Search This Blog

Monday, November 28, 2011

Music Philosophy blog 6

I know I’ve been gone for awhile over the break but like I said my keyboard is broken. Today’s discussion got me thinking about covers, versions and parodies of various pieces of music. I really wish my keyboard still worked properly because then I could blog more easily but alas.
The first example I wanted to expose you to is one that I enjoy thoroughly. Bitches Ain’t Shit by Ben Folds. I was first introduced to this song by my freshman roommate who is in the best sense of the word a hippie. Ben Folds essentially does folk Indi music. For those of you who have never heard of him if you have seen Over the Hedge Folds does the entire soundtrack. Bitches Ain’t Shit is originally a Dr. Dre song. Folds does the song in the style of his own music. Now in my opinion the songs do have different meaning due to being different songs—as we discussed in class. Of course, this is entirely my opinion but I feel the original version is vile, disgusting, rude, crude, and lacking any socio-politically redeeming value. I find Folds version to be funny and fun, satirical (obviously), entertaining, and a statement on not all but certain types of rap. Now I am not demonizing Dre or praising Folds and I am not necessarily saying that the things I said about Dre’s version are bad things—some people enjoy the rude and the like. So what do you think? Do you think style can change the intent of the lyrics so greatly. I can say that Folds version is more “musical” in the sense that Folds actually is singing the whole time and there are instruments being played. I am of course referencing the Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me episode I linked in a previous blog.
Dre’s Version:

Folds’ Version:

A similar situation would Down With the Sickness, originally by Disturbed. The jazz singer Richard Cheese does his own jazz cover of the song. But I don’t think that the Disturbed version is all that bad.
Next, there is the matter of the song You Spin Me Round by Dead or Alive. This song is about a person seeing someone at a club and instantly being filled with lust and desire. I’m not going to sugar coat it—even though I hate the new version of the song—the singer wants to take this person home for sex however the singer does admit to falling in love with the person at the sight of them in the club. So there is a subtext of sex but overtones of love stipulated in the lyrics.

You Spin Me Round by Dead or Alive:

The remake You Spin my Head Right Round is by Flo Rida and its meaning is simple and clear: oral sex. That’s it. Oral sex.

A song that’s meaning isn’t lost in one of its reinterpretations is the Dusty Springfield song Only Want to be With You.
Dusty Springfield:

Then there is the relatively recent Metal version of the song that I actually really, really like and enjoy and I am not a big fan of Metal. I am very particular about the Metal I like. The band is called Volbeat.

I also wanted to talk about two songs that have been remade countless times; so many times, in fact there is probably a version for every genre of music: Mad World and Video Killed the Radio Star. Just YouTube them and you will see what I mean. I absolutely love these songs and all of their various versions, covers, and parodies. The reason I love all the versions is I have yet to come across a version that did not do the originals message justice. Now I am all for creativity and improvisation but some classics should not be messed\with such as Mr. Lonely which in my opinion Akon did not do it justice. Half the song sounds like if Alvin from The Chipmunks was on crack while singing. Sometimes sampling works—sometimes it does not (what do you think?) An example of it working is Jay Z’s Hard Knock Life. Anyway, I wanted to link you to a cool version of VKRS—the country western version. I think it is great but then again VKRS is one of my all tome favorite songs.
Handsome Hanks Video Killed The Radio Star:

Finally, I leave you with a parody, I’ve done covers and versions so I might as well do a parody. This is a Christmas parody and I know there are tons of those and I like a lot of them but this one is pretty fun and it has zombies and you all know I love zombies:
Zombie night:
and the outtakes which include bits of other parodies:

Friday, November 18, 2011

Music & Philosophy 5.25

I’m  sorry  I’ve  been  away.  My  keyboard  has  a  short.  The  spacebar  as  well  as  the   b  and  n  keys  are  broken  however  thanks  to  auto-correct  and  spell  check  i  can  now  type.  However  my  speed  is  suffering  greatly.  But  at  least  I  can  now  blog  again.
I  wanted  to  give  you  all  some  Thanksgiving  music  since  I  did  the  same  thing  for  Halloween.  I  only  have  3  examples  but  I  think  you’ll  enjoy  them.

Alice’s Restaurant

Thanksgiving  Song

Example  of  bad  song  writing  (though  not  in  my  opinion)

Monday, November 14, 2011

Church of Sense and Reason 5: Sexism, Racism Condemned or Advocating by the Bible?

Alright. I think this entry will be short but it should be fun anyway. Today’s issue to sexism: are men and women equal in the eyes of God? At the same time, I might as well talk about racism as well.
I will begin with my personal answer: yes.
This article will tie in some themes from my Socratic Argument using Christianity as an advocate of gay rights.
We can start there I guess. So let’s review: The Gospels state that God is loving, caring compassionate, understanding, etc. Therefore, neither gender would be mores susceptible to evil or weaker than the other would. In addition, neither sex would be greater. It is clear, biologically, that men and women are different physiologically. I don’t’ think I need to go into specifics. It is also been established that women’s pain threshold is higher than that of men which suggests, if anything, that women are in fact stronger than men. Both sexes have pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses. It is true there are many things women can do that men cannot and men can do that women cannot…or better yet, there are many things women are better at than men are, and many things that men are better at than women are. So either sex can do anything the other one can (well almost anything i.e. childbirth), they just might not excel at it.
I want to go on a bit of a tangent and talk about genders as in masculine and feminine traits. This is relative to this blog but it might do better in a psych blog or social blog. I have a theory from many hours of observations in many different setting and in many different group dynamics as well as taking several courses that discuss gender traits and this is what I have come up with: Mentally: men and women are not all that different. Most of the “traits” are societal and/or culturally constructed. For millennia, those in charge have told everyone else than men and women are different and listed with great detail those differences. Now not every culture has done this and not every culture puts men higher than women. Some put them as equal while others put women above men. However, in the end, the genders are far more similar than we are lead to believe. Of course men and women are different mentally but not to the extent that we think. For example, men have just as many emotions as women but do not express them for fear of rejection and humiliation of other men even though those other men have those feelings as well. It annoys me that we keep saying things are masculine and feminine when they are just mental aspects in themselves not exclusive to either gender. Both genders can be violent and cruel, both genders can be irrational, both genders can shoot the shit and talk about nothing all day, both genders feel sad, depressed, angry, fearful, embarrassed, etc. the only real difference is how we respond to our feelings and act on them. We are all capable of being kind, caring and supportive when we are needed to be but we can also be protective and aggressive when we need to be. Society tells us men cannot cry and men are tough, while women are more emotional and more delicate. This is frankly bullshit. If I watch a movie that makes me want to cry, I will cry. But not in front of everyone. See? Now I wish I could but there are men out there who also would want to cry but won’t and will want to agree with the one crying, in fact all the men present will agree assuming the movie is relative to all of their lives but none of them will cry because they are afraid of all the others not crying. This is a self-perpetuating infinite circle of misunderstanding. I have also noticed that men are more intolerant of men acting “unmanly” than women are intolerant of women acting “unwomanly”.

