Today's Triple News: zombies, terminators and mockingjays

A short summary of recent news by my hand follows. As usual.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156816/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_leeft_weer

Glad to see this offbeat project in the land of the living (dead) once more. We could use more weird movies like these. The premise is overly simple: take a classic piece of literature and spice things up with a rather unusual element few people would commonly associate with it, and you got yourself a movie with an intriguing title that begs a visit in theaters to see what exactly must be made of this. Worked well enough with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, by the same author, which proved a rollercoaster thrill ride of an action flick that actually connected the history with the horror in a fashion that made sense from a narrative viewpoint - i.e., vampires controlling the Southern slave trade to guarantee an unlimited amount of human blood while keeping the human economy rolling - but didn't pretend to be anything but utter fiction. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies seems determined to repeat that notion in very much the same way, perhaps carrying the risk of feeling repetitive. Nor does the title alliterate as delightfully as its own follow-up Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. However, I say go for it, and so does the creative team behind it, including producer Natalie Portman, who wouldn't give up on it. So far the casting seems to be doing well, especially if they do manage to acquire Jack Huston for a part. With his particular character from Boardwalk Empire on his repertoire, a deteriorated undead look is right up his alley.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156838/schwarzenegger_onthult_titel_nieuwe_terminator

Strange title. I assume the deliberate misspelling refers to a plot point which has yet to be revealed, so I won't bitch and moan about that until I can either confirm or disprove that assumption for myself, even though I am a bit of a grammar nazi. It's not a title funky enough to get me geared up for this film though. The cast does a better job at that. I can't get over the irony that Sarah and John Connor are being played by Emilia and Jason Clarke respectively, while there is no direct relationship between them. I also appreciate the trick of fate that Emilia is now playing Sarah Connor, while her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey assumed that mantle before on the unfortunately short lived TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'm quite pleased with this assembled cast overall, except for Schwarzenegger. Personally I felt Terminator Salvation was a breath of fresh air because it shied away from using him, making it feel different and less predictable than its predecessors, which started to feel repetitive. Same goes for the aforementioned TV show, which also established convincing Terminators can be played by a diverse range of actors of various shapes, sizes, races, ages and creeds. Schwarzenegger in my mind is the cliché the franchise would do well to avoid. However, considering the series' cancellation and Salvation's lackluster worldwide box office takes, public opinion might be against me in this matter. I guess most people just want to see the Austrian Oak kick ass in their Terminator films, despite the much wider story possibilities available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156834/nieuwe_posters_the_hunger_games_mockingjay

Mockingjay's marketing strategy seems to follow Catching Fire's closely. The routine of a logo poster first, character posters second, is strictly sustained for this second sequel to The Hunger Games. No doubt a 'Katniss on fire in logo' poster will follow soon. This time, there's more than a trio of character posters though. So far, six different one-sheets have been unearthed in the viral marketing campaign, and more are likely to follow. I guess there's just much more characters, and much more fine actors portraying them, to go around this time. I reckon the studio wants to capitalize on the loss of Philip Seymour Hoffman by attributing a poster of his own to his character: dead actors mean public interest in their final movies after all, like it or not. Simultaneously, if you hooked a great and well respected actress for a part you want to convey that in your promotional campaign too, and so Julianne Moore also gets her own poster, which makes for the debut of her character in the public mind. Interestingly enough, so far all of these character posters seem to revolve around supporting characters, while the movie's main trio - the subject of Catching Fire's comparable character one-sheets - is nowhere in sight as of yet. Considering how much the teenage demographic loves - or how much the studio execs think it loves - the love triangle that is going on between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, I bet their place in the spotlight is simply reserved for later. So these character posters showcasing much of the fine supporting cast are basically a treat to people who love movies and good acting, while the franchise's fanbase with its various Team Gales and Team Peetas will no doubt soon get to drool over posters depicting their young heroes. By which I don't mean to imply Jennifer Lawrence can't act. I meant to imply Josh Hutcherson's and especially Liam Hemsworth's acting capabilities leave a lot to be desired. So now I might need to prepare myself from vicious attacks by Hunger Games fangirls. Thankfully I happen to know few of those read this blog of mine.

