PRAISE for THE G.O.R.E. SCORE
"The G.O.R.E. Score is weird, honest, insightful and wicked fun. Best place on the Net to get the low-down on horrific pop culture. I'm addicted."
-New York Times bestselling, multiple Bram Stoker Award-winning author, and Marvel Comics writer Jonathan Maberry
“Tony Schaab is a straight shooter. You may not agree with all of his reviews, but you will get an honest opinion. What more could the fan of horror movies and novels want? Tony knows his stuff! And that's so refreshing in this day and age!”
-Dr. Pus, Owner/Founder of “Library of the Living Dead Press”
"An excellent source for insightful and well written reviews. Tony has created a very unique review system, so when I need my fill of G.O.R.E, this is one of my favorite stops."
-Timothy W. Long, author of “Among the Living, A Zombie Novel”
“My, you’re windy!”
-My mother
LEGAL DISCLAIMER:
The G.O.R.E. Score, Volume 1:
A Review Guide to All Things Zombie
by Tony Schaab
Published by TwinStar Media at Smashwords
Copyright 2010 by Tony Schaab
Cover image adapted from the theatrical poster of the 1979 film Zombie, produced by Variety Film Corporation. Cover design by Tom Schriner.
The information contained within this book is of general nature and intended purely for entertainment purposes only. The author has taken all reasonable care in producing and presenting the content contained herein, especially with regard to accuracy and including up-to-date information; however, the author does not accept responsibility for any loss, expense, or liability that you may incur from using or relying on the information sourced from this book.
The reviews in this book (and on the corresponding website) are unbiased and are solely the opinion of the author. Aside from some products being donated to the author for review, the author is not paid by any institution to write any individual reviews and does not accept any other form of gifts or payments in exchange for writing a review of an item.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
*** indicates a review written specifically for this Volume
What IS a zombie? Thoughts on an “official” definition
Doctor Who: “The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances”
Doctor Who: “The Waters of Mars”
The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies
Night of the Living Dead (1990)
***The X-Files: “Hollywood A.D.”
The Great Alaskan Adventure…with Zombies
Paul is Undead: The British Zombie Invasion
***Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Zombies: A Record of the Year of Infection
COMIC BOOKS and GRAPHIC NOVELS
Marvel Zombies vs. Army of Darkness
The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks
Zombieworld: Champion of the Worms
***Dead Rising: Chop ‘Til You Drop
The House of the Dead: Overkill
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and OTHER WORKS
INTRODUCTIONS
About The Scoring System
Thank you so much for taking the time to explore this book. I watch zombie movies, read zombie books, write zombie stories, and play zombie video games fairly regularly, so I created this book and my website to have somewhere to express my thoughts on all the fun undead — fundead, anyone? anyone? okay — stuff I come into contact with daily. The website has become fairly popular fairly quickly, so much so that the book you now hold in your hands was released less than a year after I created The G.O.R.E. Score online. This volume collects the first batch of reviews from the website, plus some reviews written exclusively for the book. Be sure to visit www.TheGOREScore.com to read more reviews, my fiction writings, and lots more about the undead walking menace that we all have come to know and love.
When I first created The G.O.R.E. Score, one of my primary focuses was to get back into writing regularly, and I quickly decided that I wanted to share my love of zombie movies, books, etc., with all of my fellow zombie-lovers, as I know so many of us have seen so many different zombie films and read different zombie novels or comics, the good, the bad, and the ugly!
I tried specifically to focus on items that might be “under the radar,” released by smaller publisher or film studios, to give you, the reader, the best opportunity to learn about items you may not be overly familiar with or may not have even known existed. Of course, you will still see some of the more “popular” zombie books, movies, etc., in this guide as well, but hopefully you’ll be able to find at least a few reviews of items that you’ll be learning about for the first time and want to seek out (or know to avoid!).
I created with a system that I hope will allow anyone who reads my reviews to easily discover what a reviewed item does better/worse/differently than other zombie films. This system rates the item on four distinct levels, allowing readers who are seeking to find/avoid particular details of zombie-centric stuff to easily identify the specific area they want to know about:
G: General Entertainment – how engaging the story is (plot, pacing, etc.)
O: Original Content – what the item does differently, better, or uniquely in terms of “zombie art”
R: Realism – believability of acting/writing, attention to detail in setting, etc.
E: Effects and Editing – how the “blood and guts” look or sound, scoring of a movie, the more “technical” aspects of the item
When you average the scores from the four individual categories (adding them and dividing them by 40), you get what I call the “Total Score.” Now, it’s important to note that the Total Score is NOT an exact indicator of how “good” or “bad” the reviewed item is, it’s simply an average of the four different categories. That having been said, the Total Score of a reviewed item usually means that it falls into one of four ranges that indicate how enjoyable the item may be to the average consumer, what I like to call the “Verdict.” The four different ranges are:
SWEET : 10 to 7.5 – Items that Score this high are usually the “cream of the crop” in terms of well-constructed and highly-enjoyable for the average viewer. Items in this range should be actively sought out by the zombie lover, and you shouldn’t be disappointed when you do get the time to experience the item in question.
A’IGHT : 5 to 7.5 – Items that Score in this range usually have many redeeming qualities to them, and can please a lot of the people a lot of the time. While some zombie fans may find more to love in this category than others, odds are good that items in this area will give you at least some sort of satisfaction, and are usually very safe to seek out.
MEH : 3 to 4.75 – This is the area where things can start to get “iffy.” Many of the items that fall in this range of Scores have some value and enjoyment deficiencies for a lot of people. It’s not all bad, though: many times items that fall in this range can be enjoyed by certain people, but they may not be the “safest” bet for most people.
