would have given the film some much needed stylization and gotten rid of the feeling that Feeding ambled along instead of proceeding with purpose. I think director Richard Griffin, who did a good job as the director of photography for Stink of Flesh, should have worn another hat and operated the camera on this film.
The unadorned cinematography didn’t help the plain locations either; all of the exteriors where fine, but the interiors could have been shot at their community college. For example take the diner scene; it looked like a prefab school cafeteria and not a real restaurant. Are you going to tell me that there are no authentic looking diners in Pawtucket? Independent filmmakers are always on the look out for ways to up their production value for cheap, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to shoot in as many real locations as possible.
But I don’t want to drop a steamer all over their cinematography. There was an amazing night shot with rotting zombie girl ambling up to a neon lit storefront. She slowly gazes in the window at a picture of a sales model. The juxtaposition of new and old, dead and alive worked really well.
The editing was mostly invisible in this movie, which is of course what a good editor strives for. Bad editing is impossible to miss, but good editing is invisible, and, outside of a continuity error, that’s what this film had. It also covered up instances where it looked like the scenes had been begun at one location and finished at another.
The score by Daniel Hildreth was as equally transparent as the editing. Although it was all original synthesizer music, it never came off as corny or overwhelming. They made a smart choice by keeping it in the background and never giving in to the temptation of a big music swell.
This was another film with some really bland zombies and boring gore. The zombies were all done using a cookie cutter formula, with gray face paint, some dried blood, and a little loose skin. Feeding the Masses is all blood and no guts. Whenever the violence comes, there’s plenty of fake blood, but no entrails being pulled, no limbs ripping from sockets, not even a decent shot of a rotting maw pulling a huge hunk of flesh off an arm or neck. These effects can be done cheaply but there were none here and the gore hound in me was very disappointed.
The area our opinions differed the most on was the special effects in the film. There was lots of CG gunshots, bullet casings flying, and explosions. I think the white muzzle flashes that accompanied the gunshots looked like the ‘bams’ and ‘ka-pows’ from the old Batman TV show, too cheesy for my tastes. I think going the extra mile with blanks would have made a huge difference, even if that meant they had to trade in their AK-47s for handguns. I disagree. I can appreciate these gunshots added in post when I think back to how these scenes were done in other films before this technology was available to everyone. It used to be when you fired a gun the camera framed the shooter where you couldn’t see the barrel, which is much cheesier to me than the computer solution. Plus a muzzle flash is about 1/60th of a second long, which if you are shooting on traditional film stock gives you about a 50% chance of actually capturing the desired effect. We both agreed though that the CG fires looked horribly flat.
Given all of this, I still wouldn’t discount Feeding quite yet. There was tons of stuff in this film that worked. All of the satire on the media and how we interact with it worked incredibly well. The commercial asides were varied and included commercials for zombie related services reminiscent of Stacy, militant manifestos from backwoods survivalists, a cooking show, newscasts, and a 50’s style filmstrip. Individually they were all funny, but added up together paint a picture of a full on propaganda war being fought by the government as brutal as the battles fought in the street. Other zombie films have certainly included newscasts before, but they were always giving out earnest information to help people. This film’s usage of media felt much more real to me. Would our current administration try to warn us, or keep us calm? Help us get out of harms way, or keep us out of their path? Feeding asks the question if the government spoon-feeds us lies through the media as policy, would anything change at the end of the world? This is an idea that even Max Brooks didn’t explore in World War Z.
I also liked how the film looked at the importance of TV in our lives. Torch’s roommate is glued to the TV as news reports come in. How many people did that exact thing after 9/11? However having up to the minute coverage still didn’t help him. When the Governor gives his address, he speaks though a small TV on a podium while Torch and other cameramen film the TV. Of course anyone who’s pointed their camcorder at their TV knows it won’t film right, and this adds to the disjointed mood.
There was also kitsch in this film, but it was handled so weirdly I couldn’t tell if it was intentional or not. When Torch drops in the middle of the street and screams “NO!” at the top of his lungs, they’re going for camp. But other times aren’t so obvious, like in the big pot-smoking scene where the lights dim and the porno music comes on. It sounds campy when you read it, but they gave it such serious passion you would have thought the filmmakers where Jamaican. It was this lack of conviction with the tone of their film that hurt them the worst I think. Was it serious? Was it Kitsch? Was it satire? It tried to be all three and ended up mediocre.
