Night of the Living Trev

Resident Evil: Afterlife trailer = Uh-Oh

2010-04-03T22:16:00.001-07:00

In all honesty, that Twilight Saga: Eclipse trailer that I ripped on last month didn't really stand much of chance of impressing me right from the get-go. So, in the interest of fairness, I figured I'd show that I can be equally critical of shit I like, as well.

Well, the teaser trailer for the fourth Resident Evil movie hit the Interwebs today. Check it out:

OK, look, if you know me, then you know I have no problem admitting that I love the Resident Evil film series. I know what you're thinking, but it actually goes beyond my love of zombies and my well-documented ~~obsession with~~ appreciation of Milla Jovovich. Those two things are certainly a factor, but believe me, there are plenty of other zombie movies AND Milla movies that I can't stand, so it's not as simple as me blindly falling in line for any film that combines the two. That being said, I'll also be the first to admit that there's not exactly a lot of good reasons for me to enjoy these movies. You'll never hear me claiming they are great movies or anything (although I think the first one is actually pretty decent and slightly underrated. They're just good dumb fun, is all...and it works for me.

That's why my reaction to this new trailer is so surprising. It's not like there was some great precedent that this fourth film has to live up to. And yet, this trailer...this is not good. I realize I sound quite silly saying that I'm worried about the quality of the fourth film in a B-grade zomebie/action series, but then that's my point. If I was oddly entertained by the previous three, it says something as to how crappy this trailer is if I saw it and thought, "yikes."

So what exactly is my problem with this? A little bit of it probably has to do with my disappointment that the movie looks to be ignoring the "army of Alice clones" cliffhanger from the last movie. I know, I know, this is just a teaser, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're not outright ignoring it - but judging by what we see here, I'm wondering if it's just something that is quickly addressed and then ignored. Perhaps the multiple Alice's are all wiped out in the film's first act or something. I hope I'm wrong about that. And no, it's not just because of my warped desire to see multiple Millas ~~in my dreams~~ on the big screen. I just hate when a series introduces a legitimately intriguing idea and then just abandons it rather than see it through.

But, whatever, that's actually a minor issue, and one I need to see more footage of the movie before I can really start commenting on. No, my main problem with this trailer can be summed up with one simple number and one simple letter: 3D.

Sure, I appreciate that RE: Afterlife was at least smart enough to actually film in 3D, rather than just go with this "convert to 3D afterwards" bullshit. And I give them credit for actually using the same cameras and technology that James Cameron employed for Avatar.

But, judging by this trailer, it seems that while they may have borrowed Cameron's tech, they sure as shit didn't learn anything from his methods. What made the 3D in Avatar so great was how Cameron used it - as a way to enhance depth of field and thus make everything in front of you seem more real and lifelike. He didn't just do 3D for 3D's sake; never resorted to just throwing crap at the screen for the audience to "duck and cover" from. But, alas, what's the very first thing we see in this trailer after the corny declaration that they're using Cameron's cameras? Why, it's Alice...throwing freaking ninja stars at the screen! Sigh. So, instead of wisely using 3D to just enhance the realism of otherwise unrealistic environments and FX, this is instead obviously going to be just another "here comes more shit flying at us" kind of 3D movie. Ninja stars, pieces of wall, sunglasses, Milla herself. It looks like Afterlife has no small supply of things to shoot out of the screen at us. It gets old in this two-minute teaser...can you imagine how it's going to feel sitting through an hour and a half of this nonsense? It's one thing for a movie that is obviously playful and tongue-in-cheek (like Piranha 3D) to resort to this approach, but any movie that even feigns some level of seriousness (like Resident Evil does) is probably better off leaving the 3D alone, lest it just become distracting and silly.

And it certainly won't be helped any by what looks to be a ridiculous over-reliance on slo-mo. Seriously, aren't we past this whole Matrix thing by now? It's alright in small doses, sure. But this trailer suggests just non-stop "look how cool this shit is" slow-motion shots of people jumping, shooting, fighting, falling, etc. This series continues to consistently (and somewhat surprisingly) make money, so I certainly don't need to tell Paul W.S. Anderson how to do his job. But, really, at this point in the Resident Evil series, why not worry less about trying to make it look fancy and cool, and just see what happens if you make a more visceral and nasty movie? It's already rated R...why not just go for it? Forget the Matrix crap for awhile...just give us Milla kicking the bloody shit out of zombies in real-time, and make it as brutal as possible. The Resident Evil games don't resort to this sort of fancy-dancy visual gymnastics - the movies shouldn't have to, either. And yes, I know the games and the movie series are pretty far removed from one another by this point, but my point remains.

Like I said, this is just a teaser, so I could be overreacting. Plus, truth be told, I know I'll end up seeing this movie, and I'll probably end up liking it. I mean, hell, Resident Evil: Apocalypse is probably one of the stupidest movies to ever get a wide theatrical release, and I liked that movie. It seems hard to believe that Afterlife could really get much worse than that. Like the other three, I'm sure this new one will probably be a decent way to turn off your brain for awhile and just have fun. But, I don't know...this trailer just does nothing for me.

At least Wesker looks alright, I guess.

Here lies Trevor Snyder...

2010-03-15T14:57:00.000-07:00

Alright, truth be told, I don't really give a damn what happens to my body after I die. At that point, I'm really just an expired bag of guts and stuff, so do with me what you will. However, I've been thinking about it, and I've decided I DO want a grave site. Well, actually, it doesn't even matter if my body is buried there, so it's not so much the grave site I want, but rather just the headstone.

I mean, sure, I don't really have any interest in what happens to my body, but let's face it - my existence is way too awesome to just let it pass without some kind of reminder for people. That's why I need a headstone - the hundreds of eventual mourners will need some place to congregate, after all.

But, have you ever noticed how boring headstones are? Oh, sure, some people gussy them up a little...include little statues or funny little sayings. But still, at the end of the day, if you've seen one tombstone, you've seen 'em all. Well this is where I want to be different. I want a kick-ass headstone to reflect a kick-ass person.

First off, forget the simple "beloved son, father, uncle, first cousin, etc., blah-blah" crap. Here's what mine should read: "Trevor Snyder. 3rd Man on the Moon, 23rd President of the United States, and the guy who renamed Constantinople to Istanbul." I'd also like an engraved image of me walking hand-in-hand with Milla Jovovich. Obviously, none of this is true, per se. But once you're dead, you no longer have to answer for your lies.

As for the birth and death dates, I want to keep that interesting also. Let's say, for instance, that I die on April 23rd, 2053. Well, I don't want the dates on my headstone to just read "Sept. 19, 1980 - April 23, 2053." Booooring! How about this:

Born: Sept. 19, 1980

Buried: April 23, 2053

Died: April 24-25, 2053

OK, finally, and I'll admit this is a weird one. Have you seen that new fad in headstones, where people actually have little TV screens built into them, that show home video packages of the person? I guess they're battery powered, and last for years for a time. Cool idea...but I don't want to bore anyone with video of me. So, I am gonna get one of those TV's, but instead of my home videos, I want it to just show the classic film Bats, starring Lou Diamond Phillips, on a constant loop.

Why Bats? Why not? It does have one of the best theme songs ever. "Bats, bats, bats, they're gonna suck you dry!!" Fuck yeah, they will. Actually, come to think of it, I want my headstone to read: "Trevor Snyder - Killed by Bats."

Avert your eyes! It's the Eclipse trailer!

2010-03-12T07:54:00.001-08:00

I hate to follow up a post discussing one of the all-time great vampire movies with a post about the series that seems dead-set on destroying vampires; but hey, that's just how it works out sometimes.

Oh, look! It's the brand new trailer for The Twilight Saga: Eclipse!

Are they freaking kidding with this shit?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. How is it that a series that was so bad from the beginning continues to somehow devolve more and more with each entry? Now, I know this was just a minute and a half teaser, but still - let me just share my initial thoughts upon watching this tripe.

The trailer starts off as I believe we want all vampire movies to start off - with a couple uncharismatic douche-bags sitting in a field of flowers talking about love. More specifically, Edward is telling Bella he will love her for all time...which might be a more powerful statement if he hadn't hightailed it out of town and potentially left her at the mercy of powerful enemies in the last film. "My bad," I guess he would say.
Next up we get Dakota Fanning (and you already know how I feel about her). She arrives to tell Edward and Bella that "the Volturi don't give second chances." Which is odd, because I'm pretty sure that's exactly how the last film ended. With the Volturi giving Edward a second chance! Oh well. Anyway, Edward meets this obvious threat with his usual response - a blank look that can barely be legally called an expression (pictured above).
Now we get to Bella asking Edward why he is against turning her into a vampire and ARE YOU FUCKIN' SERIOUS?? Didn't we already go over this ad nauseum in the last movie? In my review of New Moon, I pointed out Bella's constant annoying nagging about this issue...and now we have to sit through it again? I'm convinced that Edward must eventually turn her just to finally shut her up.
Jacob enters the picture next, and in case you didn't get that this series is all about a love triangle, he lays it out for you with some of the most direct, lazy dialogue imaginable. "I'm in love with you, and I want you to pick me instead of him." Wow, really spelling it out for us there, aren't you, Jake? Oh, by the way, he also tells her that she wouldn't have to change if she picked him - but wasn't his whole deal last time that he was worried he might lash out and horribly disfigure her face if he got angry and his inner-wolf took over? I guess he got over that. Here's hoping if that happens he doesn't claw off Bella's lower lip, leaving her with nothing to constantly bite.
Speaking of Jacob, what's the deal with Taylor Lautner in this trailer? Lautner showed the slightest hint of actual likable charisma in New Moon (which put him miles ahead of the human mannequin, Robert Pattinson). But now suddenly in this one he's delivering every line with the same sort of sleepy non-interest as Edward. Why is it a requirement for this series that the characters have to be as boring as humanly possible?
Now shit gets serious, as the film's apparent chief villain shows up. And, oh snap, it's...that one red-headed vampire chick that didn't really do anything in the first film and then showed up for a few minutes in the second one but still didn't do anything! Oh no! My opinion of Stephenie Meyer as an author is well documented, but this is just more wood for the fire. She has no concept of how to build an intriguing villain. Heck, in the first book it felt like she outright forgot she even needed any sort of conflict, and then when she remembered she just awkwardly wedged it all into the final couple chapters. Now here we are supposed to give a damn about a villain that we know pretty much nothing about. Keep in mind, this is not a new character. This chick has been in the last two films...but has not been given one single moment to develop even the slightest hint of a personality. Did she even have a line in New Moon? She's essentially the equivalent of the useless enemy henchmen in a Bond movie, except oddly elevated to the main villain role. Because we have no connection to her, we know that she doesn't pose any sort of serious threat to our main characters. And yet the movie wants us to be all excited that she is back. Fuck you, Twilight.
I hate to beat this dead horse, but check out the official synopsis of Eclipse. "Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger as Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between Edward and Jacob — knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the struggle between vampire and werewolf." Now, you tell me - couldn't that also be the exact synopsis for the last movie? It's like they're not even trying at this point. And, you know what, they probably aren't. Because dumb teenage girls and even dumber middle-aged moms are gonna eat this crap up no matter what. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna sit here and patiently wait for Daybreakers to come out on DVD.