BOO : 0 to 2.75 – You will usually find the worst of the worst in this category. Items that fall in this range have obviously scored very low in most (if not all) of the four categories, and as a result the items may not hold a lot of entertainment value for the average viewer. Those who actively seek out “bad,” retro, or “camp” movies/books/etc. may find some value here, but most people are best advised to steer clear of items in this range if you can.
Hopefully this will be helpful to anyone looking to focus on a specific aspect of a given item, or anyone who simply wants to know specific details about something without having to sit through tons of critic-rhetoric about “Why I Loved/Hated This Thing.”
I tried to avoid putting major spoilers in the reviews if at all possible, and for the majority of the reviews, I succeeded. However, some items were just plain impossible to talk about without giving some major things away, so I did my best to indicate when spoilers were coming up by inserting a Spoilers Ho! message before the juicy bit and a End Spoilers message immediately after. Feel free to avoid these paragraphs if you have the mental fortitude to do so. If you are successful in skipping these sections, then you’re a better person than I am, because I can never not read spoilers, it just eats me up inside. Kudos to you if you can!
I hope you enjoy the cover of the book as well, and I need to thank both fellow zombie author Anthony Giangregorio for the idea and my talented cover designer/graphic artist Tom Schriner. For each volume in the book series, we will be presenting an “altered” version of a well-known zombie movie poster, and I challenge you to take a good look and see if you can spot the changes we’ve made!
It is important to note that the eBook version of “The G.O.R.E. Score” has some moderate differences from the physical book. Each review in the physical book is accompanied by the poster or cover of the reviewed item, but sadly the eBook conversion process did not allow for all those images to be included here. The physical book also sports some fun fonts and titling differences that, again, weren’t supported here in the e-version. Finally, the physical book has six different appendices, five of which sorted all of the reviewed items highest to lowest by each Score category (G, O, R, E, and Total Score) and the sixth sorted everything alphabetically; it didn’t make sense to include those appendices here, since they all referenced the review’s page numbers and eBooks don’t exactly have pages! I’m certainly not saying that one version is better than the other, but the physical copies definitely are a fun addition to any personal collection, if you ever have the chance to pick them up.
As always, feedback about the book or any of the individual reviews is welcomed and appreciated! If you have feedback you would like to share or if there are any specific pieces of zombie media you would like to see reviewed, head over to Amazon, iTunes, Smashwords, Goodreads, or just go to The G.O.R.E. Score website and let me know, and I’ll do what I can to make it happen.
Thank you very much, and I hope you enjoy the G.O.R.E. Scores!
What IS a zombie?
Thoughts on an “official” definition
A popular (and sometimes heated) debate amongst horror aficionados surrounds the question “exactly what IS a zombie?” Many people have many different ideas about the subject, and the vagueness of the true answer isn’t helped by the fact that the creators of zombie media can’t seem to provide a specific set of rules and guidelines.
Recently, I was asked to participate in a panel of “zombie experts” answering questions about the creatures and the genre in general. This gave me an excellent opportunity to not only hear some other fans’ thoughts on what they believed a zombie to be, but also to more clearly define what my thoughts on the matter were and some of the reasons why I, as a fan, enjoy watching, talking, reading, and writing about zombies so much.
When asked why I personally enjoy zombies so much, I gave a response that I believe summed it up nicely: “Zombies are the ultimate ‘unstoppable force’ – they don’t care about you, they don’t rest and won’t stop until they’ve gotten to you, they are insanely hard to permanently halt, and all they want to do is cause you harm by eating you alive. Honestly, what could be scarier than that?”
Eventually, the questions veered into the inevitable territory of what is or isn’t considered a zombie. All sorts of questions about the intelligence levels, the ability to use tools and/or work together, and of course the speed at which they move were of prime concern. When faced with the very blunt question of whether I preferred the “slow” or “fast” zombies and if I thought both kinds “counted,” I was able to give a pretty succinct reply that, in my humble opinion, was also pretty darned educated. Or at least it sounded as such. I said, “To be quite honest with you, it doesn’t matter to me. Just like there are different types of vampires, werewolves, and a host of other monsters, it is perfectly acceptable to have variations on the characteristics of the undead. I think lots of people like to hold on to traditions, and as a result, the slow zombies get a lot of love from a nostalgic viewpoint. But as they say, ‘variety is the spice of life,’ and I think that phrase should apply to death and zombies as well; fast, slow, intelligent, dumb, all types of zombies are still zombies, and should be enjoyed as such.”
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me, or with any definition that is put forth as to what makes a zombie, and I’m okay with that. The passion of a fan to stick to his/her own ideas is what makes a fan a fan, and it’s that kind of dedication passion that will keep the genre alive, no pun intended.
When asked what my favorite zombie movie/book/etc. was, the answer wasn’t quite as simple as I had thought it might be. Stopping and thinking for a moment, I realized that I’m not sure I even had an item I would refer to as my “favorite” piece of zombie media. So I answered with this: “Like so many impressionable young men and women, I was drawn in by Romero’s classic ‘Night of the Living Dead’ as a teenager, and have really been hooked on the undead ever since. Also, it takes a little bit of courage for me to admit this, but as a very young boy I was scared absolutely out of my wits by Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’ video, so I guess that was the item that technically began my interaction with zombie stories. To this day, I still get the shivers and a little anxious when I watch the video…but don’t tell anyone, okay?”
At the end of it all, I think I came away with a newfound respect for fans of the zombie genre, and I’m certainly proud to be counted among them. Whatever your reason for enjoying watching the undead try to take over the world, I hope you enjoy your zombie mania with pride.