Now that that is out of the way, back to the Bible.
The main critic is Lilith. For those of you that do not know that story of Lilith I will sum it up. Genesis 1 was written by a different person than the one who wrote Genesis 2, 3. They were both written a couple hundred years apart and were not put together for another hundred years or so (I cannot remember the exact dates) someone thought they were compatible. However, there are great differences between them. One is Adam and Eve. In Gen 1, they are both created simultaneously and equal and were not given names. In Gen 2, Adam was created first then Eve was later created out of Adams rib making man weaker as a species and then as we, all know, thanks to a snake, Eve then tempted Adam with the fruit. The snake tempted Eve to tempt Adam rather than the other way around because apparently man is smarter than woman is.
There is a clear contradiction here. So how did the Jewish faith fix this problem? They created the story of Lilith. The story of Lilith is found in the Jewish mystic text of Kabbalah. There are several Jewish mystic texts that are not canon with the actual Pentateuch (meaning they are not real parts of the Bible or accepted as such). Furthermore, since the creation of these texts all of them are not accepted by almost every Jewish sect or person of Jewish faith, simply put, they retcond the mystic texts.
Lilith is technically the first woman ever created, with Eve as the second. Lilith is considered evil, the mother of all demons, a succubus. What did she do exactly? Well to begin with, she was way ahead of her day. She had radical ideas of equality between herself and Adam. She was unruly, would not listen to Adams orders, and wanted equal responsibility. Adam wanted nothing to do with this so he asked God to make another woman after Lilith, being pissed off for no none reason at Adam (just like a woman [joking]) and sick to the teeth of Adam asking her to make him sandwiches abandoned him. Now this all might not necessarily stop a woman from freethinking, in fact it might inspire her, so the Jewish community at the time needed to further explain how this behavior is evil. In the end, Lilith has sex with Cain and gives birth to the first demon. So speaking your mind is a bad idea.
Women have also been the targets of witch-hunts with religion leading the way. Most times the real witches were left alone and the women who were accused of being witches did nothing expect express themselves—or they were blamed for the problems of men. If a man was impudent or infertile it was the woman’s fault, if a woman was attractive and a man hit on her and she denied him, she was a witch for tricking him. For further curiosity about all this, I suggest Witches Hammer, the book on witch hunting. The point is that men feared women so naturally with all fears, in order to conquer them you make your fears afraid of you; take away all their power and freedom.
Now, these days, we know all that to be utterly ridiculous. There are other passages in the Bible that advocate the beating of one’s wife but those are few and far between and have no bearing on today. Religion, like all other things must adapt, grow, and change with the times or else be left in the dark. For example, in Christianity, mass was always said in Latin, but most people do not speak Latin so nowadays most churches conduct the mass in the language of the community.
Now, since I am on this topic I might as well talk about racism ideals in the Bible. Now I have never come across any passages myself that are racist. Probably because the Catholic church I grew up attending understood them to be stupid (if there are any racism passages). The few that I know of are not racist but against other belief systems. The passages talk about people from other nations as inferior for having savage pagan beliefs that contradict the God of the Bible. I disagree with that also but I am talking about racism right now. Thinking one race is superior to another is ridiculous. The only reason it started was really classism. Other races had superior technological advances and it was not because they were smarter, it was because of trade, think about it. All of Europe and Asia are connected, each land that had a new idea or invention, that idea or invention would spread and be sold and traded until everyone knew about it and even perfected it. Meanwhile, North and South America were separated from the rest of the world and were only connected to each other with the thin strip of land that is Middle America. Africa likewise is not very connected to Europe, the same goes for Australia. All these ideas never reached these “savage cultures”. Had the land mass never split into seven continents, I am positive the aboriginals of Africa, the Americas, and Australia, would have advanced right alongside the rest of the world, in fact, trade may have excelled even further, and we may have been way more advanced by this point in the game.
If you would like to read more on Racists, I have a paper on them (http://storywrite.com/story/8056155-Philosohpy_of_Racism-by-Jake_Wesley). Right now, I am talking about the concept as used with the Bible. Race is not even the right word since we are all part of the human race (as any anthropologist will tell you). The reason people of different parts of the world have different skin color is to absorb Vitamin D from the sun and to not be sunburned. That is why people who live by the equator have very dark skin while people who live by the poles practically glow in the dark they are so whit. It has nothing to do with superiority or anything like that.
Again, God is all about love, not hate. God does not want us to murder or cause pain, God wants us to love our enemies and our persecutors like out neighbors—to love all people, and to not pass judgment upon them. Therefore, people who like to have lynch mobs, burn crosses, etc, they are more likely to go to Hell than people who are not white who never hurt anyone. That is something to think about if you are a member of the Nazi Party of Ku Klux Klan.
The Bible dictates that God created ALL of US as EQUAL. God created the human race. And just for fun facts that most people know, Adam and Eve, were almost certainly black since almost all anthropologists, genealogists, biologists, and geologists agree that the “Cradle of Life” is somewhere in Africa. Jesus also was not white. Jesus was a Hebrew living in Israel. His skin tone would have been the same as ever other Middle Eastern person’s skin.
In addition, I might as well touch on what to make of other religious beliefs. Now as a Christian, I am all about love, peace, and “good works” Almost every religion I have come across wants that as well. They all want to pray and be nice to each other, and all these great qualities. Most religions have the same end just different means, and even their means aren’t that different: be good to people, pray, reflect on life, try to make a difference, help out when you can, give to charities, eat right, etc. In fact, the end of Monty Python’s Meaning of Life sums that up great. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBArMmngVH4)
I was also just about to talk about Clas sism but since I have already touched on so much and I could write a lot on that, especially if I bring in Marx, I will save that for the next entry in the Church of Sense and Reason. Tune in next week!

Music and Philosophy 5: Rhythm

Hi all. Over the long weekend, I stopped blogging due to several unforeseen factors. However, I am back and I plan to try to make an entry in every category today so wish me luck. I have so much to talk about but I wanted to start with this one since it is really the only section I’m required to do and I had ideas for it a few days ago and don’t want to forget any more than I already have.

Rhythm. Hamilton is right about this. Rhythm is in everything we do and it is even inherent in our biology, our DNA gives us rhythm. He even goes as far to say that music and biology/evolution are entwined. I can really see what he means. First, I wanted to show you all a clip that I did not link to last time that is about rhythm. It has a Christmas theme to it and I know it is not even Thanksgiving yet but it is very relevant to what Hamilton speaks of:

Ok so I could not find the clip it’s self so just click on this link and skip to 7:20 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zF4e4dATsQ&feature=related

Now most of you have probably seen this movie and remember this but I thought it was funny thinking about what Hamilton writes. Music is so connected to our existence and even to our physiology that for mystical beings like Santa Claus, the rhythm of his heartbeat is Christmas related. This also reminds me of another Christmas movie, (this is a tangent) where Santa is arrested and when they finger print him, his fingerprints look like snowflakes, so why wouldn’t his heartbeat synchronize up to Jingle Bells?

My point is we even recognize that rhythm and music are so related to our being that in our fiction we joke about this phenomenon making puns out of it!

The real question goes back to the chicken and the egg: Are we musical because it is in our biology, or since we love music and rhythm, we can recognize it in our biology. To put it more simply which came first, Santa or Jingle Bells? Well in that example, it is of course Santa. However, it makes you think did we notice the rhythm of our hearts and then make music, or make music then notice it has a similar beat to our hearts? I know I just repeated myself several times and I apologize, I am just trying to find the best way to phrase it. However, I am sure you all get the point.

We admit that we are musical biologically, not just our heart beats, but as Griffin said in class, our brains are designed to recognize patterns such as beats, our breathing has rhythm which is consistent with our activities, meaning the rhythm changes depending on what we are doing but it is still rhythmic, we blink rhythmically, we need, crave, and desire music in our daily lives so much that at times we will find music where there is none, like Tires in the clip from Spaced I had in my last blog. We put in our music to escape from reality, but could it be we are actually trying to connect further with reality, if we stipulate that reality is music? Some of us would love life to be even more musical, like some of us wish to live in a musical where everything that goes on is explained with a song and dance that everyone somehow knows the words to.