2 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
copyright © D.L. Noah 2007
8.02.2007
Dead & Breakfast
I wanted to start out our reviews with a series of 5 movies or so from the American independent films from the last 10 years. Out of a choice of four, my reviewing partner, Rachel (her comments are in red), thought Dead & Breakfast looked like the most fun, and I’m inclined to agree, this is a very fun flick in the tradition of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Dead Alive (Brain Dead).
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Musical Comedy
QUOTES: “Frenchie wasn’t liked much round here. Covering up the true nature of food with his fancy sauces and what not” – Redneck
“I thought you were a Vegan” – Johnny
BEST ZOMBIE: Foaming at the mouth zombie girl (no zombie variety in this one, they’re all generic hillbilly zombies)
IS IT SCARY?: No, but it wasn’t trying to be.
SO IS IT FUNNY?: Absolutely
PAIRED COCKTAIL: Mexican Bladder Infection – Tequila & Cranberry (R.J.'s Special!)
Dead & Breakfast attempts to blend together musical screwball comedy and good ol’ blood ‘n guts horror. It succeeds by starting with a foundation horror archetypes we’re all familiar with and building off those archetypes in weird directions that makes the clichés work for them instead of against them. You’ll recognize all the stock characters: mismatched teens on a road trip (naturally played by actors not in their teens), hard-ass small town sheriff, the lone drifter, back woods rednecks, even a snooty French chef. What makes these characters work so strongly is a combination of good casting and the film’s sense of self-awareness. The cast doesn’t treat their roles as serious characters, but rather caricatures of the archetype, intentionally over acting, emulating a B-movie. This film knows exactly what it is, and wants you to know that the laughs are purposeful, not accidental, like in the films to which it is paying homage. However, making an intentional B film is double edged, while it allows the audience to relax and enjoy the ride, it also lets the viewer turn off their brain and stop looking for subtext. Of course, there is no subtext, and on one hand it’s fine for a film to be made for its own sake, but what made me enjoy the reigning zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead (a comparison made on the DVD cover for Dead & Breakfast) was the comparison between the living dead and Shaun’s stalled life.
It’s unusual for me to enjoy the performances of everyone in a film, but this cast was solidly over the top. I particularly enjoyed Erik Palladino (E.R., U-571) as the greaser character David. He’s got the jaw line of an action hero coupled with the ‘Rebel-without-a-cause’ demeanor. He easily stole some funny moments away from other actors, including one of my favorite underused comedic actors, Diedrich Bader, whom you’ll remember as the neighbor from Office Space and Oswald on The Drew Carey Show among other things. Ironically, one of the big weaknesses of Dead & Breakfast was how under used both Diedrich and David Carradine were in the film. They only have two microscopic scenes each in the opening act. This is probably one of the situations where the filmmakers where looking for better-known faces and names that they can get in their film for a scene or two, then milk their name for what publicity it can get. In fact, I would bet David Carradine is only in this because his niece, Ever Carradine, is the star.
Oz Perkins also gives an interesting performance as Johnny, the compassionate, pacifist who becomes the leader of the zombies. He plays a typically shy nerd, but when he transforms into the films antagonist he metamorphosis’s into a (again) larger than life talking (or yelling) alpha corpse. He reminded me a lot of Jim Carey in The Mask. Very exaggerated, very animated, and it played well against the other zombies, who were the usual un-emotive shufflers.
Dead & Breakfast opens with hand drawn pictures to accompany the credits. The stills evoked the drawings of Edward Gorey, and add to the macabre comic book feeling of the film. They also use the stills to do transitions in the film. The most interesting use of this device was when the soul box first possesses Johnny. I liked that they chose to show this with the illustrations instead of coming up with hokey lighting effects. The stills, black with white drawings and red filler, also provided color contrast to the soft blue lighting favored during the B&B interior shots. It foreshadows the slaughter to follow by smacking you with the vibrant, but not blood colored, red.