Today's Mini-Reviews: Zombies, zombies everywhere!

World War Z: ***/*****, or 7/10

Huge big budget blockbuster adaptation, albeit loosely, of the Max Brooks novel of the same name. More serious in tone, the film explores the consequences of a viral pandemic that turns its victims into zombies, only driven by the urge to infect more people. A star vehicle for Brad Pitt, World War Z follows an ex-UN employee who is blackmailed by his former superiors into tracking down the origin of the plague in exchange for the guarantee his wife and children are protected from the terrors of the outside world. Unfortunately, it turns out it's not so easy to pinpoint just where the virus originated, necessitating him to travel around the globe whilst following various breadcrumbs in hopes of finding an answer, and if possible, a cure. Of course, this results in an array of close calls with ravenous zombies in various major cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Jeruzalem. The movie incorporates both close encounters with only a few zombies as well as major zombie offensives against large human populations as seen through Pitt's eyes. It's the former that make for the most suspenseful edge-of-your-seat moments, while the latter gobble up the vast majority of the FX budget, as we see zombie armies attacking helicopters and city walls in force. Such scenes look grandiose and work equally well as further examples of ever active post 9/11 paranoia, but ultimately feel hollow compared to Pitt's more personal experiences up close with the creepy undead. However, in those instances, these zombies just don't appear as frightening or disturbing as those of previous zombie flicks. In fact, if you're watching the TV-show The Walking Dead on a regular basis, World War Z offers little you have not seen before (save for zombie attacks on a bigger scope) and certainly isn't as poignant as a parable showcasing the failure of humans to work together for mutual survival, nor delivers it any moments of intense horror and gore that can match that show's contents. As an exploration of the legitimacy of our fears for pandemics, this movie also proves less effective as more scientific accurate fare the likes of Contagion: think of it more as the silly popcorn variety of that more intelligent type of flick. In addition, Brad Pitt is much too big a movie star to convincingly play the everyman out for basic survival and answers in a world overrun by the living dead. A less well known actor would have worked better for this movie's purposes, but in this day and age of ever increasing numbers of Hollywood flops, studios are afraid to make summer movies that cannot benefit from having big names to draw in audiences. World War Z witnessed its fair share of production problems, including a need for drastic rewrites and 20 million dollar reshoots of its entire third act. To the credit of those involved, you wouldn't think this film experienced such obstacles, as it has a fairly solid ending – including a surprising method of avoiding zombie contact – that still leaves ample room for an unavoidable sequel or two.

Warm Bodies: ****/*****, or 7/10

Zombies admittedly are having a big break on the silver screen this year. While World War Z is the sort of epic flick meant for the usual audiences blockbuster movies are made for, the zom-romcom Warm Bodies should attract crowds looking for more unusual horrific fare, and even – gods willing – teenage girls that want to fill the gap left by the finale of the Twilight movies by exploring similar themed films. Fortunately, the fact this movie combines thematic elements from the horror genre with all the qualities of romance is as far as the parallel between Twilight and Warm Bodies ought to be drawn, as the latter is a delightful off-beat comedy that hopefully will stay a one-shot instead of being milked for many more movies to come. The film follows R (Nicholas Hoult of X-Men: First Class and Jack the Giant Slayer fame), a teenage zombie male who does what zombies usually do: incoherently move about the place looking for people to eat, either alone or in a pack with his undead friends. One day he happens upon the brains of a living teenage boy, and after devouring them finds he is attracted to his girlfriend Julie (Teresa Palmer), the sole survivor of the zombie attack that claimed her boyfriend's life. Hiding her from the other living corpses, R soon displays amorous behavior towards her, or attempts at such as good as any dead boy could make, and because of these sudden feelings appears to regain his past humanity slowly but surely. Eventually the plot allows for a certain degree of romance between the pair which is developed compellingly enough to make it rise above its ludicrous premise. The problem the fledgling lovers face is how to overcome the prejudices dominant in a world where one group in society aims to eat the other. Matters are complicated by the fact Julie's father (John Malkovich) is the stern and uncompromising leader of the human survivors, while the rise of a subspecies of zombies named 'Bonies', zombies so far gone they have lost every shred of humanity and form a danger to both humans and regular zombies, also is cause for concern. Can R and Julie's mutual love for each other bridge the differences between both groups in time for man and dead man to overcome their hatred and unite against their common foe? As the movie draws towards its close, the plot focuses more on action and the expected preachy messages, but it's the first half of the movie that makes for a wonderfully funny viewing experience totally worth your while as R, via voice-over, details his dreary everyday life, illustrating a zombie's daily routine to hilarious results. While people who might fear the love affair between live girl and dead boy is not convincingly carried through, they're in for a nice surprise. In fact, it turns out there's not so much difference between the awkward experiences of young love as seen through a dead boy's eyes as there is from a living one. Few guys who tried to hit on girls in their teen years won't recall similar instances of acting odd in front of the opposite sex that made them wish they were dead, right?