13-Year-Old Girl > Stephenie Meyer

2010-03-11T19:34:00.000-08:00

Alright, I realize I've been letting this blog just sorta sit here and collect dust, so starting today I'm gonna try to make a real effort to write on here more often. Typically, it will be my thoughts on whatever news I come across, particularly pertaining to my beloved horror genre. For instance:

I have mixed feelings on wise-beyond-their-years kids. On one hand, they sorta creep me out. I remember hearing about how Dakota Fanning, when meeting with producers of films she was trying out for, would leave her parents and other adult handlers outside, and come into the room with her own copy of the script that she had already made extensive notes in regarding the character she was auditioning for. That's not "cute." It's scary. Think back to how dumb and scatter-brained you were when you were a young child. Now compare that to what I just said, and everything else we know and have seen of Fanning. We better hope that, as she grows older, Fanning continues to focus primarily on acting. At the rate she's maturing, she could probably rule us all one day if she turned her attention toward it.

Now, on the other hand, as someone who has worked in retail and had to deal with the usual dumb-as-bricks kids (and their equally stupid parents) on a fairly regular basis, I can see the positives of these way-too-smart kids, as well. Sure, Dakota Fanning's maturity might be a little off-putting, but at least you can probably trust her on her own for a while, without the fear that she is going to randomly tear open packages and try to stick things up her nose for no reason (that would be Lindsay Lohan, actually).

Plus, the other nice thing about these kids is that, sometimes, it's nice to hear that they really know what the fuck they're talking about. Take Chloe Moretz, for instance. This 13-year-old is best known to most for her role in 500 Days of Summer. Not to me, though, because I still haven't seen 500 Days of Summer, and am in no hurry to do so. Actually, one of the biggest reasons I avoided 500 Days of Summer was how annoying Moretz' character looked in the trailer. Sure, she only had one line ("alright, start from the beginning"), but it was delivered in such an annoying manner that I wanted to punch her. And I've found it's probably best if I avoid any movies that have a by-product of making me want to assault small children.

Still, I can't avoid her forever. And, in fact, I'm quite looking forward to Moretz' next film, the gleefully raunchy and violent superhero satire Kick-Ass. If the film's red-band trailer (which depicts Moretz dismembering bad guys and uttering the c-word) is any indication, Moretz is poised to be a breakout star thanks to her role as Hit Girl. What does this mean for horror fans? Well, it means there will be an extra level of attention paid to her next project - one that many fans like myself are naturally worried about: the American remake of the excellent Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In.

Now, as I have already documented in this very blog, I have nothing against the idea of horror remakes in general. But I think most of us can agree that this is one of those remakes that is pretty darn unnecessary. For one thing, Let the Right One In is from 2008! It's not like this will be a re-telling for a new generation. Plus, the original is widely considered by many horror fans (including this one) to be one of the best vampire movies ever. It seems doubtful that a new version can really improve upon it.

That being said, I have to admit that there are slight positive signs starting to emerge regarding Let Me In (as the American remake has been bizarrely re-named). In terms of its writer-director, there could certainly be far worse options that Cloverfield helmer Matt Reeves. That giant-monster movie showed an impressive talent behind the camera - at least in terms of big-budget mayhem. I'm not sure if that necessarily translates to the more subtle chills that Let Me In demands, but still, I'd rather see it in the hands of someone like Reeves, who has made at least one excellent movie, than some no-namer or someone with a sketchier resume.

But the real interesting developments so far have been in the casting department. The always great Richard Jenkins will be playing the young vampire's guardian - a creepy role than could be even creepier if this version hews closer to the original novel than the first film (although I somehow doubt that). Meanwhile, there are the all important lead-roles, which it's only natural to worry about since, let's face it, talented child actors aren't exactly one of America's most abundant resources. Thankfully, it appears this, too, has gone better than it could have, as the central role of the young boy is being played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who recently impressed by sharing the screen and totally holding his own with Viggo Mortensen in The Road. And, as the film's mysterious young vampire? Yup...Chloe Moretz.

I realize this isn't enough to really start getting excited for a project that still seems like a pointless idea, if not an outright bad one. But, like I said, there are positive signs. Take, for instance, this quote from a new interview Moretz did for Movieline, in which she shared her take on her role in Let Me In.

"The character of Abby…I mean, usually a lot of movies glamorize being a vampire. It’s pretty, it’s cool, you look awesome! It’s scary, deep, and dark, this devil inside of her. The vampire is different than Abby. It’s like her alternate personality, and when it takes her over, she has no control."

So here we have a 13-year-old girl, not only showing a better understanding of what makes vampires interesting than a bestselling hack author like Stephenie Meyer does, but also saying exactly the right things when it comes to the hoped-for tone of this movie. Now, once again, it's way too early to start getting my hopes up. And I realize that, just because Moretz "gets" the character, doesn't mean the film (and Reeves) will actually live up to that understanding. Although, worse comes to worse, maybe they could just let her direct the damn thing. Hell, that one comment above sounds a lot more intelligent and with-it than anything I've ever heard come out of, say, Brett Ratner's mouth.

All things considered, though, Moretz' comments at least hint at some possible good signs in what at first seemed like the mother of all bad ideas. I'm still reserving judgment, and I still feel that even a decent Let Me In will probably not come close to equaling Let the Right One In. But a decent film would obviously be better to have out there than an awful one. Look at it this way - best case scenario, the film actually does stay true to the original and hit the right tone, and maybe finally starts weaning American audiences away from their Twilight-induced wimpy-vampire leanings. Do I want a Let the Right One In remake? Not necessarily. But with three more Twilight films on the way, I'm certainly not going to complain about any new American vampire movies that actually give the creatures their teeth (and balls) back.

The Best Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)

2010-01-16T10:39:00.000-08:00

In this weekend's edition of the Top 5, the column I host over at the Movies zone of 411mania, I and some of my fellow writers shared our personal opinions on the Top 5 Movies of the Decade (2000-2009). My Top 5 list, though, was taken from a larger version that I've been working on for a while now. So, here is the rest of my full list of what I personally feel were the Top 20 Movies of the Decade (with a link to the Top 5 column at the end). Keep in mind, there are plenty of movies I haven't seen which might have ended up on here instead, so this is just how this list stands as it is now.

20) Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Horribly depressing? No doubt about it. But it is also impossible to shake. I still think it would be beneficial to show this one in schools...although the whole "ass to ass" thing probably prevents that.
19) The Incredibles (2004)
Despite not being based on an actual comic-book, Pixar still made one of the best comic-book movies ever. In fact, this is a much better Fantastic Four movie than Fantastic Four was.
18) Traffic (2000)
I honestly believed Soderbergh's gripping examination of the drug trade would be a much bigger classic than it ended up. But oh well, I still find it fascinating.
17) Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Tarantino's strongest work since Pulp Fiction, and a film that reveals more (and gets better) with every viewing.
16) The Hurt Locker (2009)
By wisely removing the politics and just focusing on the men doing the fighting (or, in this case, defusing the bombs), Katheryn Bigelow made the smartest and best war film of the modern era.
15) Pan's Labyrinth (2006)
I suppose someone might make a better dark fantasy movie than this someday...but I highly doubt it.
14) Crank (2006)
No...seriously. Crank was one of the most original action movies to come along in some time. Heck, one of the most original movies, period. You hadn't seen anything like this up until this point, and I'm sure its reputation and influence will only continue to grow.
13) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
A film about losing love, and wanting to forget about it, actually ends up becoming a poignant tribute to the power of love.
12) Shaun of the Dead (2004)
I know, I know...Shaun was my #2 Horror Movie of the decade, and yet here it is on this list, while my #1 Horror Movie of the decade, The Descent, isn't. That's simply because I feel The Descent is more effective as a horror film, but I won't deny that Shaun is a more appealing movie overall. If you still think that doesn't make sense, well, it's my list, so oh well.
11) Oldboy (2003)
One of the most twisted revenge sagas ever filmed, with a mind-blowing ending you'll never forget.
10) The Dark Knight (2008)
Nolan's follow-up to Batman Begins is not just the greatest comic-book movie ever made, but one hell of a crime drama, period.
9) Mulholland Dr. (2001)
It doesn't matter if you understand it or not (although, for the most part, I think just about everyone ended up coming to the same conclusion about what its mind-bending narrative means) - it's impossible not to get drawn in and completely engrossed by Lynch's storytelling here. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if this might not surpass Blue Velvet as Lynch's best.
8) No Country for Old Men (2007)
The Coens did the smart thing and stayed extremely faithful to Cormac McCarthy's brilliant novel. McCarthy's writing teamed with Coens' filmmaking strengths proved an incredibly potent combo.
7) Memento (2000)
Nolan again, this time with one of the coolest experiments in movie history - one that probably shouldn't have worked, but that just goes to show how talented the man is.
6) Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I still get angry thinking about Crash beating this for Best Picture. So many people made fun of this movie when it was first announced, but all but the most homophobic morons were forced to shut up when it turned out to be not just a "gay cowboy" movie, but in fact one of the best romantic stories ever put on film.

Check out my Top 5 Movies of the Decade here.

Trev's Top 20 Horror Movies of the Decade

2010-01-02T07:45:00.000-08:00

HONORABLE MENTIONS:

GRINDHOUSE (2007) - Probably one of the better theater experiences of the decade for horror fans, but Planet Terror is too goofy for the Top 20, and Death Proof is more of a tribute to car and girl-gang movies than it is horror.

WILLARD (2003) - Glen Morgan's criminally underrated remake probably threw some off by being more of a Hitchcockian character study than just a slasher about a guy who controls rats. But it needs to be seen for Crispin Glover's performance, which might be the best of his career.

1408 (2007) - A very effective ghost tale, thanks to a very good performance from John Cusack (who more or less has to carry the whole movie by himself). But I've found its power slightly diminishes with each viewing. Besides, there's a much better Stephen King adaptation to lavish praise on, and we'll get to that in a bit.

LAND OF THE DEAD (2005) - Yeah, it's fun...but it doesn't really stack up to Romero's first three Dead films.

SESSION 9 (2001) - I went back and forth on whether to give this the #20 spot over the film that I eventually did choose. Session 9 is an excellent creepfest, make no mistake about it. I don't know...maybe I just couldn't bring myself to include a David Caruso film in my Top 20.

THE TOP 20 HORROR MOVIES OF THE DECADE (2000-2009)

20. PITCH BLACK (2000)
Not a horror movie, you say? Well, it is about being stranded on a completely dark planet with a vicious serial killer and a race of man-eating aliens. I'd say "horrific" sums that situation up pretty well. Plus, it just really delivers, thanks to great mood, tension and - yes - a damn good performance from Vin Diesel. I don't know why Diesel and writer/director David Twohy thought the natural follow-up would be inserting Riddick into a mythology-driven space opera, but hey, the resultant disappointment of The Chronicles of Riddick is their cross to bear, not mine. At least we'll always have Pitch Black.

19. SLITHER (2006)
James Gunn's hilarious tribute to the gross-out horror comedies of the '80s would probably be higher on my list if I was able to watch it without thinking of how much better Night of the Creeps did essentially the same story. Still, this film is a blast, and it's always great to see Nathan Fillion in a lead role.