Music picks us up when we are depressed, humbles us when we need perspective, angers us when we need to vent, and frightens us when we need to remember life is not always safe. Music can stop wars, start revolutions, get people assassinated or knighted, and because of all this, we do not just ascribe biology with music, but spirituality with music. We use music to meditate, Neo-Platonists would argue music connects us closer to the world of being, we use music in our religious ceremonies to pray to our higher power, we use music to connect to the human condition and we create phrases and clichés about how mystical music is. That music has so much power, it could be false power we give to it or real power we have discovered in it but either way we believe that music is essential to life, the universe, and everything.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (24) of the Day: Dawn of the Dead 2004

“It’s nice to see that you’ve all bonded through this disaster”

Dawn of the Dead 2004—I really do not like this movie. I know that maybe I am a bit biased by growing up with films that are all against the type of zombies in this film. The order of the first few zombie films I saw is as follows: Night of the Living Dead, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Shaun of the Dead, Undead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead, and then Dawn of the Dead 2004.

My opinion on Running Zombies:

The zombies in this movie are fast. I do not just mean they can jog or sprint, they are like marathon runner fast! They can also fight better than they could when they were alive because they seem more agile. Watch the trailer and see how the little girl jumps to her feet like a tribal hunter. In truth, these zombies seem more like the infected from 28 Days Later, which are not zombies. The only different is the things in Dawn 04 are actually dead. There is only one time a zombie can be really fast and by really fast I mean catch an out-of-shape overweight person: after rigor mortis has loosened and before decay sets in. no zombie should ever be faster than Bill Hinzman in Night of the Living Dead 1968. Romero himself protested against the movie. I am not sure how Universal Studios got the rights. Maybe Romero sold them though that does not seem like something he would do. If anyone out there knows how Universal was able to make this movie please let me know and give me your sources, thank you. Romero has said repeatedly that dead things do not run. Just look at the old mummy and zombie movies pre-Romero. Now I can understand somewhat how these zombies can run: they come back like less than a minute after they die so rigor does not have a chance to set in, and infect exercising the muscles, like running, would in fact stave off atrophy to an extent but not like this. Even if they physically could run, I am not sure they would have the mental functions to run. Speaking of them coming back so quickly I have a huge problem with this. True, this happens in 28 Days Later as well but my problem with it there is less. An infection should not be able to kill you that quick and then bring you back to life as a zombie right after. I know it is a sci-fi movie but I like movies that are at least somewhat convincing so I like movies where at least most of the laws of physics apply—unless there is magic involved. I do not have a problem with all running zombies, for example the few that do run in Resident Evil, I am ok with. I explained in my RE review that the T-virus reanimates dead cells and mutates DNS, therefore it makes sense that dead things could run if their cells don’t rot as much and if their biology is changed. Dawn of the Dead 2004 never explains why they run. Another problem Romero and Romero fans had with it was that since they ran we barely saw any detail in the zombies. No close ups or lingering shots. The director, Zack Snyder explained that he didn’t want to linger on the faces because he felt that it made the zombies seem more human—like it gave back a bit of their humanity. First of all, they are fucking dead and gross looking. How could someone look at that and think, “That’s someone I want to invite to dinner”. Secondly, this misses the point of zombies. Sure, on the surface fast zombies theoretically seem scarier because it only takes one but the point is there is never one and then they eat you slowly most times while you are still alive. I’m about to repeat myself because I am going to do a blog defending zombies as scary but, the reason they are scary is that they are/were us. Think about it: your close loved ones die—then they wake up—then they eat you slowly. That is fucking terrifying, disturbing, and sad. Furthermore, the zombies in zombie movies are almost never the true enemies or villains. They are hungry animals who do not know any better, they are not evil, cruel, or sinister. You are supposed to feel bad for the zombies and at the same time feel terror. Walking Dead season 1 even has a scene about this, reminding the characters that these were once people like you or me; had jobs, lives, families, worries, etc.


Now that I have that out of my system on to the review!

Aside from the fact I hate these zombies, there are other flaws in this movie. The title Dawn of the Dead is really misleading. The only similarities between the movies is that there is a mall, some trucks that say BP on them (not British Petroleum but some trucking company), a pregnant woman, and cameos from a few of the original actors. The great Tom Savini (which I do not know why he was in this, I guess for the fun of it) plays the sheriff that tells people to shoot the zombies in the head. Ken Foree (Peter) plays an entirely different role as a TV evangelist who quotes his own line from the original: “When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead shall walk the earth”. The Last person is Scott Reiniger (Roger) who plays a General telling people to stay indoors. There is also a reference to Gaylen Ross who played Fran. Other than that, there is nothing about the two films that are related…well there is still a gun shop but this time it is across the street rather than in the mall.

The plot also lost any reference to capitalism or consumerism and focuses only on survival with no underlying messages.

I guess I should give some sort of a summary. The film starts out with the main girl who is not named Fran, as a nurse who is getting home from a long shift after people keep pouring in with bites. Now, I already told you that people bitten come back to life in less than five minutes, some only take seconds, so I am wondering why no one at the hospital noticed this. When she gets home the neighbors kid who shows off to Anna (the nurse) that she can roller-skate backwards and Anna tells her to be safe...foreshadowing?

Yep. The next morning the girl come in and rather than like a zombie that has no real predator instincts like going for the jugular so your prey cannot escape, goes right for the jugular of Anna’s husband. He dies then attacks her, she gets in her car, drives away, abandons her car, meets up with a black cop which is sort of symbolic of Peter is a way…I guess, and a couple who is pregnant. They all make it to the Crossroads Mall. Get it? Crossroads, you know, like the place where Satan meets people. It turns out the head of mall security is like a Rhodes character from Day of the Dead sort of except this guy isn’t as crazy, he is just a bit of a jerk. Then a bunch more people show up and they all talk about leaving. They talk to a guy across the street who owns the gun shop and he is running out of food. They find a dog in the parking garage and decide to use him to send food over because zombies do not chase the dog. WHY!?   In the original trilogy, we see zombies eating bugs and in the Night of the Living Dead remake, a zombie eats a mouse. Whatever, zombies end up getting in and kill the gun shop guy. There are a few comedic moments that I think symbolize that zombies were people but then that contradicts the director’s statement so...I do not know. They armor up some vans to escape. Some people die graphically actually and we find out Steve is as big a prick we always knew him to be. No not Steven as in Fran’s fiancé but Steve the asshole. They make it to shore to get a boat to an island, which is kind of a reference to the original Dawn when the other group of cops asks Roger where they are headed; the cop says his group is heading for an island. Turns out the islands are also infested with zombies and everyone you thought lived dies during the end credit sequence.
So what do I think of this movie? Well you know my person feelings on it—I’m fairly certain I made those clear. However, it isn’t that bad of a film, I’m just a loyal Romero-ian. The movie did have a huge budget and it is a very pretty film, I mean it looks like and the effects are well done. Is it watchable? I’ll give it this much: it’s certainly better than Night of the Living Dead 3D. It is a fun film overall and despite it being an atrocity to Romero, it is not that bad. I give it  2 ¼ out of 5 stars.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (23) of the Day: Night of the Living Dead 3D