The shot composition of Dead & Breakfast also adds to the graphic novel feel, specifically the shots involving the murder of the deaf/mute gardener. As the murder plunges down on the victim, the camera looks up at a silhouetted murderer with the house framed in the background. The music rises to familiar violin shrieks, an obvious homage to Psycho.
Many of the sound effects are as exaggerated as the acting. Pulling out a piece of paper is accompanied by a loud whoosh, knives are pulled out with a metallic shink. My personal favorite, hair is ripped out with a sickening splotch sound.
You really can’t discuss Dead & Breakfast without talking about the music. All the songs are in the diegetic world, being sung by a Rock-a-Billy Troubadour who doubles as a narrator and bar entertainment. I enjoyed this in the beginning, but once the zombie assault starts on the B&B, we really didn’t need him to remind us of what was going on. I felt like they put these in because they had already established this gimmick and had to follow through on it, but you don’t need a narrator to tell you what you just saw a minute ago in the film.
Then there’s the musical number. Actually, it’s more of a music video. A number implies a certain amount of flamboyance, which this was lacking. It was more of a spoof of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, complete with zombie choreography. The initial shock when it started made me laugh, but the routine is unimaginative, and the song itself is an awkward mixture of country and hip-hop, and was the only song from the film I didn’t like.
The zombie creation idea was very original. You become a walking corpse when the head zombie gets a little piece of you, hair, nail, blood, and puts it in the soul box. Then you’re under his control. I thought this idea of capturing a small piece of someone’s DNA worked really well. There was a scene towards the end when the heroes are holed up in the B&B, and one character has to watch as the creatures fight there way up the steps to get at a small puddle of his blood. The character gets turned from the safety of indoors; a nice twist on the standard idea of becoming ‘infected’ from a bite.
The zombies are rather plain looking, but that works for this film. These aren’t week old corpses, but people who where killed an hour ago. The make up is applied pancake style, giving everyone a thick pale white face; they make you very conscious of the make up choice, almost like kabuki theatre. And even though the level of rot is down, there is still plenty done to the zombies: decapitation, eye gouging, chainsaws, and all the good stuff.
Even though they have trouble balancing the movie between comedy and horror at the end, this is a very enjoyable film. The filmmakers drop you into very familiar territory for horror fans, and then build off of those familiar stereotypes to create a movie that is both homage to the films that influenced it and an original creation.
4 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
copyright © D.L. Noah 2007
STAT SHEET
SUB-SUB-GENRE: Musical Comedy
QUOTES: “Frenchie wasn’t liked much round here. Covering up the true nature of food with his fancy sauces and what not” – Redneck
“I thought you were a Vegan” – Johnny
BEST ZOMBIE: Foaming at the mouth zombie girl (no zombie variety in this one, they’re all generic hillbilly zombies)
IS IT SCARY?: No, but it wasn’t trying to be.
SO IS IT FUNNY?: Absolutely
PAIRED COCKTAIL: Mexican Bladder Infection – Tequila & Cranberry (R.J.'s Special!)
Dead & Breakfast attempts to blend together musical screwball comedy and good ol’ blood ‘n guts horror. It succeeds by starting with a foundation horror archetypes we’re all familiar with and building off those archetypes in weird directions that makes the clichés work for them instead of against them. You’ll recognize all the stock characters: mismatched teens on a road trip (naturally played by actors not in their teens), hard-ass small town sheriff, the lone drifter, back woods rednecks, even a snooty French chef. What makes these characters work so strongly is a combination of good casting and the film’s sense of self-awareness. The cast doesn’t treat their roles as serious characters, but rather caricatures of the archetype, intentionally over acting, emulating a B-movie. This film knows exactly what it is, and wants you to know that the laughs are purposeful, not accidental, like in the films to which it is paying homage. However, making an intentional B film is double edged, while it allows the audience to relax and enjoy the ride, it also lets the viewer turn off their brain and stop looking for subtext. Of course, there is no subtext, and on one hand it’s fine for a film to be made for its own sake, but what made me enjoy the reigning zombie comedy, Shaun of the Dead (a comparison made on the DVD cover for Dead & Breakfast) was the comparison between the living dead and Shaun’s stalled life.