18. THE MIST (2007)
Here's that other Stephen King adaptation I mentioned earlier. Frank Darabont had already proven his mastery of King's dramatic work with The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile. Here, he showed that he could knock King's horror out of the park as well, with a perfect old-school monster movie. And that ending? Oh, man. Darabont made up for the fact that King's novella ends on a somewhat flat note by creating one of the best endings in horror history. King himself said the film's climax was so good, he wishes he had thought of it.

17. MIDNIGHT MEAT TRAIN (2008)
I remember when I first read Clive Barker's awesome (and gruesome) short story Midnight Meat Train. I thought about how cool it would be if it was made into a movie...and then resigned myself to thinking it would never happen - at least not with that title, and certainly not with that ending. And yet here it is, with title and crazy finale intact. The best Barker adaptation since Candyman.

16. HOSTEL: PART II (2007)
It has become cool to hate on Eli Roth, but screw that. Yes, he's a sometimes overzealous self-promoter, but he's also an enthusiastic advocate of the horror genre as a whole, and I don't see anything wrong with that. At least the guy actually knows his stuff. As for his own movies, Cabin Fever has its flaws, but its very oddness is also what has made it grow on me more and more over the years. Then we have the two Hostel films, which are often accused of being nothing more than "torture porn," which unfortunately ignores the sly wit and satire that Roth actually employs in the two movies (and, for the record, there's really not as much torture and extreme gore in these films as some critics make it sound - definitely not as much as there is in other films that fell under the torture porn label). I'm giving the nod to the second film because I think it's Roth's most confident film-making job. It never veers into any unnecessary tangents, and I think interweaving the two stories of the girls who are destined to become victims and the businessmen who have paid to victimize them works very well.

15. BUG (2006)
William Friedkin, director of The Exorcist, finally returned to the horror genre...and nobody cared. Huh? What happened? Well, perhaps it's the fact that film's marketing mislead people into believing this really was a movie about microscopic little bug, when really it's all about the most frightening thing of all - a shattered human mind. Michael Shannon's turn as a paranoid ex-soldier convinced he's the victim of government experimentation is one of the better genre performances of the decade, and Ashley Judd is quite good as well. The final scene, where Judd not only buys into Shannon's madness but then goes on to take it to a whole new level by herself, is scary in a way that even the best slasher or supernatural film could never hope to achieve.

14. AMERICAN PSYCHO (2000)
Mary Harron's adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' controversial novel is nowhere near as graphic as the book, nor does it ever become bogged down in long rants about consumerist desires. Oddly enough, this makes it work almost better than the novel, as we can instead fully concentrate on the twisted psyche of (possible) serial-killer Patrick Bateman. Even if Bale continues to turn in disappointingly boring performances like he did in Terminator: Salvation and Public Enemies, he'll forever be in my cool book for his work here.

13. JEEPERS CREEPERS (2001)
There's a part of me that doesn't enjoy liking this movie, given that it's written and directed by convicted child molester Victor Salva. But if you can separate the art from the artist, what you find is one hell of a well made monster movie - the kind of film that just doesn't get made all too often anymore. I love the mythology of the Creeper (and I especially love how neither this film nor its sequel even bother to try and explain his origins), and I think the first 30 or so minutes of the movie is some of the best filmmaking the genre had seen in quite some time.

12. THE SIGNAL (2007)
A very under-appreciated gem that will hopefully find the cult audience it deserves. The Signal tells the tale of a fictional city where, on New Year's Eve, a mysterious transmission over every television, radio and cell phone drives everyone in the city insane. There are two things that make this film so memorable. For one, it is written and directed by three different filmmakers, with each one helming his own section of the movie and giving it its own distinctive flavor. But what I enjoyed even more is that 9 times out of 10 in a movie like this, the main character will be the one person who was somehow not affected by the transmission. But not here. Everyone is affected, including the hero, which means you can never really trust what the movie is showing you. It's a nice and unique touch.

11. BATTLE ROYALE (2000)
What can I say? You make a movie about a class of middle-school students forced to kill each other on an island or else their heads will be blown up by an explosive collar around their neck, and I'll include it on my list of the top horror films of the decade.

10. INSIDE (2007)
The wave of extreme French horror that hit in the second half of the decade was one of the most exciting movements the genre had seen in awhile (personally, I'll take these over J-horror any day). The best of the bunch was Inside, which takes the typical "victimized woman" horror story to a whole new level. Here, a young pregnant women is terrorized in her home the night before she is scheduled to have labor induced, by a psychotic woman obsessed with cutting the child out of the other woman's stomach. Both actresses give excellent performances, making these real characters, and you just can't believe how far this film continues to push the envelope.

9. SAW (2004)
This is another one of those series that horror snobs are not supposed to like, even though it's ever evolving storyline is actually a pretty cool and unique approach to a horror franchise. Let's face it, most horror franchises eventually begin ignoring their own continuity, whereas Saw makes it so that you really can't watch a new entry without being familiar with what came before. It's the ultimate fan-service series. But, anyway, I could go on and on about how this series is unfairly maligned as a whole, but instead let's just concentrate on how good the first film actually was. Sure, there's the pretty terrible Cary Elwes performance to deal with, but other than that the original Saw movie was quite the treat - buoyed by a great villain, an awesome twist ending, and a slightly more intellectual approach than one would probably expect from a film of this kind. In terms of the whole series, I enjoy the second film the best. But the first movie is one of the most innovative horror films of this era, and deserves this spot accordingly.

8. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008)
Alright, are you happy, vampire fans? Actually, this is much more than just throwing the current fad a bone. In fact, Let the Right One In came along at just the right time, when the depressing teeny-bopper vampire craze was threatening to permanently file down the teeth of one of horror's most indelible monsters. Then this movie (not to mention the excellent novel on which it is based) showed up, reminding us all how powerful a well-done vampire story can actually be. If you would rather watch Twilight than this, there is something very wrong with your taste.

7. 28 WEEKS LATER (2007)
I was going to include both 28 ____ Later films as a tie here, but at the last moment decided that was too much of a cheat (although know that, in my heart, that's really the case). So why did I go with Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's sequel over Danny Boyle's more acclaimed original? Well, although I think 28 Days Later is a better movie than its sequel, I think 28 Weeks Later is a better horror movie than its predecessor. I know, I know...that's one of those statements that makes a lot more sense in my head than it does when I actually say it. So let me just say that I think 28 Weeks Later's slightly more nihilistic tone makes it even more disturbing than the first film. After all, the first film shows an epidemic created out of an accident, but ends in a somewhat hopeful manner. The follow-up says "forget that...you might think we have this solved, but this problem ain't going anywhere." Here's hoping if a third film is ever made, it's up to par with the other two, and can be included in my Best Horror Movies of 2010-2019 list.

6. DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004)
When I first heard of this movie being made, I was pretty furious. If you had told me then that it would later end up on my Best Horror Movies of the Decade list, I would have thought you were crazy. But it earned it. OK, forget about the name for a second (if this had been called anything else, there wouldn't have been half as much bitching about it). And let's finally get past this whole silly "zombies can't run" argument. They're fictional creatures...they can do whatever the hell the story demands them to do. Plus, they ran in Return of the Living Dead and Re-Animator, and you sure weren't bitching about it then. Once you get past these two actually-unimportant criticisms, you find one hell of an exciting zombie film, with a fun mix of characters, and one of the best opening sequences in horror movie history.

5. DRAG ME TO HELL (2009)
Will we ever get Evil Dead 4? Who knows? I'm certainly not hopeful. But at least now we know that if it ever does happen, Sam Raimi is certainly still up to the task, as he proved with this triumphant return to the genre (well, triumphant in quality, if not in box-office). Even with a PG-13 rating, Raimi reminded us that sometimes the old tricks still work the best, and gave us one of the most fun horror films in recent memory.

4. MAY (2002)
I've been championing this film to just about everyone I know since first seeing it years ago, but at this point I've given up hoping for it to ever have the huge following I think it deserves. But oh well, it's everyone's loss, as Lucky McKee's dark fairy-tale of a weird, lonely girl (a superb Angela Bettis) who just wants some friends (or at least parts of them) is one of the best off-beat character pieces in the genre's history. It also has one of the best (and unexpected) final shots of any film I've ever seen. It's a testament to both McKee's script and Bettis' performance that I would totally date May if she was a real person...even if it meant risking my life.

3. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS (2005)
In between his "Texas Chainsaw Massacre on a diet of MTV and LSD" House of 1000 Corpses and completely fucking up his Halloween films, Rob Zombie somehow delivered one of the greatest exploitation tributes I've ever seen (this is the movie I think Rodriguez and Tarantino wanted to make with Grindhouse). Whether or not it was just a happy accident is beside the point - this is a damn powerful film, and I love how it messes with its audience in getting them to eventually root for some of the most psychotic and unappealing characters you could have. And now I can never hear Freebird and not think of this movie.

2. SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004)
What is there left to say about Shaun of the Dead? Yes, it's a horror-comedy, but it's also the best non-Romero zombie movie ever made, period. And although it is primarily played for laughs, it's real strength comes in the fact that it doesn't ignore the actual horror of the situation, either. The last act contains some pretty emotional stuff, and it works because you really do care about these characters. Just brilliant filmmaking, any way you look at it.

1. THE DESCENT (2005)
Oh, how I love this film. From it's perfect use of darkness and claustrophobic setting, to its memorable creatures, to its brilliant decision to use an all-female cast (we usually assume the final survivor will be a girl, so this movie wisely cuts out the middle-man, literally, and doesn't give us any male characters to waste our time with). Neil Marshall created an instant horror classic with this one. I'm not all that excited about the upcoming sequel (especially since it follows off of the far-inferior American ending of the first film, instead of the much-better British original ending), but no matter how that movie ends up being, this first film will always be one of my all-time favorite horror movies.

Trev's Top 20 Horror Movies of the Decade - The Exclusions

2010-01-01T18:47:00.000-08:00

Alright, call me a bandwagon jumper all you want, but I've been intrigued by the vast number of "best horror movies of the decade" lists I've seen popping up in various horror mags and websites, and I decided to do my own. But before I get to the list itself, I figured I might as well do a little prelude. You see, I know when I put my list up I will probably have people ask why I didn't include certain movies (assuming anyone actually ends up reading the list, that is). So I figure I might as well get it out of the way, and take a moment to share some of the films that will NOT be appearing on my "best of the decade" list, and explain why. These are all films that I think a large number of horror fans might argue should belong on a list like this, so I have no problem explaining why they're not making my cut. Alright, here we go.

THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE - This has just has always been one of the films that I wanted to like a lot more than I did. I love pretty much every other Guillermo Del Toro movie (well, except for Mimic and the first Hellboy film, but I at least like those). Truth be told, I've been meaning to go back and give Devil's Backbone a second chance, but I don't know...the first time I watched it, it just didn't really grab me. The visual of the little boy ghost and the blood floating out of his head is excellent, but I found the story to be a little slow-moving.

CLOVERFIELD - I've seen this included in some of the other lists. It is an awesome movie, and I do dig it. But I don't really consider it horror. And I say that knowing at least a couple films that are on my list are debatable as being horror, but hey, it's my list.

