My Top 25 Zombie Movies of All Time

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.

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.

“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

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

"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

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

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.

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.