Today's Film: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Dawn of the Dead

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Few remakes ever surpass their predecessors, but this one gets remarkably close, if it's not a definite improvement over the already great original George A. Romero zombie classic from 1978. Zack Snyder, who would go on to direct 300, Watchmen and unfortunately Sucker Punch, first proved his talent for adapting – in this case re-adapting – other people's work with this gripping, gory and hugely entertaining horror flick. A zombie plague engulfs America after which a band of survivors barricades itself in a shopping mall for safety. Tensions run high in the group as its members continue to find themselves attacked by the living dead and eventually a choice must be made: do these people decide to stay in their safe haven where they got everything they need except their freedom, or do they take their chances storming out in an attempt to find out whether there's other people still alive out there in some remote and secure location, with the hopes of joining them. 

The story remains largely the same (except for the absence of a violent, marauding biker gang invading the mall), but the hungry undead are more lethal than ever, this time also adding speed to help satiate their lust for devouring human flesh, making them much easier to take seriously than Romero's slow, lumbering walking dead, thus only enhancing the suspense (and the body count). Fantastic make-up efects galore in this picture, providing a wide array of eerie zombies and disturbing scenes of dismemberment and bloodshed. Still, Snyder doesn't let the gore rule the film, but prefers to locate the horror in the story itself. Of particularly great shock effect is the film's fabulous opening, which starts off very restrained and seemingly normal with a nurse just going home after a hard day's work, going to bed at night and waking up the next morning finding her neighbourhood burning in utter chaos and despair as it has suddenly fallen prey to a zombie apocalypse. Though the movie treats us to many a memorable moment of naked, merciless terror later on, this gruesome opening stands out as its most horrifying scene. The TV show The Walking Dead – though itself based on a graphic novel – would later feature a very similar world of undead post-apocalyptics, clearly inspired by this remake and building on its premise of a ragtag group of survivors trapped in a hellish world ruled by hungry corpses.

Starring: Sarah Polley, Ving Rhames, Jake Weber

Directed by Zack Snyder

USA: Strike Entertainment, 2004

How to make a surprisingly good horror movie

1: Make good use of effectively creepy locations

Why change a winning formula? If a place is frightening, there's nothing that can be helped so you might as well use it to its full potential. Dark, shadowy places are preferred by far. The more isolated and backwards, the better, since there's little help for your poor protagonists in distress, and they have to make do with each other and their wits (if any) to survive their ordeal. This also creates opportunities to add some emotional dynamics for your group of characters, since tensions and personal issues between them will rise, meaning the danger can come from both inside and outside the group. A good example of an ever sinister location in this genre would be a spooky forest equipped with a minimum of human civilization, where the main cast can be pitted against their antagonists in peace and quiet with zero outside interference.