AUDITION - This would probably be in my Top Five...if not for the fact that it came out in 1999. A few lists have cheated the system by using it's US release in 2000 to squeak it in. But I'm gonna play by the rules. If it's any consolation, I'd probably say it's the best horror film of the '90s.

THE RING/JU-ON/PULSE/etc. - I liked Hideo Nakata's Ringu quite a bit, but that was 1998. I wasn't really that into Gore Verbinski's remake. And, for that matter, I wasn't really into the massive wave of Asian ghost movies that followed as a whole. Sorry, this is just one sub-genre that never appealed to me the way it did to many others. The films really started to feel interchangeable, and although some were technically impressive, I never found any of them particularly memorable.

HAUTE TENSION - This is all about the ending. The much discussed twist, which doesn't make a lick of sense. I don't know how all you feel, but I think it's awful. And it's a shame, because the movie really is as awesome as all the hype promised up until that moment. But the ending just pulls me out of the movie and ruins everything. I know the story is that Aja never really intended for there to be a twist, and it was something of a concession to the financiers. Bit whatever the case, it's just bad enough to keep this one off my list.

MARTYRS - I'm glad I saw Martyrs...the one time. I will almost certainly never watch it again. It's not even that it disturbed me that much (although it certainly is disturbing). It's just more that the seemingly unending torture the film's heroine endures does begin to feel repetitive. I think it's funny that some horror fans criticize films like Hostel and the Saw series as being "torture porn," but then go ga-ga over something like this, which is far more brutal and unrelenting, but gets away with it because it supposedly has some sort of deep message. Whatever. Like I said, it's not that I think it's a bad film. But it's not really a great one, either. It is an interesting film, and one that any horror fan should probably see at least once to form their own opinion.

BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON - This is one I came close to including, but much like Haute Tension, the end spoiled it. No, the ending here doesn't piss me off and ruin the movie like it does in Haute Tension, but it does make an otherwise great movie just "pretty good." The idea of a documentary crew following an up-and-coming slasher is a tremendous one, and the movie makes the most of it. But once the final act abandons the "mockumentary" approach, it pretty much just becomes the exact same kind of movie it's been poking fun at. I know, I know...that might be the point. But even so, I just feel like the film loses some of its momentum there.

ZOMBIELAND - Unlike the other zombie-comedy movie that did make my list (I'm sure you can figure it out), Zombieland just feels much more "comedy" than "horror." It's essentially a road comedy that just so happens to take place inside a zombie movie. Don't get me wrong - it's fucking awesome. But there's not really one moment of real horror to it, so I gave it a pass.

TRICK 'R' TREAT - This is a fun movie, and one that I might indeed end up watching every year as a Halloween tradition. But it's also a tad overrated by many horror fans, who I think were reacting more to Warner Bros.' treatment of the film than they were the quality of the movie itself. I appreciate its attempt to bring back the anthology format to horror, but a couple of the stories feel a little short-changed, and the movies desire to link together every story actually ends up hurting it a little (am I the only one who finds it odd and just a little stupid that *spoiler* the nebbish, nervous principal killer ends up also being the dark, mysterious vampire imposter?). The biggest problem here is that the movie is too concerned with the tricks of its storytelling, and not at all with the characters, not a single one of whom are well-developed or memorable. And now I'm gonna say something that is gonna really piss off some fans - Warner Bros. may have been right not to release this to theaters. Like I said, it's fun, but c'mon...a movie like this was never going to be a hit in the theaters. Rabid horror fans always seem to forget that the movie business is just that - a business. Put some of these fans in charge of a studio, and they'll bankrupt it within a year. Anyway, we all should just be happy that Warner Bros. even financed this movie at all. It's a movie that was made for a cult audience, and it thankfully found one. But there are definitely 20 better horror movies from the past 10 years.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY - Yeah. Right. Look, I'm sorry, but this is the most overrated horror film of the decade, not one of the best. I'm happy for those involved that it did so well. In fact, the story of the film is a hell of a lot more interesting than the film itself. I'm sure I'm not the first person to make this joke, but the problem here is that the movie's title is a damn liar. Not the first word, mind you. There is indeed "paranormal" here. But activity? I wish. If your idea of a scary time is watching two annoying characters sit up in bed and listen to footsteps for 90 minutes, than yeah, this is the film for you. Otherwise, I don't know. To me, there is no sadder statement about the current state of the horror genre (or at least its fans) than the fact that this was considered by many to be the scariest movie to come along in years. Have our standards fallen that low?

So that's it. Feel free to bitch about these all you want. Just make sure you save some of that emotion for my next posting, in which I'll reveal my official list of the "Top 20 Horror Movies of the Decade (2000-2009)."

My Top 25 Zombie Movies of All Time

2009-11-15T15:56:00.000-08:00

OK, this is late. I originally intended to write this as a companion piece to last month's Zombie-Thon, but in the end the column itself ended up taking up too much of my time to focus on too much else. Still, the idea stuck with me, and now here it is. This is essentially a response to Entertainment Weekly's version of the list, which they ran (on their website, at least...I don't think it appeared in the magazine) around the time Zombieland was released to theaters. Now, I'm all for personal opinions (especially mine, which are usually right), but EW's list was fairly ridiculous. Let's take a look.

25) Planet Terror
24) Diary of the Dead
23) Land of the Dead
22) Zombie Flesh Eaters (Zombi 2)
21) Night of the Living Dead '90
20) Resident Evil: Extinction
19) Pontypool
18) Braindead (Dead Alive)
17) Homecoming (from Masters of Horror)
16) Dead Snow
15) I Walked with a Zombie
14) Undead
13) The Serpent and the Rainbow
12) Dead Set
11) The Omega Man
10) Return of the Living Dead
9) Re-Animator
8) Day of the Dead
7) Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man)
6) [REC]
5) Night of the Living Dead '68
4) Dawn of the Dead '78
3) Shaun of the Dead
2) 28 Days Later
1) Dawn of the Dead 2004

Alright, hopefully you're looking at that list and thinking "huh? I mean....HUH?" To be fair, there are some fairly interesting and deserving choices on there that I never would have expected EW to bring up. But overall, this is pretty shaky. The most obvious problem is the inclusion of a few films that don't belong anywhere near a list of the best zombie movies, like Undead, The Omega Man (not even a zombie film), and Resident Evil: Extinction. And I like Resident Evil: Extinction...but are you serious??

I also think it was odd to give spots of Dead Set and Homecoming, given that they are not even movies. Not to mention, if they were going to include non-movies, where the hell is Thriller? And although I can't believe I'm about to say this, I think the list might be showing a little too much love to George Romero. I know, I know...I love the guy as much as the next living dead fan. How could we not? He is our king. But still, I'd be hard-pressed to find any legitimate reasons to include a film like Diary of the Dead on a list of the Top 25 movies of the genre.

Now, their Top 1o is a pretty good selection...although clearly in the wrong order. I mean, whatever problems I may have with the rest of the list, I don't think I need to point to anything other than their number one. The 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. They think the remake of Dawn of the Dead is the best zombie movie ever. Better than the original Dawn of the Dead, even. Yikes...just, yikes.

So, anyway, I can continue to bitch about their list, or I can just offer up my own. And that's what I'm gonna do. I'm not gonna claim that my list is the end-all-be-all of these sorts of lists, and I won't even claim that it's way better than the EW list. But you go ahead and look at it, compare the two, and judge for yourself.