In addition, I respect whatever definition of “zombie” you hold near and dear to your heart. With the recent explosion and the rise of the popularity of zombies over the last decade or so, there have come many creators of zombie stories, videos, comics, and more, who have pushed the formerly accepted boundaries of what a “zombie” truly is. Tales of “intelligent” zombies run rampant these days, which used to be a no-brainer in terms of something that excluded a creature from being a zombie! Many stories incorporate zombie animals, or zombie-like creatures whose sole purpose is actually something other than eating the flesh of the living. Heck, even Romero himself had his zombies half-running after their victims in “Night of the Living Dead,” and many of them used tools and rocks in their attacks. It just goes to show, pretty conclusively, that there has never been a definitive definition for what a zombie truly is, from creators, fans, or anyone else.
In conclusion, for the purposes of deciding which items to review and give the G.O.R.E. Score treatment, here is the definition I have created to give myself a definitive guideline. Even if you disagree with it, I hope you can understand the rationale behind my thinking.
If you don’t agree with me, I might just have to send one of my undead friends around to your place to see about “convincing” you otherwise.
ZOMBIE: A creature (usually deceased and reanimated, or suffering from an all-consuming and debilitating disease) that is driven by a single motivation (usually the need to eat meat or flesh, or a desire to cause physical harm to those different that itself). These creatures may portray a myriad of different characteristics, including varied levels of intelligence, mobility, and rate of physical decay, but they all share a common theme: they are constantly and continuously driven by their single motivation, and will stop at nothing to achieve their goal.
MOVIES AND TELEVISION SHOWS
AMERICAN ZOMBIE
Run time: 89 minutes
“American Zombie” is a very interesting concept of a movie – a faux-documentary that seeks to explore the plight of the zombie as a minority culture. In the realm of this movie, zombies co-exist with humans in everyday life, but their population numbers are fairly minimal; according to a civil servant in the film, there are an estimated 600 zombies in the greater Los Angeles area, meaning there are probably only a few thousand in the entire country, if the statistics are accurate and extrapolated based on the total national human population.
The movie follows a pair of filmmakers as they follow four different zombies and get a glimpse of the routines and struggles of their everyday lives. It culminates in the all-human film crew being given unprecedented access to shoot footage at “Alive Dead,” a zombie-only gathering of mysterious nature. Things get a little ugly at the end of the story, as things tend to usually do in a zombie movie.
As I mentioned, it’s an interesting concept for a movie, but one that ultimately gets bogged down both in the execution of the film and the basic opposing nature of the two genres being meshed together – viewers of a zombie film usually have a very specific idea of what they are going to get: fairly fast pacing, quick-hitting action, and lots of gore and carnage, and these are all things you just don’t usually get in your standard documentary film. As a result, watching this movie may be a very disappointing experience for some, especially those who don’t know much about the film before they sit down to watch it.
In the world of “American Zombie,” there are three types of zombies: the “feral” zombie (the ones that want to eat your brains), the “low-functioning” zombie (largely brain-dead but also largely harmless, good for menial labor), and the “high-functioning” zombie (who can walk, talk, think, and act just like an average person except they are, y’know…dead). While the film goes to great lengths to create this detailed information to help separate its zombies from the “standard” rules, very little is done with this information in the film – the four zombies being followed by the film crew are all high-functioning, we see very little of the low-functioning group, and we see absolutely no feral zombies at all. Also, a doctor in the “documentary” explains the medical rationale of “zombification” in great detail, but the facts provided don’t really support themselves throughout the film. For example, the cause of reanimation is a virus that lays dormant in all humans, but is only activated when a human suffers a “traumatic” death; that’s all well and good, but all the zombies we see, including the four being followed by the film crew, all have pretty minimal physical damage to their bodies, so their deaths couldn’t have been all that traumatic (although the lack of massive head wounds, spilling entrails, and the normal stuff that might mark a “traumatic” death is probably more attributed to the lack of budget than anything else). Plus, zombies can’t remember anything about their previous lives unless given that information from an external source (acquaintance, news source or report of their death), so it’s just assumed that they all died “traumatic” deaths, whatever that term means to begin with.
Ultimately, “American Zombie” is a very unique film existing in the zombie genre, and is worth a look if you are up for a different kind of zombie film. But be forewarned, those movie watchers expecting the high-action, high-gore zombie movies we have all come to know and love will probably turn this movie off very quickly, and should probably steer clear altogether.