2: Create archetype characters

Assuming you use more than one protagonist (which the majority of horror movies does), make sure they're different enough from one another. There's little point in having five different characters if they all behave the same. Be sure to cast both male and female actors if the script allows for it. Make them dissimilar enough in nature so they each bring their own voice and input to whatever perilous situation they find themselves in. They all should have different traits to distinguish them from each other, making them react diversely to the dangers they'll face. You can have a nerd, a slut, a brave heroine, a coward, etc., but be sure they compliment each other. Make them mostly likeable (again, if your script calls for this) so we can root for them, even though we know we will see them killed off in horrible manners (that's why it's a horror film after all), which means their unavoidable deaths will have meaning. Most of all, make them archetypes, not stereotypes. It's a fine line, but it can make all the difference between a good horror flick and a bad one.

3: Apply postmodern context, surprise your audience

Let's face it: by now the horror genre has seen it all. So why not use that to your advantage? Don't insult your audience's intelligence by assuming you're the first one to come up with certain ideas, since that will very likely work aversely. Present your ideas knowing your viewers will be familiar with them and play with this notion to surprise them where ever you can. Don't be afraid to openly refer to other entries in the horror genre, it has been proven a trite and true ingredient of successful horror by now. Make use of established genre conventions, no matter how often they've seen to be applied before, and then turn them on their head so your audience will be utterly shocked. Of course there's the risk your viewers might not go with it if you surprise them in too bizarrely a fashion, but that's a risk you should be willing to take. In fact, if the risk pays off, your audience will thank you for having dared to take such chances.

4: Add some humour, but not too much

Don't cater only to the darker emotions like shock and disgust, but also lighten up the mood at times by adding some fun. It can take the audience off guard, playing with their expectations of what comes next, so the following shocks hit their mark hard. Don't overdo it though, unless you set out to make a comedy more than an actually scary film. Certain characters naturally lend themselves more to laughs than others (this includes the antagonists), but don't make the humour depend on any single character to avoid JarJarisms: nobody likes a single sidekick providing all the jokes and ruining the overall mood (those are the types of people we like to see brutally killed off the first), so you better distribute it somewhat evenly among your cast of characters. And don't be afraid to use some naughty language, a horror movie should aim at a more restricted rating anyway.

5: Be sure your movie is still scary enough

If you deliberately make a horror movie, the audience will expect frightening and/or sickening moments (or at least attempts at such), otherwise you're cheating your viewers. So make sure to add a sufficient amount of moments of unease, disgust or shock to your motion picture. A neatly crafted balance between gore and suspense is always preferred, but you can pick one over the other if it seems appropriate. Don't overdo it of course, horror movies shouldn't rely solely on dirty scenes filled with blood and guts, such moments should not drive the film, but be driven themselves by the overall plot. However, if you have good ideas to make your movie even more eerie, show no more restraint then needed.

6: End on a downer if it works in your film's favour

Some of the best horror movies end on a very downbeat ending, a closure devoid of hope or happiness for your characters (if any are still alive of course). When it makes the movie even stronger plot wise or shock the audience that much more, don't hesitate to use such endings. It usually also garners a fair amount of critical acclaim and that's never a bad thing, considering a lot of critics feel biased against horror movies that seem all too typical on first sight.

When all of these points have been adhered too successfully, this results in:

The Cabin in the Woods

Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Why not write an actual review of this film, you might ask? I could have done that, but The Cabin in the Woods is so loaded with plot twists it couldn't have been written without spoilers all over it, which would give away much of the movie's brilliant plot, and I so much want you to check out the movie instead of just reading a synopsis. Even for people who are not at all into horror, the way this film turns established horror conventions topsy-turvy makes it worth a watch, if you have the stomach for some occasional blood and gore. It proves yet again writer/producer Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly/Serenity and this week's newly released 'superhero spectacle to end all superhero spectacles' The Avengers) is at the very top of his game and fully deserves the large fanbase he has spawned over the last decades. As for director Drew Goddard, he redeems himself for those few bad episodes of Lost he wrote (though it must be stated he also wrote some good ones) and he turns out to be a very capable director with great love for the horror genre (something which was already evident to a lesser extent in Cloverfield which he also directed). Together Whedon and Goddard have produced one of the finest entries into the horror genre in decades, which hopefully won't be insatiably copied, sequeled/prequeled, remade or rebooted like too many of the scary movies it references.