MY TOP 25 ZOMBIE MOVIES

25) Pontypool - I was a little torn on this one. For one thing, I only saw it for the first time a few weeks ago, so I haven't had enough time to properly sit back and think about where it falls in terms of the overall genre. Plus, I realize I didn't even give it 4 Bubs (my highest score) when I reviewed it for the Zombie-Thon (review here). But, while compiling this list, I realized that it is one of the films from this year's Zombie-Thon that stuck with me the most in the days that followed. Its refreshingly unique take on what causes the zombie virus and how it is spread is one of the more interesting ideas to emerge in the genre in quite some time. So I'm gonna go ahead and give it the 25 spot...but I admit I need a few more months of reflection before I'll feel fully confident about this decision.
24) Planet Terror - I was initially against this film's inclusion in the EW list, but as I thought about it I lightened up a bit. It's certainly a fun movie, and one of the more high profile entries in the list (even if the film bombed, you still don't see stars like Bruce Willis in a zombie movie all that often). I can't in good faith rank it any higher than this, though, given that the zombies in the film sometimes seem like little more than an afterthought.
23) Bio-Zombie - The Asian zombie movie genre tends to take itself far less seriously than its American or European counterparts, almost always preferring wacky comedy to true chills. Although Wild Zero might be better-known around these parts (and is indeed awesome), my personal favorite is Bio-Zombie, a goofy comedy about two slacker video store clerks forced to battle zombies in a mall. No, it's not original, but nor is it trying to be. It is, however, trying to be hilarious, and I think it succeeds. Here's my review.
22) I Walked With a Zombie - Whenever you see a list like this, you'll usually see either this or White Zombie pop up somewhere. It always feels like a token shout-out to the pre-Romero zombie film; a kind of "yeah, we know they existed even before George re-invented them" acknowlegment. I'm not gonna lie and say there isn't at least a little bit of that thinking behind this pick, but it probably is important to pay some tribute to the original classics. And this genuinely eerie thriller is certainly a better film than the often cheesy White Zombie.
21) Shock Waves - EW included Dead Snow on their list, and I wish I could do the same. I had heard a lot of great things about that movie, so the disappointment was fairly crushing when I finally watched it and discovered it was nothing special (read more about it in my Dead Snow review). But, oh well...that just means the reigning champion of the Nazi Zombie sub-genre is still the underappreciated Shock Waves, a surprisingly effective film that derives it power from dread and tension more than blood and guts. Oh, and it's also got John Carradine and Peter Cushing (in one of his final roles), so it's got that going for it. Personally, I think this one is just begging for a remake. Read my review here.
20) Dance of the Dead - It's great to see films like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland catch on with mainstream audiences as well as the horror crowd, but it's equally frustrating to watch comparable films not even find the horror audience. Not that this film is completely unknown...it seems to have a decent cult following from what I can tell. But considering it's one of the best zombie comedies ever made, and definitely one of the best of the last few years, it's too bad it's not a bigger deal. Personally, I consider Dance of the Dead to be the great Return of the Living Dead sequel that never really happened. Check out my review here.
19) The Blind Dead - The exclusion of Armando de Ossorio's Blind Dead series - about a sect of sightless Templar Knight zombies who hunt humans by sound - is one of the EW list's biggest faults. Of the four films, I think this and the second, Return of the Blind Dead, are equally good, but I'm giving the spot to the first one for kicking it all off.
18) Land of the Dead - When I first saw this film, my initial belief was that it was even better than Day of the Dead (as you can see if you read my Land review here). With the benefit of time and hindsight, I now realize that not to be true. But Land still deserves a spot in the Top 25. Why? Well, for one thing, Romero's fourth Dead film (and the final one in the original Dead series) certainly has the best performances of the series (a natural by-product of hiring actual professional actors). It was also a nice reminder that Romero still had some chops after a looong absence from the genre. This is essentially the Hollywood-action-movie of the Dead series. Not as deep as the first three, but a lot of fun.
17) [REC] - Romero's Diary of the Dead has its moments, but overall it's just a bit too underwhelming to be considered anything more than a sporadically entertaining disappointment. For a much better example of the first-person-camera zombie film, look no further than this intense Spanish offering. Sure, at times it feels like a video game, but that doesn't diminish its power. Read my review here.
16) Night of the Creeps - Hopefully the recent, long-overdue DVD release of this '80s zombie-comedy will finally bring it the recognition it deserves. Without a doubt the best of the "alien slugs that turn people into zombies" sub-genre (and yes, it is a sub-genre, with other films like Slither and Zombie Town). If nothing else, check it out for Tom Atkin's show-stealing performace as Detective Cameron...for my money right up there with Ash and Shaun as one of the coolest heroes in horror-comedy history. Read my review here.
15) The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue - The EW column called Dellamorte Dellamore "the most tragically underseen film on this list." Maybe that's true, but only because they stupidly neglected to include The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue on their list. This film (also known as Let Sleeping Corpses Lie) is one of those rare zombie films that came out between Romero's Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The genre wouldn't really blow up until the success of Dawn, but this movie shows that even before thatat least some other filmmakers had the right idea about following in Romero's footsteps by mixing complete horror with subtle social commentary. This is begging to be rediscovered in a big way. Read my review here.
14) 28 Days Later - Alright, first of all, enough with the claims that this is not a zombie movie, because the rage infected villains are not the living dead. Hey, guess what, geniuses? Neither were the zombies in I Walked with a Zombie or White Zombie. People have latched onto the "living dead" type of zombie that Romero created so much that they now seem to believe that this is the only kind of zombie allowed. Ugh, I hate that thinking. But that's another rant for another time. Anyway, no matter how you might feel about the zombie-status of this film, there is no denying how important it was for the genre, as it's definitely one of the movies that brought the zombie film back to the forefront of horror in a big way. And yes, it is damn good.
13) The Beyond - EW included every Romero zombie film on their list, but only one film from Lucio Fulci, whose name is second only to Romero when it comes to the genre. This, the middle film of his loosely linked "Gates of Hell" trilogy, is arguably the maestro's masterpiece - a gory, surreal (some would say almost nonsensical) head-trip of terrifying imagery.
12) 28 Weeks Later - "Wait a minute...did you just rank the sequel over the original?" That's right, I did. 28 Weeks is that rare horror sequel that manages to out-do the sequel by elaborating on the ideas of the first film, making them bigger, but still doing so in a way that doesn't completely trip up and piss all over what made the first one so great. Read my review here.
11) Braindead (Dead Alive) - Wow, I've obviously made this much more competetive in my head than I ever intended to, because it kinda kills me not to have this one in the Top 10. Before helming the epic instant classic Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson cut his teeth on over-the-top horror comedies like this one, still often referred to as the goriest fright film ever (and probably rightfully so). The first act is a little slow, but you get past that and you're into one of the all-time best party movies the horror genre has ever delivered. Seriously...stick this baby on in a room full of people who have never seen it, and just watch as they experience the unrelenting carnage of the film's final act. It's quite the experience.
10) Zombieland - Yeah, it's pretty early in this film's shelf life, but what can I say? It's really that good. Essentially a comedic road movie trapped inside a zombie film, but it delivers more than enough of the genre's typical trappings to itself be considered a great zombie movie. Bring on the sequel. Read my review here.
9) Dawn of the Dead 2004 - Well, yeah, it deserves to be in the Top 10...not #1, but it belongs here. Really, the only problem with this film is its title. Since it's not exactly a true remake of Romero's original (it takes the basic idea of "survivors in a mall," and nothing else), it's unfair to have to hold it up to that standard. If you can look past that, it's actually one of the most viscerally exciting zombie actions films ever made. Plus, it has one of the best opening 10 minutes in horror movie history.
8) Return of the Living Dead - The punk rock zombie movie. That's something of an oversimplification, and yet an oddly appropriate way to sum it up. While the music and fashion of some the characters feels slightly dated today, the humor and the general awesomeness still holds up. This is another great one for party viewing, as it pretty much never lets up once it gets going (and that happens fairly quickly).
7) Zombi 2 (Zombie Flesh Eaters) - I said The Beyond was arguably Fulci's masterpiece, and I meant it. But this film, a sort of unofficial "sequel" to Romero's Dawn of the Dead, is without a doubt his most important contribution to the zombie genre. You could complain about how this film perhaps sent the genre in the direction of caring more about extreme gore than Romero's social commentary, but ehhh...it's hard to care when the film is such disgusting fun. And hey, I can sum up why it belongs on this list with three simple words: zombie vs. shark.
6) Day of the Dead - Romero's personal favorite of his Dead films, which I think might surprise people. It seems like a lot of people are initially disappointed with this film when they watch it for the first time. That's somewhat understandable - it's quite a jarring change in tone from the near comic-book-ish action/violence of Dawn of the Dead. But Day is definitely a film that ages well and gets better and better with subsequent viewings. It's too bad Romero wasn't able to film his much more elaborate original script, but I'm still pretty happy with what we got here. After all, this is the film that brought us Bub, still cinema's best zombie.
5) Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetery Man) - This stylish black comedy represents the peak of the Italian zombie cycle. In fact, the cycle all but ended with this one, and what a fitting end it was. At times beautiful, at times violent, and at times head-scratchingly odd, Dellamorte Dellamore is one of the strangest zombies films ever made, but also one of the best.
4) Re-Animator - Another ridiculously over-the-top zombie comedy. Horror fans will always be grateful to this one for bringing us Jeffrey Combs' unforgettable performance as the obsessed Herbest West, one of the genre's great anti-heroes. And hey, let's face it - if you've ever wanted to see a re-animated severed head attempt to perform oral sex on a young woman, your options are pretty limited. It's pretty much just this and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
3) Shaun of the Dead - Shaun of the Dead is so great, you almost want to consider it an honorary George Romero movie. It just does everything right. It honors the genre, but in a way that is still acessible to non-genre fans. It pays tribute to the Romero films, but is never bogged down by reverance to them. Perhaps most importantly, it effectively mixes humor and horror in a way few other films have. Sure, it's mostly laughs, but the final act actually gets pretty damn emotional (especially considering the fate of certain characters), and it just nails that balance.
2) Dawn of the Dead 1978- What can I say about this one that hasn't been said thousands of times before. I actually think it's THE best zombie movie ever made (I'll explain why it's not my #1, then, in the next blurb). Pretty much everything that is great about the genre is present in this film. With Night, Romero re-invented the zombie film. With Dawn, he officially became its king.
1) Night of the Living Dead (1968) - OK, I think Dawn is technically a better film. But this is MY list of the Top 25 Zombie Movies, and there is no film more important to ME than this one. This was the film that made me a horror fan, let alone a zombie fan. Heck, I might even argue that it made me a movie fan, as it's certainly the first movie I can remember that really had an effect on me. It is still m favorite movie of all time. I have watched it too many times to count, and I will continue to do so. But, putting aside my own personal wacking-off over it for a moment, it is also the most significant zombie film in history, as it turned the idea of zombies in a completely new direction. The genre never looked back. "Hugely influential" is an understatement. Thank you, George.

Best DVD Cover....Ever.

2009-11-04T21:35:00.000-08:00

A Perfect Getaway was a fun movie. Not a great movie, just a fun movie. It was a perfectly acceptable use of 90 minutes, and it was definitely a lot better than it had any right to be, considering I think just about everyone figured out the twist from the commercials. This can be chalked up to the excellent jobs done by all of the actors (and especially Timothy Olyphant, whose character deserves his own series of spin-off films). So, yeah, it was decent enough...but not really anything I would ever feel like owning. Except, check out that DVD cover. That is a GREAT cover. Why? Well, it's simple math. There are three Milla's on there. Not one. Not two. THREE. Clearly, the person who designed this cover knows where this movie's bread is buttered.

How I Learned to Stop Spazzing-Out and Enjoy Horror Remakes.

2009-10-14T15:21:00.000-07:00

“Yeah, it’s great….it’s different from the original, but it’s scary and it’s fun….it’s kind of like a Rashomon thing. It’s a different point of view.”

- Tobe Hooper, on the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

My name is Trevor Snyder. I’m a horror fan, and I support remakes.

AAAHHHH!!!

Now, I realize to those of you who are not die-hard horror fanatics, what I just said probably doesn’t sound like that big of a deal. But believe me; I might as well have just shouted a big “FUCK YOU” to a large contingent of genre fans. Because if there’s one thing that horror fans love, it’s getting worked up about remakes. Trust me. Or better yet, just see for yourself. Go up to someone you know is a huge horror buff, and tell them you just heard their favorite fright film is being “re-imagined” by Michael Bay, Ghost House, or Lionsgate. Then step back a few feet, for your own safety. Oh, man, does it make their blood boil.

Once again, you might be wondering – why? Well, it probably has something to do with the fact that the horror fan community is one of the most annoyingly proprietary around. I know that sounds harsh, and let me just assure you that any fan of horror – even those whose views differ from mine – is in my cool book. If you’re a supporter of the genre, than you and I are blood-brother or sister on some level, and I’ll gladly talk horror with you given the chance. But let’s face it, a lot of genre fans do get a little too defensive about the direction their favorite characters or franchises are taken in, and often feel as if they know better than anyone (including the filmmakers themselves) what should really be being done. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and in many cases they might even be right (heck, I’m fairly positive I – or almost anyone – could have delivered a better Prom Night remake than what we got). But it still goes a long way towards explaining why they get so angry about the idea of remakes.

And I know what I’m talking about, because I used to be one of those fans. That’s right…I can still remember how I felt when I first heard about the big-budget remakes of Dawn of the Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. To say I was “incensed” would be an understatement. How dare Hollywood put its grubby mitts all over two of the finest horror films ever made! Of course, I still had to go see the new versions – if for no other reason than to witness for myself how bad the butcher-job was – but I sure didn’t have to be happy about it. So twice I grudgingly hiked into the theater, and….well, dammit, they actually weren’t that bad. In fact, I quite liked both of them.

Now, let me just make it clear – I’m not stating that either the Dawn or Chainsaw remakes surpass the originals. Not even close. But they’re perfectly fine films in their own right. Zack Snyder eschewed the consumerist satire of George Romero’s Dawn, but amped up the action and created one of the most viscerally exciting zombie films ever (with inarguably one of the best opening sequences in horror film history, period). Meanwhile, many (including me) feared that the Bay-produced Chainsaw remake – with its way-too-good-looking young cast – would be a Scream-esque take on Tobe Hooper’s gritty original. As it turned out, however, it was actually one of the most intense, hard-edged mainstream horror films in years (at that time). In fact, although it doesn’t often get credit for this, I’d say the Chainsaw remake might just be the film that started swinging the horror pendulum back to hard-R ratings.