Let’s check out the Score numbers:
G: General Entertainment – Like I mentioned above, if you know what you are getting before you start watching the movie, then you should be pleasantly surprised. There are good moments of subtle comedy along with social commentary and even a hint of true emotion. The film definitely feels like a documentary, often going into nuanced detail about a given zombie’s life, routine, etc. Without giving too much away, spoiler-wise: the true zombie “attack” action, when it finally does come, is minimal and feels forced, and in my opinion detracts from the overall value of the movie’s content. I do give this movie credit for a great line from a pro-zombie preacher when he says “Jesus loves zombies…Jesus was the original zombie!” I never really thought of it that way before, but I guess he is right, Jesus is the original zombie…except for the whole “eating of human flesh and brains,” of course, unless that stuff was left out of the Bible on purpose… 7/10
O: Original Content – The film does go to great lengths to differentiate their zombies from the “standard” zombies, but the movie actually loses points here for not delving further into the mythos it works so hard to create. It feels like there is a lot of unexplored territory in the different types of zombies, how they are accepted in different areas of society other than just the Los Angeles area where the documentary was focused, and the history of the “Dead Alive” festival and the zombie community in general. While pretty original, the amount of open-ended questions really leaves the viewer with a feel of a missed opportunity to further explore the world created here. 6/10
R: Realism – The point of a documentary, even a fake one like we have here, is to show the viewer the “realness” of the topic. While “American Zombie’s” filmmakers did a good job of making me believe the footage of zombies and their integration into society, I feel like we got so many individual interviews with the individual zombies that we missed seeing how they truly interact with humans in this society. Also, during the scenes where the in-movie cameramen were shooting “real” conversations between the in-movie filmmakers, their interactions and dialogue felt really forced and insincere, and I just…didn’t believe the actors who were playing the film crew. 4/10
E: Effects and Editing – A very low score here, unfortunately. While the film was edited well and had a good documentary-style feel to it, the gore and effects were minimal, and that is not just due to the fact that there isn’t a lot of on-screen carnage. I really feel that the low budget of the film hampered the movie’s ability to make the zombies we do see seem believable: a couple have some pretty gruesome injuries we get to see, but most of the zombies simply get a little grey makeup on the face and some dried blood and skin here and there, and we’re asked to believe that they all died “traumatic” deaths. Honestly, I mistook a few characters for humans until the story told me they were zombies, that’s how little physical difference there was between some zombies and the humans in the film. 3/10
TOTAL SCORE: 5/10
VERDICT: A’IGHT
A very average score for what ends up being a very overall average movie, which is exactly what you get when you take an above-average idea and combine it with below-average execution.
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
BOY EATS GIRL
Run time: 80 minutes
This is the first viewing I’ve ever had of a zombie movie that came out of Ireland, and I must say, I was pleasantly surprised.
“Boy Eats Girl” was clearly made in response to the success of 2004’s smash zom-com hit “Shaun of the Dead.” While this film obviously didn’t reach the same heights (in either exposure or quality), it does have some great high points and great takes on a lot of ideas that other zombie movies don’t pull off as effectively.
The movie clocks in at a scant 80 minutes long, which is probably to its advantage, and really doesn’t use any “name” actors, at least none that audiences here in the U.S. will be familiar with (the “biggest” star in the movie is Samantha Mumba, who is borderline-memorable for her singing career and role in the 2002 remake of “The Time Machine,” a movie I very much enjoyed). Everything else I want to say about the film falls under a Score category, so let’s get right to it!
G: General Entertainment – the comedic scenes were very funny, and the gory scenes were nice and bloody, but unfortunately the movie feels clunky when trying to transition between the two. This film clearly won’t be winning any acting or story awards, but it does a pretty good job of keeping the viewer engaged. 8/10
O: Original Content – while there have been other movies that try to combine teen-comedy and zombie-horror (“Dance of the Dead” and “Night of the Living Dorks,” to name just a few), this movie has a decidedly “British humor” feel to it, making it a very unique entrant into the category. This film also gets bonus points for taking the explanation of its zombies back to the “roots” of the zombie, relying heavily on voodoo elements to explain how the reanimation works. 6/10
R: Realism – while it does seem, at first glance, like a lot of the teens in this movie react in a “realistic” way to their classmates reanimating and their world turning upside-down in front of them, upon closer inspection a lot of the characters’ actions just don’t make sense. A lot of characters make really bad choices, like continually trying to reason with the zombies, or pounding on a door to be let in only to have the door opened for them and continuing to stand outside peering around to find the source of the “mystery noise.” Even the zombies’ actions contradict themselves: when the lead character becomes a zombie, he says he is “faster…stronger…and I don’t feel pain,” sentiments the other zombies seem to share…until the plot needs them to forget it, of course. A zombie that gets stuck in the hand with scissors yelps in pain; zombies that catch on fire howl and run around trying to put themselves out; and all the “faster…stronger” zombies don’t even come close to catching the “Mom” character who casually meanders in and out of her car in the climactic scene. Too many inconsistencies here to outweigh the moments of true realism and emotion some characters do give us. 4/10
E: Effects and Editing – not bad here, when the effects finally do come, that is; the first third of the movie or so is zombie-free, and the first scenes with the zombies use the “hidden” side-shots and the shadows to make you think the undead are probably more gruesome than they really are. But when they do make their presence known, the gore and kills are actually quite good-looking. The scene of killing zombies with the tractor-thresher is extremely impressive, I must admit, and probably worth the price of admission alone! 6/10
TOTAL SCORE: 6/10
VERDICT: A’IGHT
Not a “must-see” by any stretch of the imagination, but if you are looking for an above-average zombie movie that gives you a pretty unique spin on the undead and how they roll with the “kids these days,” you could do a lot worse than this one.
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
DEAD & BREAKFAST
Run time: 88 minutes
On the DVD cover of “Dead & Breakfast,” Harry Knowles of Ain’t It Cool News said that the movie is “the U.S. answer to ‘Shaun of the Dead.’” After reading that, I was a little concerned: “Shaun of the Dead” is an amazing film, and a rom-zom-com (romantic zombie comedy) is amazingly hard to pull off correctly, as evidenced by the piles of praise for “Shaun” and the piles of many other movies that have tried and met with varying degrees of success (see my reviews for “Boy Eats Girl,” “Idle Hands,” and “Zombie Strippers,” to name just a few).
Imagine my relief when I found myself laughing out loud several times while watching the movie. “D&B” is in fact a very entertaining film with a surprising amount of fairly-good-looking gore included. It does have some shortcomings, including trying too hard to make some scenes too funny and issues with editing jarring the viewer in and out of moments, but on the whole it is a pleasant surprise for a movie that no one really seems to know or talk about too much.