And watch the trailer here (though it's bound to create wrong impressions, since, despite the titles claiming differently, this trailer seems fairly standard. But then, no trailer could ever do this film's plot justice without giving too much away):

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thecabininthewoods/

Braindead

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Outrageous 'zomedy' (comedy with zombies) film, one of the most goriest motion pictures ever made, courtesy of a much younger Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings). Also totally hilarious by every count. In 1957, Lionel, a young man living under the iron rule of his old tyrant of a mother, finds himself in love with a nice Hispanic girl, but their love affair is cut short when his mum is bitten by a creepy Sumatran Rat Monkey (charming little stop motion creature), which causes a nasty infection turning her into a zombie. The same fate awaits everyone who also suffers her bite, and that ends up being quite a lot of people. Lionel hides his monstrous mother and her fellow undead in his basement, and then finds himself confronted with his greedy uncle who's after his inheritance, while he still tries to maintain his romance. The lid eventually blows open completely when his mother and her zombie minions break free and start killing everyone in their path. Features some utterly silly characters, including a priest highly skilled in karate who 'kicks ass for the Lord', a German immigrant doctor who has a secret Nazi background and a vicious zombie baby. The experience of shooting the (extremely disturbing) splatter scenes sure came in handy for shooting scenes of killing Orcs in Lord of the Rings. Fortunately, comedy triumphs over disgust, though it's no shame to feel an upset stomach and serious throat convulsions watching this grotesque flick, which remains one of the funniest horror films of all time. Released in America under the title 'Dead Alive'.

Starring: Timothy Balme, Diana Peňalver, Elizabeth Moody

Directed by Peter Jackson

New Zealand: WingNut Films, 1992

Big Tits Zombie

Rating: */*****, or 1/10

Absolutely dismal attempt to make something resembling a horror comedy, like only the Japanese in their sick psycho minds could produce (any Japanese people that have seen this thing would undubitably concur with me in that last bigotry ridden statement). Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, which unfortunately even ended up in my movie collection (I never knew my friends disliked me so much they would give me this monstrosity for my birthday... but at least I didn't pay for it, except for the ten years it took away from my life by giving me brain rot). Except for a few nice naked breasts sparsely displayed throughout, there's just nothing redeemable about this audiovisual piece of poo that by rights shouldn't even be allowed to be called a movie, since that would insult anyone who's ever worked on proper films. The plot, if there is such a thing here, revolves around a few exotic dancers (a bunch of girls with hardly any acting experience, which is clearly revealed) who find themselves under siege by completely unconvincing looking zombies (my cat's fleas could have provided better make-up effects!) after discovering some old book containing incantations capable of resurrecting the dead. Every supposed joke the brainless mutants called 'writers' make misses its mark completely, making this movie so painfully cringeworthy this flick is very hard to sit through, even though it's running for only 74 minutes. To make matters worse – yes, that is actually possible – the movie boasts 3D effects: every time an icon pops up in the corner of the screen, you can put on your 3D glasses, but what is seen when wearing these is not 3D, it's just jumbled, messed up imagery, inducing nasty headaches within seconds. Depth is obviously non-existent in every way here, it might as well be called a 0D movie. If there ever is such a thing as a public movie burning rally somewhere, this is the title you're most likely to see in agony on the bon fire; I'd be first in line to make sure no copies of this horrific pile of garbage survive the event. Original Japanese title: Kyonyȗ Doragon: Onsen zonbi vs sutorippȃ 5: if there's indeed a part 1 through 4 of this (I never bothered finding this out), watching the series in a marathon is nothing short of committing seppuku, the dishonourable version.

“Starring”: Sola Aoi, Risa Kasumi, Mari Sakurai

“Directed” by Takao Nakano

Japan: Big Tits Dragon Production Committee, 2010