And yes, before anyone else points this out, I realize that Tobe Hooper’s remake was not about the gore, and in fact contained very little blood. But, hey, that was Hooper’s film…this was Marcus Nispel’s version. And besides, when you get right down to it, the Chainsaw remake really wasn’t all about the gore, either. Cynics like to complain that it was nothing but blood-soaked excess, but go back and watch it again. It’s really not that gory. Like the original, its power comes more from its hopeless feeling of dread – which might help explain why Roger Ebert blasted it as a "contemptible film: vile, ugly, and brutal," that only wanted to"cause disgust and hopelessness in the audience." This was a particularly odd complaint, I thought (especially coming from Ebert, who has praised the original film). I remember reading it and thinking, "well, yeah...is that really a bad thing when you're talking about a horror movie?"

And, trust me, it could be worse. If you want to watch a film that is little more than lazy brutality, check out the prequel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, which even I’ll admit was pretty bad, and was in many ways exactly the movie everyone feared the remake was going to be. But I stand by my claim that Nispel’s film is a highly effective one, maintaining the basic spirit of Hooper’s original while updating it with a modern-stylish approach. That doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me (and, in fact, Hooper himself has expressed his delight with the film, as shown above).

So, after having my initial negative feelings about remakes blasted away by these two films, I was forced to reassess my overall opinion on the whole issue. It wasn’t immediate, but over time, I came to a whole new conclusion, one that I still hold today. Not only do I no longer take issue with the idea of remaking classic horror films, but for the most part I support it. And yes, I am prepared to explain why.

But first, I thought it might be fun to examine some of the common arguments against horror remakes, and offer my takes on why I think they’re flawed. Here goes…

”They’re destroying the originals!" - This is probably the most frequent complaint. You can’t announce a remake of anything without some fanboy whining about how the new filmmakers are “pissing all over my childhood” or some such nonsense. I get it…kinda. That is how I originally felt about the Dawn and Chainsaw remakes. But then a funny thing happened. After seeing them, I came home, checked my DVD shelves, and…*GASP*…the originals were still there!! What a shocking turn of events! It turns out that when somebody decides to do a remake, they don’t track down and destroy every copy of the original film! You wouldn’t know this is the case from listening to angry fans, but I’ve done the research, and it’s true. The original films do still exist, and are just as great as ever, even after they are remade. What a relief, huh?

”Only respectable, high-profile directors should be allowed to do remakes.” - When arguing the merits of remakes with those who hate them, there will inevitably come that moment when you can temporarily trump them by pointing out films like John Carpenter’s The Thing, David Cronenberg’s The Fly, Paul Schrader’s Cat People, or Phillip Kaufman’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers. No self-respecting horror fan would dare have anything bad to say about any of those efforts. In fact, most would agree that they are better than the originals. So, instead, they’ll fall back on the argument that these remakes were OK, because they were done by true artists, not the former music-video/first-time feature directors who seem to helm most of the remakes today. Man, does this argument piss me off.

I mean, let’s put aside how ridiculously elitist it is, and instead just focus on the stupidity of the statement. Really? Only the true visionaries of cinema should be allowed to remake something like Friday the 13^th or April Fool’s Day? Hey, I’ll be first to admit that the reason those remakes mentioned above are so great is because they were helmed by amazingly creative filmmakers. But does that really mean only directors of their ilk should be allowed to put new spins on old favorites?

I have a couple problems with this logic. For one thing, in many cases, it’s imposing an absurdly high standard on the genre. The notion that only a brilliant filmmaker should be allowed to remake Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for instance, sort of ignores the fact that Tobe Hooper is not exactly a brilliant filmmaker himself. Don’t get me wrong, his original Chainsaw is one of my favorite films of all time, and might just be the most effective horror film ever made. But how much of that was Hooper’s pure filmmaking skill, and how much of it was just the fluke of everything coming together perfectly? Looking at Hooper’s post-Chainsaw filmography (as much as I love Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Life Force, and Poltergeist), I’m leaning towards fluke. Now this is just one example, and I know there are instances of crappy directors remaking films from directors of a much higher caliber. But, just as often, you will hear horror fans acting as if its some kind of travesty that a modern classic like Last House on the Left is being remade, without stopping to ask themselves if the original is really as good as they prefer to think, or is actually remembered fondly more for its impact at the time than for its actual quality as film.

My other problem with this argument is its exclusionary vibe. One of the great things about the horror genre has always been how often it produces exciting new talent. So why only allow already well-known directors to tinker around with its classics? In many cases, the original films being remade came from inexperienced, first-time directors. Why not allow similar newbies to take a shot at them, as well? Look, I’ll agree that it’s probably better for a new director to make his or her name with their own original idea, but the genre just isn’t the same today as it was back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Nowadays, it’s probably easier for a new filmmaker to get a crack at a remake or sequel then it is for them to get the funding for a bold new idea. Maybe that’s a shame, but it’s the truth, and I for one don’t want to demand that they start refusing these remake jobs, and perhaps deny the emergence of another Zack Snyder in the process. At the end of the day, unknown directors have just as much reverence for their favorite movies as famous directors do. If Joe Schmoe really wants to pay homage to an old classic with his own personal take on it, then so be it.

And by the way, if you ever do get somebody claiming that only talented directors like John Carpenter should be allowed to do remakes, make sure to remind them of his Village of the Damned movie and how much balls it sucked.

”It represents the lack of creativity in Hollywood.” - This is another one of those arguments that suffers from a simple lack of common-sense. People love to bitch about how the horror films that are getting the big releases now are always the crappy “looking-for-a-quick-buck” ones, but that has almost always been the case. Yeah, the ‘70s and ‘80s produced a few studio-backed classics, but for the most part the biggest and best horror films have always been independent ventures. Why would we suddenly want to change that? Horror is the renegade genre of the film-world, and its truly groundbreaking work should primarily come from outside the system. People like to act like there are no more great horror films simply because all they ever see at the multiplex are sequels and remakes. But these are folks who are just too lazy to go track down movies like The Signal, Mulberry Street, Midnight Meat Train, Splinter, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer, Dance of the Dead, Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Hatchet, May or any number of other truly fun and captivating lesser-known horror films of recent years. The good stuff is out there, and half the fun of being a horror fan is discovering it. If Hollywood wants to throw us a bone and make a good horror film every now and then (like 30 Days of Night or Drag Me to Hell), then that’s great. But we shouldn’t rely on them to do so.

And speaking of Drag Me to Hell, do you remember that movie? It was the high-profile return to horror of genre icon Sam Raimi? It was the thrilling antidote to all the studio remakes and sequels being cranked out? It was the chance for horror fans to finally put their money where their mouth is and support an actual quality scare-film instead of the same old crap? Remember that?

Now do you remember when it bombed?

Fans can whine all they want about how Hollywood doesn’t give them what they want, but look what happens when they do. Drag Me to Hell was one of the best horror films to grace theaters in years, and in the end it couldn’t even come close to competing with remakes of My Bloody Valentine and Friday the 13^th, or a third Final Destination sequel. And don’t tell me it’s because the studio didn’t support it, because that movie was hyped to hell (pardon the pun). Now I realize that as I write this, Paranormal Activity is on its way to possibly becoming the most successful indie-horror film since Blair Witch Project, so there are cases of audiences actually supporting the right movies. But, more often than not, the general audience would rather watch their favorite franchises continue or be re-imagined than try out something new. It’s just the way it is, and I can accept it. It doesn’t mean we are denied new original material. It just means we have to go out and find it, and that we end up sharing it only with a smaller group of truly dedicated fans. Call me crazy, but that kind of sounds like a good thing.

”The remake trend is holding back the good, original films.” - As I’ve already mentioned, there are still plenty of great new horror movies out there for those who want to find them. Would there suddenly be a lot more if studios stopped cranking out sequels and remakes? I doubt it. Some haters seem to operate under the deluded assumption that if these remakes weren’t being made, it would free up the filmmakers to make original films instead. So what? If somebody is making a crappy remake, chances are good they would just make crappy original films as well. There is no evidence to suggest that the horror genre would see a significant upswing in awesome films if only studios cut back on the easy money-makers. We may remember certain eras fondly, but point to pretty much any given time in horror movie history, and I guarantee the ratio was probably something like 20% good movies, and 80% awful ones. That’s the way it always was, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way it always will be. For every Drag Me to Hell, there’s three or four Mirrors or Dead Silence - original, non-remakes that still stink. So, really, if that’s the case, why get bent out of shape over whether the crappy movies are remakes or not? Shit is shit no matter what.

”These remakes are nothing more than transparent attempts to make a quick buck.” - To this one I can only say, “uhhh, yeah….so what?” It amused me to no end to hear so many fans complain that the recent Friday the 13^th remake was just made to cash in on the franchise’s name value. Well, wasn’t that exactly what every Friday the 13^th film was? Let’s not act like these remakes are always dumping all over some sort of grand cinematic legacy. A large part of the horror genre has always been about making a buck.

But, alright, I also know that sometimes the films being remade are of a higher quality than Friday the 13^th, and I’m a little more willing to listen to this type of criticism when it’s concerning something like a new version of Suspiria or Nightmare on Elm Street. But, let me approach it from a different angle. Even in these cases, the critics complain that the filmmakers are just cashing in, and have no respect or affinity for the source material. I don’t think that’s the case. To be sure, I have no doubt that the studios themselves often sign off on these projects because they look like a sure profit. That’s what studios are supposed to do. What studio wants to lose money?

That being said, just because the studio executives might not “get it,” that doesn’t always necessarily mean the filmmakers they eventually attach to the project don’t as well. For instance, Michael Bay clearly didn’t understand what was so special about the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as evidenced by his claims that the remake wouldn’t be about gore like Hooper’s film was. But, judging by their approach to the film and the final product, I believe Marcus Nispel and screenwriter Scott Kosar had a lot more respect for Hooper’s film than Bay did. And I think that’s often the case. Directors try to get attached to particular remake projects because they are fans of the original. I get that. There are certain movies that mean a lot to me (like The Abominable Dr. Phibes) that, given the chance, I would love to remake and put my own personal touch on. Not out of disrespect for the original, but exactly because I love it so much, and think it would fun to offer my own take on those characters. It’s the same reason writers have continued to deliver stories of Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Spiderman and numerous others, long after the original writers have had their say. It is not always a cynical cash grab…sometimes, it really is about admiration.

OK, now that I’ve looked at some of the more prevalent criticisms of the remake trend, I suppose it’s time that I offer up my own opinions on why remakes are a positive thing.

It only helps the original films. - This is one that I think the detractors secretly understand, but don’t want to admit to themselves. Remakes not only do not destroy the originals, but in fact often serve to boost their profile. I’m willing to bet the remakes of films like Dawn, Chainsaw and The Hills Have Eyes not only created new horror fans, but also drove many to see the original films. A lot of those viewers probably wouldn’t have watched the originals if not for the newer versions. Whether or not they preferred the old or new version is irrelevant – the fact is the older movies get a little extra attention once remade, helping prevent certain films from being forgotten or unjustly ignored as they age. Plus, from a purely “selfish horror fan” perspective, remakes are also great because they often lead to brand new special editions of the original. Check out My Bloody Valentine, which undeservedly suffered from a lame bare-bones release until the 2009 3-D version led to the special edition DVD fans had always hoped for, complete with the infamous cut footage. If it takes a remake to dust off and polish up some of the lesser-known films, then that’s perfectly fine by me.