It’s unusual for me to enjoy the performances of everyone in a film, but this cast was solidly over the top. I particularly enjoyed Erik Palladino (E.R., U-571) as the greaser character David. He’s got the jaw line of an action hero coupled with the ‘Rebel-without-a-cause’ demeanor. He easily stole some funny moments away from other actors, including one of my favorite underused comedic actors, Diedrich Bader, whom you’ll remember as the neighbor from Office Space and Oswald on The Drew Carey Show among other things. Ironically, one of the big weaknesses of Dead & Breakfast was how under used both Diedrich and David Carradine were in the film. They only have two microscopic scenes each in the opening act. This is probably one of the situations where the filmmakers where looking for better-known faces and names that they can get in their film for a scene or two, then milk their name for what publicity it can get. In fact, I would bet David Carradine is only in this because his niece, Ever Carradine, is the star.
Oz Perkins also gives an interesting performance as Johnny, the compassionate, pacifist who becomes the leader of the zombies. He plays a typically shy nerd, but when he transforms into the films antagonist he metamorphosis’s into a (again) larger than life talking (or yelling) alpha corpse. He reminded me a lot of Jim Carey in The Mask. Very exaggerated, very animated, and it played well against the other zombies, who were the usual un-emotive shufflers.
Dead & Breakfast opens with hand drawn pictures to accompany the credits. The stills evoked the drawings of Edward Gorey, and add to the macabre comic book feeling of the film. They also use the stills to do transitions in the film. The most interesting use of this device was when the soul box first possesses Johnny. I liked that they chose to show this with the illustrations instead of coming up with hokey lighting effects. The stills, black with white drawings and red filler, also provided color contrast to the soft blue lighting favored during the B&B interior shots. It foreshadows the slaughter to follow by smacking you with the vibrant, but not blood colored, red.
The shot composition of Dead & Breakfast also adds to the graphic novel feel, specifically the shots involving the murder of the deaf/mute gardener. As the murder plunges down on the victim, the camera looks up at a silhouetted murderer with the house framed in the background. The music rises to familiar violin shrieks, an obvious homage to Psycho.
Many of the sound effects are as exaggerated as the acting. Pulling out a piece of paper is accompanied by a loud whoosh, knives are pulled out with a metallic shink. My personal favorite, hair is ripped out with a sickening splotch sound.
You really can’t discuss Dead & Breakfast without talking about the music. All the songs are in the diegetic world, being sung by a Rock-a-Billy Troubadour who doubles as a narrator and bar entertainment. I enjoyed this in the beginning, but once the zombie assault starts on the B&B, we really didn’t need him to remind us of what was going on. I felt like they put these in because they had already established this gimmick and had to follow through on it, but you don’t need a narrator to tell you what you just saw a minute ago in the film.
Then there’s the musical number. Actually, it’s more of a music video. A number implies a certain amount of flamboyance, which this was lacking. It was more of a spoof of Michael Jackson’s Thriller, complete with zombie choreography. The initial shock when it started made me laugh, but the routine is unimaginative, and the song itself is an awkward mixture of country and hip-hop, and was the only song from the film I didn’t like.
The zombie creation idea was very original. You become a walking corpse when the head zombie gets a little piece of you, hair, nail, blood, and puts it in the soul box. Then you’re under his control. I thought this idea of capturing a small piece of someone’s DNA worked really well. There was a scene towards the end when the heroes are holed up in the B&B, and one character has to watch as the creatures fight there way up the steps to get at a small puddle of his blood. The character gets turned from the safety of indoors; a nice twist on the standard idea of becoming ‘infected’ from a bite.
The zombies are rather plain looking, but that works for this film. These aren’t week old corpses, but people who where killed an hour ago. The make up is applied pancake style, giving everyone a thick pale white face; they make you very conscious of the make up choice, almost like kabuki theatre. And even though the level of rot is down, there is still plenty done to the zombies: decapitation, eye gouging, chainsaws, and all the good stuff.
Even though they have trouble balancing the movie between comedy and horror at the end, this is a very enjoyable film. The filmmakers drop you into very familiar territory for horror fans, and then build off of those familiar stereotypes to create a movie that is both homage to the films that influenced it and an original creation.
4 out of 5 on the decomposition scale
copyright © D.L. Noah 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