Today I start the reviews of the remakes of the original Romero zombie trilogy. This includes Dawn of the Dead 2004, Night of the Living Dead: 3D 2006, and Day of the Dead 2008. These films are not a reboot of the series, as they are not even related to one another as sequels or even happening in the same universe. However, I am still going to do them in the order of the original trilogy rather than chronologically. So today’s review it on Night of the Living Dead 3D.
Night of the Living Dead 3D is called 3D for two reasons, one, it was originally shot in 3D, and two, as a pun for being the third Night of the Living Dead film. There is a lot I do not like about this film I do not like. I think it is meant to be a parody so it is trying to be a B-movie on purpose, which usually causes a movie to fail as a cult classic. Either it will go mainstream like Grindhouse: Planet Terror/Death Proof or it is forgotten. I am almost certain that this movie is not meant to be taken seriously but I am not going to go easy on it nonetheless. What does this mean? Well you all finally get to see my Cinema Snob impression. That’s right. I’m going to rip this movie apart. However, like Brad Jones (aka Cinema Snob) I do not necessarily hate the movie as much as I seem to in the review. This movie, is watchable—trust me, there are zombie movies out there that are not watchable at all that get 0 out of 5 star ratings. For the most part though, I really do not like this movie.
The movie starts out similarly enough; actually…it starts out so much like the original that the opening credits sequence is the exact same one from the 1968 version! Wait, the camera zooms out…ok, so a guy in the movie is watching the original. Well that breaks the rule that you never reference a better movie than your own in your movie. I am also thinking two things about what I just saw: this movie either loves the original so wants us to know that this movie is very different and that all the characters are different, or, this movie is making a bad fucking joke. I would assume that since this movie’s universe knows about zombies, and Romero and that the characters in this movie will be different right? No such luck, they all have the same names. There are a few characters that were not in the other films but everyone else has the same names and even the same relationships to each other. That is not funny, movie!
But seriously, the movie from there runs like the other Night of the Living Dead films. Johnny and Barb (not Barbra, but Barb) are on their way to the cemetery. Right here is where the movie splits off continuity, and at first I feel like it is being creative, changing the plot slightly, going for a different feel. It certainly feels different. They are not visiting a grave but attending a funeral and it is not their father or their mother who as died this time, but their aunt. No one is around and Johnny jokes with Barb, the zombie’s attack Johnny drives off (asshole) and Barb runs away.
She does not find the farmhouse that was relatively close by in the other films but finds the funeral home/morgue where off course there are more zombies. I will say one good thing about the movie: the zombies are fast, and the makeup is decent and by that, I mean it does not look like I did as a zombie for Halloween. So I give points to the movie for having realistic zombies (as realistic as it could get anyway). The fact that they are slow zombies means that the creators have some decency and attraction to Romero and right now, all the points for this movie are riding on the zombies.
She meets the cemetery caretaker/funeral home director played by Sid Haig (remember that name it will come up again in another review). He tells her to run and she does. At first, I thought this would be Ben because he seems to be a little badass and he saves Barb. But it isn’t Ben. She runs and walks down a road, as it gets darker out. She texts Johnny to inform him he is a terrible brother and to come back for her. Eventually she gets a text saying, “I’m coming for you Barb”, a reference to the quote “They’re coming to get you Barbara, they’re coming for you”. I am also okay with this reference and it gives the movie a few points.
While reading the text zombies come out of nowhere and attack her and her phone. A guy on a motorcycle shows up and thanks to bad editing, punches a zombie out of the way. Guess who this is. Go on guess. Guess who this thin young white guy on a motorcycle is. Nope, it is not Tom, try again. IT’S BEN. THEY MADE BEN FUCKING WHITE! Well, I guess they had to so that no one will confuse this movie for having symbolism. In fact, there is not one black person in the whole movie. I don’t think there is even a black zombie. I may be mistaken about this, so correct me if I am wrong.
White Ben turns out to be friends with a family, the Coopers, who own a farmhouse down the road. Well now, it makes sense that he is not black: there is now way the white hick would be friends with him if he were not white! This movie is racist! Also, Ben and Harry are friend!? Furthermore, they own the farmhouse. In the 68 version, we find the house with the owner dead so we never know who she is, in the 90 version it is the house of Tom’s uncle. Now it is the Cooper family’s house. I am ok with this a bit, because the movie is being creative with the original idea. I think it is stupid but I respect it. Actually, I do not think that is stupid, what I really think is stupid is that technically Tom still does in away own the house. Tom is the Coopers fucking son. This just seems lazy and here is why; the movie made everyone related and friends so that no real character explanations have to go on. There is a reason why the movie has no time for character development because we need to watch Tom fuck Judy in the barn!
There are several continuity errors involving Barb and her footwear. In the original she lost her shoes, in this one she cannot make up her mind if she lost them, changed them, took them off, also this movie suffers from a severe case of “off-screen disease”, not only because of the shoes thing but also because of Harry’s bandage appears out of nowhere.
The affects are lacking as well. Judy is naked but her downstairs is clearly a prosthetic so she does not have to show us her real vagina. You are already naked and we see everything else! I don’t see why you care if people see the rest, they are going to think you are fully naked and exposed anyway…or they would if the prosthetic wasn’t so obvious.
The Cooper’s are also potheads and pot growers, which is why they never call the police, and Karen is watching, yep, the original Night of the Living Dead in the living room. Um…Karen, are you that oblivious? You really don’t notice any similarities to the movie and your OWN FUCKING LIFE!? It is okay; Karen always dies and ends up biting her dad. This part they did keep the same. However, there is a high as a kite character in the house that apparently a hired hand for the farm. He is bit and we watch what happens. Want to know what happens? This movie turns into Return of the Living Dead all of a sudden. Let me explain...well first let me tell you what happens after he is bit because the movie tells us why there are zombies. Haig comes in to explain what is going on. Apparently, his dad ran the business better and he never wanted to do this job. He made money by taking stuff from people to burn in the crematorium, like illegal stuff: bio-hazardous medical waste, military chemical weapon stuff, and radioactive stuff. Nevertheless, he never burned any of it. He also never burnt any of the bodies that were meant to be cremated because he has a fear of fire. All that shit leaked out and onto the bodies and they became zombies. He then tells us that anyone bite will die and become one but the ones that are bit do not become zombies right away, they act as if they are still alive. Sound familiar?
Everyone dies except Barb, Tovar (Haig), and Ben. Turns out, Tovar is crazy and this phenomenon has driven him mad with divine power over life and death, he wants to kill everyone so they can come back as zombies and live forever. I am not sure he understands what it means to be a zombie, especially in this universe. Tovar has kept his dad alive and feeds him his blood. He does this by cutting himself and letting his dad suck it out of the wound. THIS SHOULD CAUSE HIM TO BECOME INFECTED AND TURN INTO A ZOMBIE! Also these zombies are somewhat sentient as Johnny and Barb’s mom turn up as zombies walking together.
The movie ends with that whole “or-is-it” feel and Barb lives just like in the 90 remake.

So what is the rating? I can see how the movie could be viewed as fun and entertaining and it is certainly watchable. However, if it is on purpose, was everything on purpose? The acting was not that great. It was not as bad as Flesh Eater, but it was still bad. The affects were ok but at times, they were just dumb the movie is a cop-out to Romero and though it is parody, it also feels like one of those cheap rip-offs. As a remake of a Romero I would give this movie a 1 out of 5 stars, but since I am reviewing it as a zombie movie in general, I give it 1 ½ out of 5 stars.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (22) of the Day: Robert Rodriquez presents: Planet Terror

I’m going to eat your brains…and steal your knowledge”