For a self-proclaimed “independent film,” the cast is surprisingly recognizable and above-average, including David Carradine and his daughter Ever, Gina Phillips (of “Jeepers Creepers” fame), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (now best known as The Comedian from “Watchmen”), Portia de Rossi, Jeremy Sisto, and Deidrich Bader (most recognizable as the weird neighbor from “Office Space” and one of the main characters of “The Drew Carey Show”). The story revolves around a group of five friends traveling to a wedding but, wouldn’t you know it, they get lost along the way and have to stay the night in a very odd Bed & Breakfast on the outskirts of a small Texas town chock full of quirky characters. Murder, mayhem, and dancing zombies ensue.
Let’s score this one up with a side of bacon (it’s a breakfast joke, get it? Because the movie is called “Dead & Breakfast?” I’m giving you gold here!):
G: General Entertainment – As I mentioned above, I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit throughout the film. Unfortunately, the writer/director, Matthew Leutwyler, tried to squeeze in too many jokes for a film with a scant 88-minute run time, and many would-be comedic moments fall flat. The comedy aside, however, the story and pacing are good, and the movie definitely keeps the viewer engaged and interested. 8/10
O: Original Content – this film scores high in this category for two main reasons: first, the explanation of how the zombies came to exist is a fairly unique one, involving a “Far Eastern” ceremony and a soul-collection box. The zombies in this film can run, think, and speak, but they are all controlled by the primary spirit that inhabits the body of the person who possesses the box. The second original plus for this film is much of its music, which is original content and was written and performed by Zach Selwyn. Selwyn gets to play one of the locals who turns into a zombie, and his songs are catchy and humorously describe what’s going on in the scenes without feeling over the top or forced. The rest of the plot elements and storyline are fairly standard horror fare, but kudos to “D&B” for taking enough chances to make it stand out from the pack. 7/10
R: Realism – Probably the low point of the movie here. The little town the friends get stuck in, Lovelock, is small enough to not show up on any maps, but they’ve got no problem having huge parties with people who seem to come out of nowhere and return to nowhere just as quickly. The townspeople we do meet are fun and unique, but the details don’t quite add up: why is an eccentric Zen Master like Carradine and his professional French chef running a dingy bed & breakfast in the middle of nowhere? Why does the lady who runs the town’s hall of records have semi-automatic guns and high-tech crossbows coming out the yin-yang? These characters definitely make for entertaining storytelling, but they feel a little out of place and unrealistic in the grand scheme of things. 6/10
E: Effects and Editing – A surprising amount of good-looking blood and guts in this film, and as mentioned previously, the original music really adds a great element to “D&B.” What the movie does well, however, is somewhat negated by choppy editing that can really jar you out of a scene with its unintentional “quick cuts.” Fortunately, you’ll be having such fun enjoying the story that the editing errors are pretty easy to overlook. 7/10
TOTAL SCORE: 7/10
VERDICT: A’IGHT
This is a fun, quirky little film that I do recommend you take the time to look up, especially if you are looking for a zombie film that is a little off the beaten path. I’m glad I found it!
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
DEAD SNOW
Run time: 90 minutes
When a zombie film is called the “darling” of the increasingly-prestigious Sundance Festival, you know you’ve got a movie on your hands that is at least worth a look-see. Fortunately for those who do seek out the movie in question, “Dead Snow,” there should be something in it for every zombie fan to reward them many times over for finding this film.
“Dead Snow,” or as it’s known in the original Norwegian language in which it was filmed, “Død Snø,” could probably be best defined as an homage to the small genre category of horror comedies, especially those of the days gone by – the ‘80s and ‘90s in particular. Indeed, the characters directly reference such snarky classics as “Evil Dead” and “Braindead” during their conversations with one another. The main characters consist of six college students who travel to a remote cabin in the snowy woods – sound familiar, “Evil Dead” fans? – on their Easter break for some good old-fashioned fun and fornication. Well, technically five college students are the main characters, as one meets her untimely demise at the hands of the zombies as she is going to meet up with the others, before the title of the movie even hits the screen.
That’s your first exposure to “Dead Snow:” the movie opens with a hapless, helpless female running through snow-covered trees with zombies in hot pursuit, all set to the lovely classical tune “In the Valley of the Mountain King.” It’s the first three minutes of the film, and you immediately know you’ve got one fun film on your hands.
Oh, and I forgot to mention one important thing: these aren’t just any old regular zombies. Oh, no, how could they be in a movie like this? That’s right: they’re Nazi Zombies, replete with a convoluted backstory obligingly told by the requisite Creepy Old Man who just happens to be wandering through the snow-capped mountains alone for some reason and conveniently stops by the isolated cabin a few short hours before the all-out zombie attacks begin. Cliché and overdone, yes, but in a movie like this, that clearly wants to honor those that came before, it feels perfectly in tune.
Even though the plot does suffer from some Swedish-sized holes (heck, maybe this is in homage to the old horror comedies too!), there is simply too much fun to be had while this film is playing for the avid zombie viewer to stop and get upset about it. The carnage is plentiful, and the movie even manages to give us a few gore-related tidbits that I’d never seen before, which is hard to accomplish after 40-plus years of modern zombie movies. Pay special attention to the young man who sews and duct-tapes his own wounds shut before finding himself hanging off a cliff while grasping onto the large intestine still actively spilling out of the midsection of a zombie that is still trying to kill him.
Yeah. Told you the film was a good time.