It’s good for business. - Yes, the horror genre is a business. Let’s not forget that. And, as I mentioned before, right now remakes and sequels tend to be the ones that make money. You might not be happy about it, but as a horror fan it’s hard not to be happy just to see the genre thriving, plain and simple. Do you really think Paranormal Activity would have been given the release it was if not for the recent success of some of the more derivative horror films? We all know money talks – that’s never going to change. But the good news is that as long as these movies are doing well in theaters, it creates a boom for the whole genre. I already said that there are plenty of well-done indie horror movies out there…and the reason they’re getting easier to find right now is because the recent surge in horror’s popularity has once again made the genre a highly profitable one. There’s a whole butterfly effect thing going on here. You might get annoyed that every ‘80s slasher is being remade, but as long as enough of those remakes do well, then it convinces companies that maybe its worth their time to put out some smaller horror films in limited or straight-to-DVD releases.

The “Fairy-Tale Factor.” - This is my final and biggest reason for supporting horror remakes, and I have Tobe Hooper to thank for it. Now I know I took some shots at him before, but the fact remains that I like Hooper, not just because he made one of my favorite movies, but because he always comes across like a genuinely funny, decent guy whenever I read or see an interview with him. And my impression of him only improved when I first heard him describe how he felt about the Chainsaw remake. Not only was he pleased with the film, but he seemed almost flattered by it. I think he really dug that an idea of his was powerful enough to be re-visited years later, and I’m sure he loved the chance to see his vision filtered through the eyes of another filmmaker. But it was one thing in particular that he said that stuck with me – and I apologize for not remembering the exact quote, so I’m paraphrasing here – he compared Texas Chainsaw Massacre being remade to the multiple versions of Dracula that have been made. It seemed like he felt as if the Chainsaw remake was a sort of validation that Leatherface might just be worthy of that same sort of grand horror tradition. I think he’s right.

Can we all agree that characters like Dracula and Frankenstein (and the monster) are not the icons they are solely because of the original novels by Bram Stoker and Mary Shelley? They became legendary because of their numerous adaptations. There was something to their stories that enabled them to be done over and over again…and not many horror fans have ever complained about that.

Well, the horror-villains of today, while perhaps not as complex or memorable as Dracula or Frankenstein, are still this generation’s horror icons, and as such should be awarded the same sort of ability to be revisited with a fresh perspective from time to time. I’m not saying that every horror remake is going to do the original justice, or bring something new and original to the table that wasn’t there before. But there’s always the possibility that it will, and that’s why I no longer nay-say the general idea. Both Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven have embraced the idea of remaking their old films, because they recognize a simple fact (and I think Hooper might have actually said something along these lines, too) – horror films are today’s fairy tales. After all, what is Texas Chainsaw Massacre if not an incredibly twisted version of Hansel & Gretel? The original fairy tales we all know and love did not get their power just from their initial telling; their power came from being told over and over again, passed down from generation to generation, sometimes with slightly different plot-points, but always with the same basic heart of the idea.

If horror movies have become today’s fairy tales, then it only makes sense for there to be a generational re-telling of the classics. No, all the details won’t be the same each time…but that’s the point. This is not something to shun. Heck, horror fans should celebrate it. The very fact that horror is the only genre to remake its best movies as often as it does is a testament to the power of these stories, and their primal ability to shock and scare year after year. Characters like Freddy Krueger, Jason Vorhees, Leatherface and, heck, even Chucky have already started to enter the same sort of horror hall of fame as the classic Universal monsters. Given time (and let’s face it, there will be even more remakes of their original films in the years to come), they might just become as relevant as Little Red Riding Hood or Cinderella. That’s not to say you should tell their stories to the little ones when trying to put them to sleep. But it is to say that these characters will live on, most likely in various forms. That goes for all great (or sometimes just decent, or even terrible) horror movies – they need not be held up as some sort of untouchable relic, too important to update. I say bring ‘em out to play every couple decades or so, give ‘em a whole new spin. Why not? There was probably some one who was bothered that John Carpenter was remaking The Thing because the original meant so much to them as a kid. Likewise, just because a film like Nightmare on Elm Street or Suspiria is so important to you, doesn’t mean the remake of it won’t possibly be important to the future horror fans of tomorrow.

Don’t take this article to mean that I believe all horror remakes are good, or that they are always worth your time and money. I’m no idiot. I recognize that a fair number of these remakes have been awful (Prom Night, The Fog, The Hitcher, and When a Stranger Calls certainly come to mind). But I don’t mind that somebody made them. And that’s all I’m saying. I’m not telling you to like every remake that comes out…I’m just getting sick of people complaining about them even being made. You can continue to waste your time crying out against the onslaught of remakes, or you can just get over it, and treat them like any other type of horror movie – skip the ones that look like shit, but enjoy the ones that are actually fun (The Blob (1988), My Bloody Valentine 3D) and maybe even better than the original (The Hills Have Eyes, Willard). C’mon, remake haters, just put aside the anger and give it a try. There will still be some new horror movies with original ideas waiting for you on the other side. I promise.

The Top 10 Hottest Zombie Babes

2009-10-05T17:45:00.000-07:00

To go along with with my Zombie-Thon over at 411mania, I've decided to feature some zombie-related companion pieces here. First up, a look at the ten sexiest zombies:

10) The "naked butt" zombie, Night of the Living Dead

Sure, you never really get a good look at her face, but if - like me - you first saw NOTLD when you were a young boy, then you never forgot that backside. I couldn't find a good pic of her, but a slightly censored version actually appears on the movie's poster, above.

9) Patsy Powers (Anne Day-Jones), Graveyard Alive: A Zombie Nurse in Love

Plain-Jane nurse Powers shows that there are some benefits to becoming a murderous zombie. For instance, getting bit turns Patsy from a homely nobody into the hospital's resident sexpot. Sure, she ends up taking the whole murderous aspect a little too far...but at least she looks good doing it.

Read my review of Graveyard Alive here.

8) Tammy (Sonja Bennett), Fido

In a world where tamed pet zombies have become commonplace, it's only a matter of time before someone decides to use them for more...lascivious purposes. But, looking at Tammy, it's hard to blame Tim Blake-Nelson's character. Plus, to his credit, he truly does love her.

Read my review of Fido here.

7) The Bride (Elsa Lanchester), Bride of Frankenstein

OK, some might argue this one, since whether the monster and his bride are technically "zombies" is debatable. But I'd just feel weird leaving one of the first and most famous undead beauties off my list.

6) Amy Winehouse

Naaahhh...just kidding.

6) Trash (Linnea Quigley), Return of the Living Dead

Truthfully, Trash doesn't look all that hot once she actually becomes a zombie. But she still deserves a spot on the list thanks to her naked graveyard dance, which is the stuff of legend (even despite the odd just-in-case crotch appliance which makes her look like a Barbie doll).

5) Kat (Jenna Jameson), Zombie Strippers

Sure, Jameson isn't nearly as hot as she used to be, thanks to way too many surgeries (and apparently way too little food), but there's no denying the pure sexuality she exudes as the blood-thirsty Kat. Her surprisingly strong performance is just the icing on the cake.

Read my review of Zombie Strippers here.

4) Kyoko, the Zombie Queen (Miwa), Junk

Kyoko is a girl who knows how to please. She spends the movies first half in her birthday suit, and then later puts on a kick-ass leather outfit and somehow gets even hotter - probably has something to do with her new cool white eyes and hair.

Read my review of Junk here.

3) Catherine (Francoise Blanchard), Living Dead Girl

No, not just because she spends so much of the movie in the buff (although it doesn't hurt), and not just because of her near-lesbian relationship with best friend Helene (although that doesn't hurt either). In a strange way, Catherine's sexiness can primarily be attributed to her lost, dreamlike demeanor. She doesn't understand what is happening to her, but she knows she doesn't like it. You just can't help but want to try to help her. Except, that's really not a good idea, as it almost definitely won't end well for you.

Read my review of Living Dead Girl here.

2) Number 9 (Jennifer Baxter), Land of the Dead

Well, girls in jerseys are always hot, right? Look past that horrible facial wound, and tell me that eternally-surprised look in her eyes isn't alluring. And that scene where she learns how to use a machine gun? Adorable.

1) Julie Walker (Melinda Clarke), Return of the Living Dead III

Long before Twilight was stinking up the screen, Return of the Living Dead III was telling a whole other story of undead-human love. The relationship between zombie Julie and human Curt may be a doomed one, but the lengths Julie will go to in order to fight off her taste for humans is about as romantic as it gets (in a twisted way). I'm not really into the whole "body modification" thing, but c'mon...Julie is hot.

The Human Centipede

2009-10-05T15:47:00.000-07:00

"There are no more original horror movies!" You've probably heard that claim before...usually from people who are just too lazy to get out there and find the new original horror movies. But they're out there. Case in point, The Human Centipede. This film, recently featured at the annual Fantastic Fest in Austin, Texas, is about a mad German scientist obsessed with sewing a chain of humans together - ass to mouth - in order to create one long digestive tract. That's right...watch out, Citizen Kane!

And the good news is, it's the first film in a planned trilogy!

The Final Destination - Review

2009-09-05T08:41:00.000-07:00

So I saw The Final Destination in 3-D last night. To write a detailed review examining all of its many shortcomings would be a waste of my time and yours ("oh, really, Trevor? You say the fourth Final Destination wasn't that good? What a surprise!"), so I'll skip it. Instead, here are just random thoughts about the movie.