Planet Terror. I could say so much about this movie. Let me start by saying it is fantastic. Planet Terror is the first part to a project from Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino called Grindhouse—a double-feature exploitation film is designed to emulate the film culture of the 70’s and late 80’s. Planet Terror is the one written by Rodriquez.
The film is done with a 70’s film quality feel complete with projector style film, starches and missing reels. The movie is action packed, has a great cast, pretty good affects, and this is why I’m nervous and hesitant to do a review on this movie. I feel that mine will not hold up against the many reviews on this movie already. It was a cult classic overnight. Rodriquez is most famous for his film based off the comic Sin City. In fact, many of the actors from Sin City are in Planet Terror.
I will get to the plot later but first I want to talk about the movie. Rodriquez is also famous for From Dusk Till Dawn, which starred the great Tom Savini, and Savini actually plays one of the cops in Planet Terror. Knowing that he has worked with Rodriguez before makes it less interesting that he is in yet another zombie movie, especially since Greg Nicotero did the makeup for Planet Terror. I’m going to go ahead and assume that Savini helped out too because, I know Nicotero can stand on his own but the affects were so far out there and over the top that it has to be a double play with Nicotero and Savini working side by side again. I love the affects in this movie. There is a lot of CGI, and as you, all know I am not a big fan of CGI affects. However, this movie is supposed to be cheesy as they are going for the grunge 70’s B-movie feel. They certainly did not want the movie to suck like a B-Movie even though if it sucked on purpose, that would be awesome, but they wanted it to be more of a tribute to the films they grew up with.  Back to the affects, they are gross, disturbing, cool, and effective. This movie really has it all.
Rodriquez also wrote the main theme to the movie emulating the style of the great John Carpenter known for composing the scores to his movies most famously Halloween and The Thing (I recommend you watch both, but I prefer The Thing myself). Also, on the subject of Rodriguez, he also has his kid play the boy in the movie called Tony. I think this is great, not just; that he used his own son, like Hinzman in Flesh Eater used his own daughter, but that he calls him Tony and gives him that look that even he comments on. He talks about how in all the old horror movies that have a young boy character they all have that “same bowl haircut”. This is true and in fact, Rebel (Rodriquez’s son) looks just like Danny from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The best part about this is there is more of a connection than you think, the boy in Planet Terror is named Tony, which is the same name of the boy that lived in Danny’s mouth (the psychic entity that protected Danny). Also,like Hinzman's daugher, Tony is killed in the film. This is actually interesting because Rodriquez didn't want to scar Rebel by telling him he died in the movie so he filmed an alternate version where he makes it to the end. His death is meant to be a little funny, slightly ironic and message centered. I'm not going to give it away even though I feel like most of you ahve seen it.
There are so many stunts that go flawlessly and I do not really need to talk about them, all you really need to do is see the trailer to understand them.
Moving on: the zombies. Now…at first I was not entirely convinced these things are zombies and to an extent, I am still not convinced, even imdb refers to them as zombie like creatures but after watching it again and reviewing the special features on the DVD, I have determined they are technically zombies, just a special kind. They are dead so they fit the minimum criteria, and they do attack, bite, eat and try to kill the people not infected, so they fit even more criteria. If you are not convinced they are dead, there is even a scene where the doctors talk about how the bodies just got up and walked away. I should talk about these zombies however, so I guess I should get into plot territory now. These zombies are not viral, bacterial, and radioactive; rather, they take the Return of the Living Dead approach: chemical. The chemical in question? DC2. Now DC2 is different from what we have seen in zombies so far, DC2 was used in the War on Terrorism and that is how it all began. DC2 is a cross between 245 Trioxin and the T-Virus. Like the T-Virus, DC2 mutates the people exposed to it. Part of the population is immune to all forms of it i.e. gas, bite, blood, etc. The bites are necrotic in nature and the chemical reaction spreads fast. It mutates the individual into a pus filled, boil and sore covered zombie freak. However, there is a cure—well a temporary cure: if you have been exposed it DC2 you can offset the negative effects by breathing in concentrated, regulated doses of the stuff, which is why the soldier are looking for it.
The story follows a go-go dancer who we meet in the opening credits. The opening credits in House of the Dead: Overkill are so similar to the opening credits of Planet Terror that you know they are satirizing it. Cherry, the dancer used to date the main hero of the movie called Wray. The only thing we find out about him is that he has had black ops training and is very skilled. During the scene where we are supposed to find out who is really is, the scene is missing (artistically so). The other characters are a married couple of doctors, the guy being very abusive and scary and the girl being a lesbian who is having her girlfriend (played by Fergie) come to get Tony that night and the three of them were going to run away together. However, the girlfriend’s car breaks down, she is attacked by zombies, and her brain is eaten. Cherry meanwhile gets her leg eaten off but that is shown in the trailer. A few other essential characters are the lesbian doctor’s father is like a Texas Ranger, and two other characters who are brothers: one JT who is obsessed with making the best barbecue in Texas, the other the sheriff who wants the secret recipe. A few lesser characters are fun. One is played by Rodriquez’s real estate agent, he plays the owner of the go-go club, and the other is a real life doctor who plays himself in all the Grindhouse movies. In addition, there is the scientist played by Sayid from Lost. And of course Bruce Willis as the asshole DC2 infected soldier.
There is barely any plot left to discuss after going into the characters without giving anything away. Many action sequences, violence galore, romance, a fantastic ending, and an attempted rape scene where Rodriquez and Taratino play the would be rapists. Even though it is an exploitation film, the girls kick as much ass, if not more than the guys.
So what do I think of Planet Terror? I think that is clear. There in not one thing wrong with the movie in my opinion. In fact, I give it 4 2/3 out of 5 stars.
I could go on and on about the movie, but this is one of the times where the film speaks for itself. I also don’t want to give away more spoilers than I already have on top of what the trailer gives away. If you really want more there is always Wikipedia.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (21) of the Day: Beyond Re-Animator

Today I end the Re-Animator trilogy with Beyond Re-Animator. Again, there is not really that much to say about the movie. I will say it again: I wish I could do video reviews. I could make all of these funny, insightful, long, entertaining, and eventually I would be noticed and start making money off the reviews as well! Sadly, I lack the tech to do such videos so for now I give you my humble readable reviews. Because it has no real, redeeming value and is, more of a fun camp film and because I do not have as much to say, I will be giving away SPOILERS.
Beyond opens with continuity errors. At the end of Bride, both West and Cain are seemingly buried alive under rocks after the mortuary next to West’s lab caves in. One assumes that both of them are dead, but it turns out they both survived. I know that at the end of Reanimator, it is implied that West died but it still had that 1950’s B-movie feel of the “What If?” ending and we don’t actually see West die, we only see him an a seemingly inescapable predicament. At the end of Bride, however, there really is no way they could have survived, so like with Dr. Hill’s head not being squashed, so too are the deaths of West and Cain retcond. Cain is not in Beyond but it is mentioned he is alive.
The movie opens up the same night that Bride ended. We see some kids having a camp-out in their backyard. The year is 1990 (the year Bride of Re-Animator came out). One of the boys is telling the other ghost stories to make the movie ironic. When the boy who lives there goes into the house, in a few minutes, his older sister is attacked by one of West’s zombies. West meanwhile is trying to undo the evil he has created because as has always been implied, West is not evil, just misguided, obsessed with his work, arrogant, pretentious, and seems compelled to do the things he does as if he cannot help himself sometimes. He ends up being arrested that night and drops the syringe of re-agent, which the boy whose sister was killed picks up. He is sent to prison with the help of Cain’s testament against him because apparently after everything, finally Cain snaps back to sanity. The movie then flash-forward’s to thirteen years later (2003, the year Beyond Re-Animator came out). The good doctor is up to his old experiments with the little resources he has trying to figure out why his experiments in the past always went wrong. He figures out that life is not only chemical as he previously speculated but also electrical. He discovers the NPE or Nano-Plasmic Energy which is basically the soul, spirit, life force, chi`, Ruach, etc. West however thinks that it is not a personal thing and can be transferred body to body. The new doctor at the prison happens to be the boy from early whose sister was killed and for some reason, rather than blaming West for killing his sister and hating him, he is fascinated by him and his work and wants to take Cain’s old place by West’s side. With the help of the doctor, Howard, West gets all the necessary components of his perfect re-agent that he had been working on since we first met him. The experiments go as well as they always have. Things get messy again when another love interest enters the picture, a reporter who is reporting on the prisons condition to let the public know how crappy it is. The Warden is a creeper in every sense of the word and when trying to rape her and manipulate her fails, he kills her and tells the guards it was the prisoner who he had already beaten almost to death (although there is no danger of him dying as he was already dead) who killed her. Howard, like Cain, in agony over his lost love lets West conduct his experiment and he ends up giving her the NPE from the Warden who west killed (I told you West is a hero) and tings get weird.
At first it does not seem like it is going to work but then she seems perfectly normal; however, since it was not her own NPE things get fucked-up. She doesn’t start acting like the warden per se…well she sort of does for a bit, but she more acts like a insane demon and now seems to suffer from DID (Disassociated Identity Disorder, previously known as multiple personality disorder). The prisoners break out of their cells, West brings back the Warden because like I said he can’t help himself, and gives him a rats NPE and he does begin to act like a rat and mutate a bit but he still has his old personality. The reporter runs away from prisoners who want to rape her and when they catch her she turns into psycho-bitch and horribly kills them all, meanwhile the Warden is going around, after he stole the re-agent from West after knocking him out (sound a little like the first film?) reanimating all the dead prisoners because he takes his job seriously and wants order. There is a lot of crazy ogre and affects that seem like something out of Evil Dead and Evil Dead (version) II. In the end West escapes pretending to be Dr. Howard and Howard meanwhile is thought to be a prisoner because he killed the reporter after she begged him to before she went all demon again (more reference to Evil Dead) and he is put in an asylum. Now I do not really like this ending because it is kind of upsetting.
However, the movie over-all is not bad. It is fun, campy, has several very comedic moments, and is quite disturbing at times. In addition, the film is definitely watchable and so I cannot give it too bad of a rating. That is the problem when you have seen many shitty zombie movies, you want to be more generous to the not so good ones because at least they do not suck that bad. As a fun film though it is ok and so I give Beyond Re-Animator 2 ¾ out of 5 stars. Bear in mind that when I do reviews of movies that are not zombie themed, my ratings will be a lot more subjective and objective rather than generous and will run on a different scale than the zombie movies.