In the spirit of the native Norwegian language in which the movie was filmed – don’t worry, the DVD and Blu-Ray gives you the option of watching an English dubbed version or the original Norwegian with English subtitles – “La oss komme til poengene,” or “let’s get to the Score:”
G: General Entertainment – I was mostly enamored with this movie and the great amount of fun everyone seemed to be having. Even as a self-proclaimed “Plot Nazi,” I wasn’t terribly bothered by the inconsistencies in the story, which mostly revolved around the Nazi Zombies’ background story and their seemingly-random attacks on certain people. The references to other zombie and horror films are plentiful, with tongues planted firmly in cheek the whole way: it’s no spoiler to tell you that the characters who say “I’ll be right back” and the first to have sex are the first ones to die. The zombies are scary and seemingly everywhere, and the blood and body parts fly freely. An all-around good time. 9/10
O: Original Content – Surprisingly for a movie that seems to be a loving tribute to other movies, there is a decent amount of uncharted ground here. Crazy scenes like one of the characters biting the zombies back and another character waking up to find a couple of zombies rifling through her still-attached innards really give you things in this movie that help set it apart from others. Plus, the setting is amazing: seeing fresh blood splatter on pure white snow and seeing the heat rising off of intestines freshly pulled from someone’s body give the viewer the chance to see things in “Dead Snow” they may never see anywhere else. 7/10
R: Realism – Every movie has its lowest point, and it’s some of the logistical questions that push this film into a lower score here. The rationale behind why the Nazi Zombies attack is very flimsy, and doesn’t hold up when they start attacking everybody in sight. The college students are awfully knowledgeable about what a zombie is and how you can avoid being killed by one, until they need to use that knowledge, of course – one character in particular screams “Don’t let them bite you!” right before he moves to stand in front of the window and simply wait there until the zombies inevitably crash through and make him not-alive anymore. As mentioned above, however, you’ll probably simply be having too much fun watching the movie to even care. 5/10
E: Effects and Editing – The film looks amazing in almost every aspect. The wide shots of the beautiful natural settings of the mountains of Norway are spectacular. The special effects are unbelievably good-looking, and plentiful as well; the entire second half of the movie is an absolute gore-a-thon, and the intricate attention to detail in the carnage given by the effects crew is borderline-obsessive. The best part of the movie, though, has to be the actual editing of the film: the first half of the movie plays like a very serious horror film, and the second half is a straight-up fun-loving splatterfest. Some people may find the juxtaposition a little jarring, but I thought it gave me, as an avid zombie movie viewer, the perfect mix of two of the best kinds of undead movie I know and love. 9/10
TOTAL SCORE: 7.5/10
VERDICT: SWEET
I firmly believe that the makers of “Dead Snow” were trying to create a movie that not only honored the fun walking-dead movies of the last 20 years, but also added their own mark on the genre. If so, I’d say they succeeded in a fashion that should be enjoyable to even the pickiest of zombie lovers.
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
DOCTOR WHO: “The Empty Child” & “The Doctor Dances”
Run time: 90 minutes
The great thing about sci-fi shows on television is that many of them like to explore a variety of different unusual and out-of-the-ordinary topics to help differentiate themselves from your more “standard” television fare. The recent incarnation of the “Doctor Who” (“DW”) series, while probably seeming a little quirky and a little “British” to American audiences, really seems to enjoy creating storylines about a wide variety of interesting subjects, ranging from a planet full of Time Lords locked in a temporal bubble to a galactic Starship Titanic that conveniently takes excursion stops on present-day Earth to stories set in the past, present, and future.
I have also reviewed a 2009 episode of “DW” called “The Waters of Mars” that involved the rather unique concept of “water zombies.” It was brought to my attention by a reader that “DW” has previously covered zombies as well, in a two-story arc from the 2005 “first season” of the current incarnation of the show. A funny side note here: I had actually started watching the 2005 season of “DW” when it first came out, as I was intrigued by the “re-birth” of such a classic sci-fi series. Unfortunately things got busy in my personal life, as personal things tend to do, and I couldn’t keep up with watching the series, only being able to see the first seven episodes before losing the ability to view regularly. The two episodes we are reviewing now were numbers nine and ten in this season, so I only missed seeing these zombie-centric episodes when they were brand-new by a matter of weeks!
But the important part is that I have seen the episodes now, and I’m happy to share my findings with you, faithful reader. If you are unfamiliar with “DW,” the show revolves around the adventures of a mysterious alien known as the Doctor who travels through time and space in his spacecraft that looks (from the outside, anyhow) like an old-school British Police Call Box, the TARDIS. Usually accompanied by at least one other companion, he explores time and space, faces a variety of foes and strives to right wrongs.
The plot line of this two-part episode revolves around The Doctor and his current traveling companion, Rose, landing in London during “The Blitz,” the period during World War II when Germany was constantly bombing Britain in an attempt to get the U.K. to surrender (they never did). They were drawn to land at this specific point in time by another temporal anomaly in the area, and soon they are haunted by a small boy with a gas mask fused to his face asking “Have you seen my Mommy?” It seems that everyone the boy touches dies but reanimates with a gas mask fused to their faces as well. The reanimated people are susceptible to some instruction, but largely follow the mental commands of the boy. It’s up to The Doctor, Rose, and a Time Agent named Captain Jack Harkness to solve the mystery before the boy turns everyone into gas-masked zombies.