First off, it was predictably awful, but it was also fun seeing it in the theater. I don't regret going. If I hadn't, I would have ended up catching it on cable some day and thinking "well, that was crappy...I wish I had at least watched it in 3-D." So, now I did, and I never have to watch it again. That being said, it's the first Final Destination movie that I never will watch again, so it was definitely a big step-down in quality from the previous entries.
This had to be one of the worst scripts ever....EVER. Every bit of dialogue just rang so false. It was as if they hired an alien to write it. "Just write it the way you think humans actually talk, Zurg."
Even if the script had been better, it wouldn't have mattered, as the cast was pretty pathetic. None of the four leads had any chemistry with one another. Scratch that - they just didn't have any chemistry at all. Even Justin Welborn, an actor whose work I've really enjoyed in films like The Signal and Dance of the Dead, was terrible here. Of course, he wasn't done any favors by the fact that he was playing a one-note character credited as "Racist." No, really, that's his character's name - "Racist."Other characters included Mechanic, MILF, and Mechanic's Girlfriend.
Speaking of MILF, she was played by the gorgeous Krista Allen, and I would like to thank The Final Destination for reminding me of her. I haven't thought about Krista Allen in years (probably since the underrated HBO series Unscripted), but watching this movie made me wish Cinemax would start re-showing Emmanuelle in Space again.
There was one decent actor in this - Mykelti Williamson, who brought far more charisma and dignity to his role than this movie - nay, this franchise deserved.
This was the second movie in a row that I've seen stage it's big climax in a movie theater. This one wasnt quite as good as Inglourious Basterds.
Speaking of that climax, this was the first time I remember in a Final Destination movie that one of the "accidents" meant for the main characters also ended up killing dozens of innocent victims, who had nothing to do with the original tragedy our heroes escaped. I guess it took four movies, but Death is finally pissed.
Also, the movie the characters are seeing is in 3-D. When we see the screen they are watching, we don't see the movie in 3-D. Instead, we see the blurry image that you see when take off your glasses during a 3-D movie. I'll admit that was kind of a clever touch. But I really wish they hadn't had all the extras playing the audience members reacting to the 3-D the way audience members always react in commercials for 3-D. Whenever you go to a 3-D movie, you might see one or two people who are still dumb enough to flinch at 3-D effects, but you never see the entire theater doing it. Since they presented it that way here, it totally took me out of the reality of the movie...and yes, I realize I'm saying that about The Final Destination.
Yes, there were some pretty cool deaths...but they are all in the first half of the film. It seems like by the mid-point, the screenwriters were just too bored to keep coming up with anything interesting, and were content to just start dropping things on people. They even sunk as low as to simply recreate a death from the first movie - although they did make it nice wink-wink moment by having the character talking about "deja vu" seconds before it happens.
You ever read the short story "Guts," by Chuck Palahniuk? Yeah, so have the writers of The Final Destination.
It must suck to live in the Final Destination universe, where every single building and room you enter is just fraught with imminent peril. The surprise isn't that death can get to these characters, it's that they weren't already dead by the age of two. Still, as goofy as it all seems, I have to admit that after watching one of these I always end up looking around the rooms I'm in, trying to figure out what kind of Rube Goldberg hijinks death could conjure up if it wanted to take me out.
Unless my memory is failing me, I think this was the first FD movie in which the main character has a vision not only of the initial tragedy, but then continues to have visions of each subsequent death before they happen. This actually made me realize that there is still an intriguing Final Destination movie to be made. I would love to see a movie that finally examines the mythology of the series, because there is something interesting going on here. What exactly is giving characters these visions? Is there some ulterior force opposed to death, that is trying to give these people a fighting chance? Or does death just do this itself, whenever it gets bored and wants to make things a little more sporting. I realize they will never actually make a FD movie that looks into this, since it doesn't fit into their plan to just keep re-doing the same formula over and over, but I would definitely be down for seeing it (or writing it, if New Line wants to give me a call).
Where the hell was Tony Todd?? At least FD3 used his voice.
Finally, I noticed that The Final Destination was directed by David R. Ellis, who also directed Final Destination 2 and Cellular. But, more importantly, he also directed Snakes on a Plane, and holy shit, do you realize that if they had just waited a couple more years to make that movie, we probably would have had Snakes on a Plane in 3-D!! That would have been awesome, and it might have even helped SoaP turn a bigger profit than it did.

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS - Review

2009-08-23T12:00:00.000-07:00

Given its writer/director, this might come as no surprise, but Inglourious Basterds is a strange beast of a movie. It is almost certainly not what many will be expecting, especially considering the movie’s ad campaign and the man behind it. It IS violent (at times shockingly so), but never really as violent as you probably think it will be (this never comes CLOSE to Kill Bill). It IS over-the-top, but rarely ridiculously so. And it DOES star Brad Pitt, but he is far from the main character. In fact, the titular Basterds aren’t even really the focus of the film – they pop in and out, here and there. You could remove them entirely, and the MAIN revenge tale of the movie would stay pretty much intact.

That all being said, this is very much a Quentin Tarantino film. No other modern filmmaker could have (or would have wanted to) make this movie. How you feel about it will depend greatly on how you currently feel about Tarantino. And I say “currently” because that perception has changed for many in the last few years. And I think it’s impossible to talk about Inglourious Basterds (or at least irrelevant) without addressing this.

There is no doubt that Tarantino is no longer the bullet-proof critic’s darling he once was. I suspect this is largely of his own design. Following the amazing one-two debut punch of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, many hailed Tarantino as some sort of second-coming of Scorsese – the leader of the new generation of modern crime drama. But as quickly as that legend was built up, it was almost as quickly abandoned after the somewhat lackluster reception to Jackie Brown. This was essentially the end of the first Tarantino era. He took a long break before coming back with Kill Bill, and by that point it wasn’t hard to wonder if that movie (or two movies, as the case ended up being) would be a full-fledged comeback or just proof that the early potential shown in his first two films was some sort of fluke.

As it turned out, the answer was somewhere in the middle. It WAS a comeback – but it wasn’t exactly the same Tarantino that came back. Instead, Kill Bill introduced us to what I see as the second Tarantino era, as the writer/director emerged as a new king of exploitation movies. This was certainly baffling to some, but it made perfect sense. Tarantino had finally dove head on into the treasure trove of trash films he was always publicly expressing love for and decided that that’s where he wants to play.

This is probably a bummer for those who wanted Tarantino to keep cranking out films similar to his first two. But really, wouldn’t that have gotten boring awfully fast? And besides, numerous Tarantino-imitators came in to fill that gap following Pulp Fiction. For folks like me, who love the same sort of kitschy ‘70s cult movies that Tarantino grew up on, the new direction he took starting with Kill Bill was an exhilarating change, and I gladly admit to hoping he stays true to his claim that he would be perfectly happy making nothing but “Grindhouse” flicks for the rest of his career.

Inglourious Basterds certainly belongs in this second Tarantino era, as it is ostensibly a tribute to the spaghetti westerns and war movies of the ‘70s. Of course, this being a Tarantino movie, it is also far more than that. Another recent Tarantino trademark has been his refusal to adhere to one particular genre or style even within individual films. This turns off some, as well, and I have already seen some criticism that Inglourious Basterds, like Kill Bill and Death Proof before it, is disjointed. In all honesty, this is not a criticism I can disagree with, even if it is not something that bothers me…except in one case. That’s right, before I get back to defending and applauding the film, I will admit that even I felt the film’s various styles got off track in at least one element.

I am speaking of the two moments in Inglorious Basterds where we are suddenly treated to voice-over narration. One of these is the origin tale of Hugo Stiglitz, and I’ll get back to that moment, because I have much more to say about it. The other is a strange and completely unnecessary moment in which the narrator informs us of how nitrate film burns much faster. For the life, I can’t really figure this moment out. The information could have just as easily been delivered in a couple lines of dialogue from the characters. I probably wouldn’t have cared if there had been MORE moments like it, but that’s just it – because there are only these two brief Voice Over sequences in a two hour and forty-five minute movie, they feel incredibly awkward.

But that is not enough to ruin the experience, nor are the rest of the film’s stylistic changes. In fact, the movie’s tonal shifts are a big part of what make it, and its writer/director, so fascinating. In my 411 review of Transformers 2, I said the problem with the movie was that Bay was too free to indulge in his various film fetishes. I stand by that, but don’t think that means I am saying directors should NOT be allowed to do so. The problem with Bay is that his particular film fetishes are unfortunately unbearable if not kept in check. With Tarantino, on the other hand, we have a director that we WANT to see indulge in his fetishes – and they’re all on display here. The long monologues, the memorable side characters, the excellent usage of music, the novel-like chapter breaks…even the trademark shots of women’s bare feet. They are all what make Tarantino Tarantino, and the new joy of his recent output is seeing how he will fit them into genres as various as kung-fu revenge tales, slasher films, and now WWII epics.

So, like I said, if you have already grown tired of these tropes, then this is hardly the movie for you. This is not necessarily a war movie for lovers of war movies. It is a war movie for lovers of Tarantino movies. It is definitely not his masterpiece, as I have seen at least couple critics claim. But that doesn’t matter. I don’t care if he ever makes another movie as excellent as Pulp Fiction. And, quite frankly, I don’t think Tarantino cares either. He’s in it for the fun now, and that’s what this movie delivers. Inglourious Basterds allows him to re-invent WWII, unencumbered by such little things as moral complexity or historical accuracy. This may seem silly (or just plain stupid) to some, and a part of me feels bad for those people. For the rest of us, we can sit back and enjoy as a master filmmaker puts his own unique spin on a seemingly worn-out genre and makes it something wholly original in the process. I give Inglorious Basterds a solid “B,” and eagerly await Tarantino’s next movie, whatever genre (or genres) it may be.

Before I go, though, let me just address a few other random thoughts about the movie:

I promised I would get back to the Hugo Stiglitz origin scene. Now even though I said above that this is one of two Voice Over scenes that feel strangely out-of-place in the movie, that doesn’t mean I didn’t like this part. Far from it – this is one of the most entertaining scenes in the movie…which only makes its randomness that much more frustrating. Why didn’t the rest of the Basterds get similar moments? It would have helped flesh out the others, like Samm Levine and B.J. Novak’s characters, who aren’t really given much to do. But OK, I can live with only Stiglitz getting an origin sequence…if only it ended up meaning something. I guess that is what bothers me about this scene. It’s something of an unfair tease. It instantly builds up this awesome mythos around Stiglitz, and in turn makes him one of the movie’s more intriguing characters. So you keep waiting for this intrigue to pay off, but it never does. In my opinion, it’s a rare creative stumble by Tarantino – he almost always delivers on what he sets up. But here he seems to promise big things from this character, and then we are never given them. I have given up on expecting Tarantino to ever actually make spin-off movies (like the rumored but never materialized Vega Brothers movie and Kill Bill anime), but perhaps he could get his buddy Robert Rodriguez to make a Hugo Stiglitz movie, and actually give the character the showcase his origin sequence suggests he deserves.
It’s interesting to me that no one seems to be making a big deal about the fact that this is the first Tarantino movie that (somewhat) focuses on making movies. Oh, sure, characters watch and talk about movies in all of his work, but this is the first time that the actual business of making and showing movies is actually a crucial plot point – even if it is the German WWII propaganda films we’re talking about.
I’ve heard that some feel the Nazi’s in Inglourious Basterds are one-dimensional villains. I don’t think complaint could be any further from the truth. In fact, I was expecting them to be much more stereotypical, given the sort of WWII exploitation movies that Tarantino is paying homage to with this movie (most of which DID relegate the Nazi characters to little more than cartoony bad guys). I don’t see how anyone could say that Hans Landa is a one-dimensional character. Same with Fredrick Zoller. And what about the young Nazi in the tavern, who simply wants to get back to his newborn baby? Not exactly “stereotypical evil” behavior there, huh?
And let’s finish off by talking about Hans Landa. There are a number of great performances in this movie (Brad Pitt is clearly having a hoot and it shows, and I was also very impressed with the work of Melanie Laurent as Shosanna), but there is no question that Christoph Waltz absolutely steals this movie. Landa is easily one of the best screen villains of the past decade, and I think it’s gonna be tough to compete with him for the Best Supporting Actor trophy come Oscar time. Who knew that being so pleasant and polite could be so creepy? "Wait for the cream!"

Yeah, this was necessary.

2009-08-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

Between my Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and regular 411 column, I have started to feel like I am not adequately represented in the online world. And so here we are with Night of the Living Trev, a new blog dedicated to further spreading my gospel. Most of what you're gonna get here are additional movie reviews that don't quite fit on 411 (whether it be because of style or simply because that movie has already gotten a fair amount of attention from my fellow 411 writers), but I'll also be throwing up just ramdom thoughts and tirades from time to time.

So if you're a friend, fan (yeah, right) or whatever, please bookmark this page and check back every so often. I'll try not to disappoint.