Music and Philosophy 4.5

This is just some links I forgot to include in my blog about absolute music and how certain songs would be rendered pointless and bland if one took the absolute approach to understanding them. I mentioned a few of these in my QA as well. Also i am posting some links that have to do with rythm in everything as we were saying on friday. i agree with most of the ideas we were throwing around.

Anti-Absolutte music:
I give you three exams of very deep and meaningful songs that wihtout their lyrics, feelings, moods, and images fail as quality music altogether, in fact, if you take them just on notes and tones, they are really quite bland or at least the first one is: Aimee Mann: Just What You Are. It's a song that is either about her father or boyfriend/husband and how he will never change becuase he is the way he is. it is very deep in it's meaning the first time i heard it i was hit with this feeling that i couldd relate---like everyone knows someone like this in their lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArXL7uEQsEg&ob=av2e

The next one Keane: Somewhere Only We Know. I was a freshmen in highschool when Keane's first album came out with this song as the hit. It's a very artistic song and video it's like art house film for your ears. the lyrics are full of meaning and allagory and metaphore, like most of their songs. When i first heard this song i liked the melody and lyrics and once i really listened to it i felt like the lyrics were directed at me. we all want to go back to our little places in time and space where we were truly safe and happy and as we grow older those places seem farther away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oextk-If8HQ&feature=related

This next song, I'm not going to lie and I'm not ashamed of it: I literally cried--i'm not talking teared up but serieously cried when i first heard the song. it was a school morning during breakfast and MTV was on which is weird becuase i never really watched MTV. this song came on and it is full to the brim with meaning and emotion and truly is a beautiful song. If you notice all these pieces are songs. Anyway, the song is about things that everyone as human beings go thru in their daily lives. it's about depression, stress, and axieties (so i can relate) but it is also about how we feel so lost, little, and alone when we are in these states, but that we never really are. there are people who care about us. even when we feel like there really is no one
"Alone. That was the dreaded word. He, Arthur Dent, was a lone man, alone and lonely. On loan from another dimension. A low no one with no one to lean on" Eion Colfer.
Someone will always listen. Even a stranger. It can also be taken as a kind of love song. the one singing is telling his loved one that they will never be alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-o25K6B-E&ob=av3e

There are so many other songs that discredit absolute music theory but for now this is a good start. However i would also encourage you all to listen to this i found today. a combination of somwhere only we know and fix you. they work so well together. i was thinking how much i love those songs and that i wish there was a combination. when i google this out of curiosity and blind hope, i came up with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5UPp_-_1M

Then we have the rhythm references. during class on friday all these examples kept poping up. i wrote some of them down to make sure i posted them.  to start with, morse code is a language made from rhythm. we discussed how music would in most cases fail as a language but rhythem is a different story. well here is the more code rhythm found in Bethoven. i saw this flash video back in early highschool back when i was really into flash videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0HrbCbfwlg

Next is another flash video i first saw years ago. it involves the rhythm of an older windows operating system. believe it or not i used to be really into electronics and i thought this video was wicked cool. this guy made a song entirely out of the windows sounds:

http://winnoise.com/

This one is from a fantastic artsy movie that i fell in love with my sophmore year of high school . i highly recommend the movie. I will most likely do a review of it on here at some point. i do plan on review more than just zombie movies, i am after all a cinemaphile. it is mostly becuase i love the deep and hidden meanings in films, the philosophic, socio-political messages. and this blog is perfect for that. i actually just had a thought. we have an essentials of film class and several other film classes. we are a communications college, and we have such David Johnson philosophy classes as Art and Philosophy, Music and Philosophy, Literature and Philosophy (I hope you offer it again as i was unable to take it for next spring), we really should have a Film and Philosophy or Movies and Philosophy or Cinema and Philosophy or something. That would be great. in fact if i do become a professor, that is one of the classes i will teach. anyway, tangent, i digress. here is the link: it is about making music from houshold items:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFa96dBT9VE&feature=related

Also, I mentioned this in one of my first QA's this semester having to do with music and intetion of random background sounds. it involves a Raver (as in clubs) who upon hearing the phone ring, notices other rhythmic sounds around the flat and makes music out of them in his head and begins to dance with them. i meant to post this a while ago but i'm doing now. it's from Simon Pegg's show Spaced which is a great show especially if you are a nerd. it is like a lazy and british version of Big Bang Theory (by lazy i mean the characters are more lazy). it also has pretty much every actor from Shaun of the Dead in it. TANGENT ALERT: if you like Simon Pegg and/or like Nerds in general, i highly recommend his book Nerd Do Well. Anyway, here is the link (sorry about all the tangents, i have has a stressful day and im like half asleep right now....so i also apologize for typos.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9is5gJORl4

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (20) of the Day: Bride of Re-Animator

(In memory of David Gale [Dr. Carl Hill] 1936-1991)