Let’s give the good Doctor the ol’ Score treatment:
G: General Entertainment – “DW” episodes in the newer seasons (from 2005 onward) are generally pretty high-intensity with a lot of broad ideas and concepts bandied about, and this two-part episode is really no exception. The addition of the subplot revolving around Harkness seems semi-irrelevant to the original storyline; he and his advanced Time Ship exist mostly to give The Doctor outs and escapes to some pickles he gets into that he wouldn’t have been able to escape otherwise. The zombies are creepy, and we even get to see someone die and the gas mask take over their face…very cool! 7/10
O: Original Content – While the inclusion of “gas mask” zombies and the eventual explanation of how they came to be are fairly unique, not much else about this storyline garners much attention here. Fairly contrived plot devices abound, as the main characters get into trouble in a variety of situations and are always saved at the last minute, usually via some fantastic method that nobody saw coming. This lack of originality also spills over into the Realism section, as most of the “plot twists” leading up to the story’s climax have been done many times over in many other TV shows and movies. 6/10
R: Realism – As mentioned above, there are parts of this story where things just feel really…manufactured. The way the main characters get out of tight spots and tense situations just feels like the writers phoned it in and went to the “generic escapes” bin to solve things, and many solutions to problems feel very fake. When the characters aren’t getting in and out of pickles, however, the episodes do a good job of making you feel like you are watching a story set in the early 1940s. Also as I mentioned previously, the inclusion of Captain Jack Harkness does nothing but add to the disjointed feel of the episode. In fairness, it is the Harkness character that pretty much single-handedly spawned the “DW” spin-off series “Torchwood,” so I guess the character can’t be all that bad, huh? 6/10
E: Effects and Editing – While the “gas mask” zombies certainly do look and feel very spooky, the effects associated with them are minimal. We do get to see one person change into a zombie right after he dies, but that is really the extent of the special effects related to the zombies in this story (“DW” is infamous for big ideas done on a small budget). The gore is non-existent, as the zombie horde doesn’t really attack much, and most of the transformations of people into zombies are done offscreen. On the editing front, I was very happy to see this episode get a two-part arc, but I feel like it was stretched out a bit longer than it had to be, and the episode could have contributed more time to letting us see the zombies. 5/10
TOTAL SCORE: 6/10
VERDICT: A’IGHT
While not quite as high-paced and action-packed as the other “DW” zombie-centric episode, 2009’s “The Waters of Mars,” the zombies in this episode are infinitely more creepy, in my humble opinion, and definitely feel more like your “classic” lumbering, slow-moving zombies we’ve all come to know and love. It’s a fun episode that’s worth a look if you get the chance.
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
DOCTOR WHO: “The Waters of Mars”
Run time: 60 minutes
“The Waters of Mars” is a recent “special” (a.k.a. extended episode) of the British science fiction series “Doctor Who.” For those who aren’t intimately familiar with the Doctor Who (DW) series, the titular character is an alien known as a Time Lord who has the ability to travel through time pretty much at will via his “spaceship in a box,” the TARDIS. The series has existed on and off (mostly on) since 1963, and the most recent incarnation has been in production since 2005. There have been ten different actors to play The Doctor, and this is explained in the series through The Doctor’s ability to regenerate himself when he is seriously physically injured, and the regeneration process produces a new look and personality for him. The current version of the show tackles a wide variety of story ideas and themes, as evidenced by the episode we are currently reviewing. I am a fan of the series and have seen many of the DW episodes since 2005, and when I read this episode’s description of featuring “water zombies,” I knew this was one particular episode I had to go out of my way to check out.
The TARDIS deposits The Doctor on Mars in the year 2159, on the exact day that, according to history, the first human colony on Mars meets an unknown threat and is destroyed. The Doctor gets taken into the colony and discovers the true nature of the threat: organisms that have been frozen in the Martian ice cap, over which the colony is built, take over a few of the colonists’ bodies, turning them into “water zombies.” The organisms have a singular mission, and it’s up to the Doctor to help history become reality.
Obviously the “water zombies” aren’t zombies in the traditional sense, but I feel that their portrayal and characteristics give them the right to be included in “zombie lore.” More on this in the “O” section below. DW is notoriously hard to review, due to the nuances of the show and the varying levels of viewer/reviewer dedication to following the overall story arc of the series.
I shall do my best to Score this episode as someone who watches DW fairly routinely and is explaining the review to someone, like yourself, who might not be a regular viewer of the show:
G: General Entertainment – The entire DW series has always been the type of entertainment that you can either get into or can’t, and in the words of the immortal William Shatner, “I can get behind that.” David Tennant as the Tenth Doctor is really enjoyable to watch and adds just the right amount of “quirk” to his portrayal of The Doctor, in my humble opinion. The stories in the recent series (from 2005 onward) have been pretty entertaining and have explored some very unique storylines while still staying true to the larger DW mythos, and “The Waters of Mars” is no exception: referencing “ice creatures” that were talked about in DW lore as far back as the 1960s, it gives the committed viewer the sense that the writers are making this story part of a larger whole. DW has long been known for its penchant for making viewers fill in some of the story and plot holes themselves, and the current incarnation is no different, which can be disconcerting and “put off” some viewers, especially those who don’t watch the series routinely. 8/10
O: Original Content – As mentioned previously, some might see the description of the antagonists as “water zombies” a bit of a stretch. The characters are largely incapable of independent thought, being driven by a single instinct; instead of that instinct being to need the flesh of the living, their instinct is to need to surround themselves with water. They live in a trance-like state, letting nothing deter them from their singular objective, and they will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. Sounds like zombies to me! While the DW series has tackled the more “traditional” form of zombies in seasons past (specifically in the 2005 two-parter “The Empty Child” and “The Doctor Dances,” which I will endeavor to review here in an upcoming post), the idea of “water zombies” gives this episode a good amount of points in the originality department. 7/10
R: Realism – The episode takes place almost exclusively on Mars, and as such, there are some liberties taken with the planetary/atmospheric elements of the show, specifically in relation to how the Mars Base (“Bowie Base One,” which would never in a million years get past enough governmental subcommittees to be an actual recognized name of an installation) is designed and certain elements of the characters gaining access to/moving freely about non-pressurized areas of the base and the planet. And please, for the love of Zarquon, no more sci-fi series featuring plucky robots who have voiceboxes but for some reason can only speak their own names (this episode featured a particularly annoying “Gadget! Gadget!” robot that I wanted to throttle every time he was on-screen)! 6/10
E: Effects and Editing – While the effects of the recent seasons of DW have been fairly above-average in terms of what you normally see on TV for sci-fi shows, the editing of the show is what may really detract from the overall viewing experience. As mentioned in “G,” DW is notorious for having such big ideas crammed into such little on-screen time that the viewer often has to “fill in the blanks” on some of the plot points, and this can be very disconcerting to some viewers, especially those who are not regular viewers of the series and might not be familiar with the “finer” details of DW. 6/10
TOTAL SCORE: 6.75/10
VERDICT: A’IGHT
This is an above-average episode for fans of the series, but may not be the best jumping-on point for folks who have never seen an episode of DW before. The “water zombies” storyline isn’t enough to make this episode stand alone, and as such, I would have a hard time recommending non-fans to actively seek it out. However, if you do like science fiction shows that make you think and aren’t your run-of-the-mill “cookie cutter” type of show, DW is definitely worth your time to look into.