So the sequel to Reanimator is of course Bride of Reanimator. Bride is just like another film with the same title: Bride of Frankenstein. Same premise except the female body it created by the Reanimator, Herbert West but is actually meant to be the “bride” of Dan Cain. It also could be said to have taken some elements from the movie Pieces (http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/05/25/pieces.aspx), of course, you could say the Frankenstein theme also inspired Pieces.
This film starts out with West and Cain fighting in the Peruvian Civil War. The original story is talking about a war in Africa. The point is though; the second movie brings in more elements from the short story. This is where West, working with the biology of certain reptiles, begins to perfect his Re-agent. Cain is still depressed about the death of his girlfriend (this is not a spoiler because I always assume you read the review about the first movie and see that movie before reading the sequel review, if you do not it is not my problem). Herbert finds her heart in the storage in the mortuary at the hospital from the last film where they are both now employed, going off to be doctors in the war after they graduated. West is on to new experiments and seems more science for sciences sake driven than in the last film where it was all for the greater good. In a way, he seems like Albert Wesker from the Resident Evil games—not movies, which is obsessed with science, and has no morals. Wait a moment…could it be that Albert Wesker is loosely based on Herbert West? Think about their names. Both their first names end in Bert and their last names both start with Wes. Hmm…I wonder.
As you can probably guess, West is making a woman out of various parts from female bodies taken from the morgue. He seems to be manipulating Cain a bit more than usually to get him to help. I do believe he genuinely cares about Cain as a friend and that is why he pushes him—without Cain, West has no friends or family and even worse (in his mind) no one on his side, no one that understands his work and his good intentioned goal.
This movie also gives us some fun stop-and-go claymation effects with West’s little morbid experiments. Things get heated when a detective shows up (who is also in the short-story) and starts snooping around the old funeral home West and Cain now live in adjacent to a cemetery (also in the short-story). Things get even worse when one of the most obvious continuity errors attacks: Dr. Hill is still alive. In the previous movie, he was decapitated, his head and body reanimated, his body destroyed, and then his head crushed. The part where his head is crushed was retcond and now he only is a head seeking revenge.
Cain also gets a new love interest and once again, West sees it only as a distraction.
There is a reference in the movie to another Lovecraft story when West suggests the sounds they are hearing are probably just rats in the wall, which is the title of Lovecraft’s story Rats in the Walls.
The end of the movie is great. The ending (as well as the whole film, but especially the ending) has that old 50’s sci-fi B-movie feel to it as well as early 80’s camp and gore. It is a decent film, nowhere near as great as the first but still fun. In addition, I really do love this ending. It is full of deep emotions and it has elements from the short story.
I give Bride of Reanimator 2.75 out of 5 stars.

Zombie Movie Review (19) of the Day H. P Lovecraft's Reanimator

“Birth is always painful”

(In Memory of David Gale [Dr. Carl Hill] 1936-1991)

1985 was a good year for zombie films. Romero released the final chapter in his original trilogy, Russo put out Return of the Living Dead that would spawn four sequels over the next twenty years, and the cult classic H. P. Lovecraft’s Reanimator came out which would also be the beginning of a trilogy. In truth, I saw the third installment, Beyond Reanimator on FEARnet years before I would see Reanimator. I love this film for so many reasons and if there was ever a B-movie to be put on a pedestal at the same level of Romero’s films. I highly recommend reading H. P. Lovecraft’s short story before seeing the film. You can read it here: http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/hwr.asp
To begin with, this is based off an H. P. Lovecraft story, which is fantastic in itself. There is so much I want to say about this film and I just hope to remember it all. The movie was created by Stuart Gordon who previously had only done theatre work and had created his own theatre company called the Organic Theater. In fact, all the actors were primarily theatre actors, which gave the film a very nice touch. Because they were all used to theatre, Gordon had them to rehearsals the whole week before shooting started. Now typically, movies do not have rehearsals but it worked well. Originally, Gordon wanted to do the piece as a miniseries with half an hour on each chapter of the short story that was very true to the story, set in the right time and all that. However, no one would pick it up so Gordon went on to make it a modern movie. Most times this is the only critique people have of the film: it is not true to the original story. However, I still love it and it is true enough. The only thing that really matters is Herbert West (the Reanimator) and Jeffery Combs nailed it! He is such a brilliant actor and a fantastical character actor. Everything I have ever seen him in (or heard when he does voice over’s) he is wonderful. One of my favorite films of his (aside from this one) is The Frighteners, which I highly recommend. Jeffrey Combs is Herbert West in the movie.
The opening credit sequence is another fun thing. The pictures are all neon colored illustrations from Grey’s Anatomy and the music, by Richard Band, was a tribute to that music of Bernard Hermann’s score for Psycho.
The plot of the movie is the same as that of the short story. The story is told by Dan Cain and the movie also follows Cain rather than West. West is a brilliant young medical student who dabbles in experiments of a Frankensteinian nature. His intentions are pure but he is a bit pretentious, arrogant, and his morals are off-kilter to those of accepted society. In the story West is more of an anti-hero, not a villain per se but someone who you do not like but sympathize with. In the movie, is the flat out protagonist and at the very least, the lesser of two evils as we discover the real villain is someone else. You will not see me giving away any spoilers in this review. The movie also added in a love interest for Cain, which is also not common with Lovecraft. His stories never really have any female roles and for those of who have read any Lovecraft you know that Lovecraft hates humanity.
The movie is scary, gross, and at times a bit disturbing but it also has some comedic moments as well. My favorite part comedic part is when we find out that the villain has bags of his blood type stored in the fridge in his office for just certain occasions like the one the movie presents us with.
What else can I say? The stuff they used for the Re-agent is actually the stuff in glow sticks, they just cut a bunch open and poured the stuff into the bottles West has.
There really is not much to say about the plot because it is very straightforward and it is a splatter flick so there is not a lot going on. There is the ethical question of “what would you do?” which gives the film more redeeming value.
Even though you would think that when it was first released there would be many critics damning it for so much gore and such a high gross factor when in fact, almost all the reviews were in favor of the film. It even won several awards: Stiges Catalonian Film Festival in 1985 for Best Film went to Gordon, Fantafestival in 1986 was awarded both Best Film (Gordon) and Best Special Effects (Anthony Doublin), and Avoriaz Fantastic Film Festival in 1986 for a Special Mention for Horror (Gordon).
The film has so many good qualities. The chemistry between the actors is fantastic; the acting quality is high (especially for a B cult movie) thanks to their theatre approach. The effects are old gags but so convincing, the story is fun and interesting. Everyone who worked on the film is amazing and knew what they were doing. I really have not one complaint about this film
I know they are not typical zombies but they are dead, most have lost most if not all of their humanity, intelligence, personality, and memories, and they are violent and will take a bite out of you. Yes you can kill them anyway you like but they are still zombies in my eyes. The story came out after Frankenstein but way before Romero and so I have no problem calling them zombies
I therefore give Reanimator 4 1/3 stars out of 5.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Zombie Movie Review (18) of the Day: Resident Evil 4: Afterlife 3D

I know I am doing three reviews today in a category that does review a day at a time but I am catching up, so sue me.
I’d like to start out by congratulating Milla Jovovich (Alice) and Paul W. S. Anderson (director) finally getting married. Yep, that is right. The star of the RE films and the director of the RE films. They got married about a year before the fourth film was released and that is what this review is about. Can I just say though, that in practically every single movie Jovovich has ever been in, that the audience always gets to see a little something something? I mean her breasts are in pretty much every film. Not that I’m complaining I love Jovovich, she is a fantastic actor, I can see why she is a model, and from the music I’ve heard of hers, her singing is great too ( to check out more visit http://www.millaj.com/) I just bring it up because it makes me laugh and smile a bit that the man that loves her has her nude in almost all the films (except this one, the only one so far they have done after being married….could be just a red herring) he has done with her. I mean I think it is great, be proud of your body but on the other hand it makes me think Anderson is saying, “Yep, that’s my girlfriend (well now wife)”. Kind of like how Brad Jones (Cinema Snob) is always showing off his wife’s “rack” (his word, not mine). I got nothing against it. And Brad, if you’re reading this, you know more than anyone that people poke fun at the things they really love. Furthermore, Jovovich said herself in an article in Hustler magazine that she loves that she "is the wet dream of nerds everywhere" And to be fair anderson does like having strong female leads which i think is great.
Anyway, it is review time. I do not usually start a review with nit picking but apparently, some plot from the previous film has been retcond leading to some continuity holes. Now, if you are like me and saw Extinction on DVD when it came out and maybe on cable once or twice and then saw Afterlife in the theater, you probably were not aware of this problem. It is a small problem but a problem nonetheless. At the end of Extinction Alice makes the treat to Wesker that she and all her clones are coming to tear down his evil empire and indeed, in the opening of Afterlife, they do. However, also at the end of Extinction, it is implied that Alice, with the help of the White Queen, was going to synthesize an antidote to the T-Virus, a cure that could have repaired the world and rid it of the undead, but apparently, this never happened. Like I said, small problem.
SPOILER ALERT! Once Alice destroys the Umbrella labs in Tokyo, she goes after Wesker who injects her with the anti-virus meaning all her special powers (healing, agility, super strength, and psychic abilities) are all gone. Now, at first it is clear it is working and I do realize she had commando training before the shit hit the fan, but throughout the rest of the movie, it seems like her body was so strong and her DNA so perfectly matched with the T-Virus, that it fought back and came back after the anti-virus had done its thing. That is just me.
So she then goes to Alaska to find Claire and the other survivors, turns out even that was a trap set by Umbrella. We also find out that the sanctuary was a boat, not a town.
Alice meets up with another group of survivors who for the last five years have been living in a prison. This sort of makes sense, I mean it is a secure facility but I’m not sure I believe there was enough food in there. I am going to assume the army left some rations as they did in the mall in Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. Turns out the military was in fact using the prison as a strong hold. We find this out when we meet Claire’s brother Chris Redfield, another character from the game. His back-story has been changed a bit. In the game, he was a “Class A” S.T.A.R.S member who Claire was trying to find. In the movie, he is sort of the same thing: National Guard.
The rest of the movie involves people dying while the group tries to get onto the boat where they believe all the other survivors must be. Obviously I am skipping a great deal of details but I figure if I explain the whole movie A) I’ll bore you with a very long review and B) You won’t need to see the movie since I told you everything that happens. This movie has some suped up mutant zombies, the kind found in RE 5 the game. Also from RE 5, is the Executioner. He is the mutant villain in this movie, the Umbrella villain being of course Wesker.
They get onto the boat and end up fighting Wesker. The thing you should watch for is a scene during the credits. Jill Valentine is back and under Umbrella brainwashing tech control. I am not sure what happened to her after Apocalypse or the girl for that matter. I assumed Jill would have stuck with Carlos and LJ but I guess she went off to do her own thing. At least Extinction tells us why Alice left the group (obviously, she fell in with them again). I assume the girl is dead. We know she had something like polio and that the T-Virus kept in check, made her healthy. Without access to the T-Virus and antivirus, she would be fucked. If the last thing she took was the virus, she would eventually die and become a zombie or possibly not die and become a mutant. If the last thing she took was the antivirus, eventually she would start to get week and not be able to walk thus becoming a liability. I know it sounds harsh but she would have gotten everyone killed. I love Jill in the games and the movie.
Resident Evil 5: Retribution comes out September 14th, 2012. You know I will be in the theater that day.
This film’s CGI was at times crappy. Even the hordes of zombies were CGI. Speaking of zombies, there was little zombie action at all in this movie. At least Extinction had that going for it. Afterlife is more about Umbrella and Wesker (and the Executioner who takes up a chunk of time in the movie) than about the zombies, but it is still a zombie movie. Like I said in the Extinction review, I am not really a fan of the whole 3D craze and some of the scenes that used it sucked but others were fairly good. I give Afterlife 2 ¾ stars out of 5

Zombie Movie Review (17) of the Day: Resident Evil 3: Extinction

Again, I am doing two reviews in one day. Reason? Like I said in my review from this morning, it has been a very hectic week and I could not keep up with it. However, I have some free time today. So, here I am, reviewing Resident Evil 3: Extinction.

Like RE-2, there is not much to say about this movie (or the fourth one for that matter).  Can I still review it though? Of course, I can. I would much rather do reviews with video in the style of the Cinema Snob and Obscurous Lupa but sadly I only have an integrated webcam and no editing/splicing software. If I could do reviews like that, I would have such a ball! I could easily make the reviews last at least 10 minutes. If you notice, I do emulate Snob and Lupa somewhat in my reviews. And now for something completely different:
Resident Evil Extinction, at the time was considered the worst out of the movies; however, it now has to compete with Resident Evil 4: Afterlife. I myself am not sure which is worse. I would like to say 4 but that is only because I am not into the 3D camera style filming or the massive amounts of obvious CGI. I will determine, however, which is worse by the end of the Afterlife review.
Why is Extinction so bad? Well it does not live up to the action and plot of the last two movies. I suppose it is more related to people’s expectations being let down. It had been awhile since a Resident Evil movie so fans were excited more than hesitant, myself included. So it really is not the movie’s fault, it was just never given a chance.
The director of the RE films, Paul W. S. Anderson, is also not to blame. As directors go, he is fairly decent and uses a lot of creative ideas in his films. For example, with RE Extinction, as a kid he was a huge fan of the Mad Max films. Since Extinction is a post-apocalyptic movie, he wanted introduce those films to the next generation and hope that they would go back and watch the Mad Max films. This can be seen in Extinction with the armored convoy traversing thru the desert wasteland that was once America. It is clearly a love letter to the Mad Max series.
The film also has various parallels with Romero’s Day of the Dead. Like Day of the Dead, RE Extinction takes place after the world has been taken over by the dead. There is a scene in RE Extinction that is a mirror of a scene from Day involving Dr. Logan showing Bub objects for him to remember how to use. Both scenes include a phone. If you would like to see how they compare see the links below (the day of the dead video is a little longer than it needs to be, you can skip to 2 minutes in if you want) Day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So3wvWZ8EvM Extinction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72TSR1n9xG8
The movie also brings back the Hive, well, the Hive II. It even has an upgraded Red Queen i.e., the White Queen. This is one thing fans did like; the movie brought back some elements from the first as well as second film creating a good deal of solid continuity and fun. For example, the lab technology in the Hive is a combination of the technology seen in the Hive from RE and the technology in the Detroit Umbrella Lab at the end of RE: Apocalypse but at the same time making it look new and different. The Hive II is also a reference to Day of the Dead as the whole film is in an underground research bunker.
RE Extinction also brings in some new characters, one of which is another from the games, Claire Redfield. The movie’s outfit for her is not as accurate as Jill’s was but the fans were still happy that another character from the games was included. The movie also finally introducing Albert Wesker although the actor does not do a good job of portraying him properly. Fear not though, the actor who plays him in the fourth installment, Resident Evil: Afterlife does a much better job.
The movie has some fun scenes with lots of zombie killing action and Alice gets to show off her badass powers. Now I am usually against fast moving zombies, and this movie features a few of those but they do not bother me. For one thing, there is an explanation for them being so fast and strong: they have been given more T-Virus that has been altered and thus has mutated them. Remember that the T-Virus’ sole purpose is to reanimate dead cells and if a corpse is pumped with enough of it, there should be less fear of ankles and tendons snapping since the T-Virus is preventing rot.
A few likable characters die and one of them has a very nice martyr death scene. Alice then has to part from the group who are heading for Alaska where there is apparently no infection, to continue her personal, but warranted, vendetta against the Umbrella Corporation. The Whit Queen helps her to take down the Mutant villain which is the Tyrant type from the game who is (SPOILER ALERT!) also previously in the movie, the Umbrella villain, Dr. Isaacs, like the Nazi before, he seems to have Nazi ideas like having no morals and doing horrible torturous experiments in the name of science just like Mussolini. Since this is obvious and really isn’t a spoiler, Alice is of course triumphant (with some help) and so she is free to keep her deal with the White Queen to use her blood to make an antidote for the T-Virus which would kill all the zombies if sprayed like crop dusting and would not only fight infection like the Anti-T-Virus does but also inoculate and prevent infection in the first place.
I guess Resident Evil 3: Extinction is not that bad and in the end, mostly because of the nods to Romero, I give it 3 out of 5 stars.