And now, my friends, you know the Score!
EDGES OF DARKNESS
Run time: 87 minutes
“Edges of Darkness” is an ambitious tale of a zombie apocalypse. The tale is not as focused on the actual apocalypse or what happens because of the apocalypse, but rather what happens in spite of the apocalypse. This idea for the direction of the movie is what sets this film apart from your average zombie fare. Now, as we all know, when something or someone dares to be different, they are usually met with lots of people who don’t understand, lots of people who don’t approve, and lots of people who simply don’t like it. To those people, I say: your loss is the open-minded fan’s gain, because “Edges of Darkness” is a truly unique film with ideas and sequences you definitely won’t get anywhere else.
Writer/Director Jason Horton gives us an intriguing look at a zombie outbreak, told from the perspectives of three different sets of survivors: a couple in a loveless marriage due to the husband’s odd obsession with writing stories on his computer, a zombie-ass-kicking girl who finds out she may have agreed to protect the wrong little boy, and a couple who find themselves in a rather unique predicament now that the undead have taken over the world. Really, it’s the unique characteristics of these three groups of people that help set this film apart from others, as each “mini-story” gives the viewer a heavy dose of ideas and themes normally reserved for exploration not in zombie films but in other parts of the fantasy/horror genre. Talking about the couples requires giving some (but not all) of the movie away, so be forewarned of this next section.
<<SPOILERS HO!>>
The story of the married couple incorporates heavy themes of science fiction horror, as an experimental processor installed in the husband’s computer literally comes to life in order to keep the power on during the darker days of the zombie outbreak. The story of the female warrior reveals that she is actually guarding the son of Satan, and there is an intriguing debate over whether God or Satan truly caused the zombie outbreak in the first place. And the final couple is actually a pair of vampires who are forced to come up with some creative ideas in order to maintain their food supply of fresh blood in a world where fresh blood has suddenly become very scarce.
<<END SPOILERS>>
I think what’s most off-putting to many viewers is the sad fact that they are simply unprepared for these other themes to be inserted in their zombie movie. But if you stop and think about it, why can’t other sci-fi/fantasy/horror elements be in a zombie movie? The basic premise of a zombie movie, that dead bodies reanimate and want nothing but to eat the flesh of the living, already requires a certain level of suspension of disbelief, so why couldn’t we take it one step further and throw some other crazy ideas in there? I give Horton credit for experimenting with a story that many filmmakers are probably too scared to try and tell. How effectively the story is told, of course, can only be measured by the viewer, and I suspect that even the most open-minded of viewers will find certain things about this film that they enjoy AND that they disagree with. That’s the true beauty of a one-of-a-kind film: you can’t please all of the people all of the time, so don’t try, and instead just tell a tale that’s never been told before.
Let’s get to the Score:
G: General Entertainment – I found myself very intrigued by this film. It’s important to note, however, that the zombie outbreak definitely is NOT the focal point of this movie; it’s certainly there, yes, but it serves as more of a backdrop to the three “mini-stories,” and in a review for a zombie-centric website, “Edges of Darkness” has to lose a few points here for that. 7/10
O: Original Content – The whole reason this movie is different and warrants an intriguing conversation is due to its original content, so obviously we will see a fairly high score here. Subtract just a few points for the zombies being your regular old Romero-style shufflers who can’t seem to put up a good fight to save their un-lives, and you truly do have a unique story that you aren’t going to get anywhere else. 8/10
R: Realism – This is where I felt the film suffered the most. Take away the suspension of belief due to the various sci-fi/fantasy themes in play, and many of the actors really seemed to not know how to effectively bring their characters to life. The writing was not the issue, as it was mostly solid with just a few difficult moments here and there, it just seemed like the folks in front of the camera just weren’t able to show the intricate nuances that are inherently present in characters like these. Maybe film was the wrong medium for “Edges of Darkness;” as I watched the movie, I kept feeling that the story was so intriguing but the actors were so bland that this tale really would have made an excellent novel. 5/10
E: Effects and Editing – The movie moves along fairly quickly, and the gore really looks good when you get to see it. Unfortunately, since the film does spend much of its focus on the “mini-stories,” the zombie mayhem and resulting splatter is somewhat few and far between. Great opening scene full of carnage, though – pay close attention for the female zombie with a fully-boned piece of ribcage hanging out of her mouth, gruesome! Some of the editing suffers a bit as well, with some camera shots and angles that even I found a bit odd. 5/10