running zombies.... WHAT THE HELL....?

I tend to think of strange things sometimes, just listen to my podcasting history and you'll see what I mean. Tonight was no exception. On my way back in from walking the dog, I thought.... What if the zombie outbreak happened right now? And that thought was followed up with.... Would they run or shamble? And then I thought.... When did zombies really start running anyway? See what I mean about weird trains of thought?

I heard something a while back about why zombies don't generally run. The thought behind it is sound, if a zombie who's been decaying was to take off in a sprint his leg would probably break or fall off. I mean, he or she is not exactly in the best shape. Now, if it was a fresh corpse then maybe it would work out okay? That's the why, but in the reality of zombie invasions, it's a lot more fun to have them take off in a full sprint. Now what does all of this have to do with anything? It made me wonder who in the hell made them run in the first place? I think most film goers credit this to Danny Boyle in his film '28 Days Later'. Now, for zombie purists, the creatures in his film aren't zombies.... they're just infected humans, infected with a disease. I, however, would probably credit it to the 1985 Dan O'Bannon film 'Return of the Living Dead'. In that film, the zombies move very quickly and don't really shamble at all. Granted, the zombies also talk and don't follow the old school rules. It's still a classic in my book.What I came to finally realize, after some more thought, is that both of those lines of thinking are wrong. The first time I can think of seeing them was actually in the godfather of modern zombie films, George A. Romero's 1968 film 'Night of the Living Dead'. In that film, in the opening sequence, we see a pretty pissed off zombie taking off after Barbara and then running after her car. I never really put two and two togther until tonight. After all these years, it was right there in front of my face. It obviously didn't stick after that film, it took quite a long time for people to be willing to expect the high speed undead. '28 Days Later' introduced the idea, but 2004's remake of 'Dawn of the Dead' by Zack Snyder, made it mainstream. Now it's become an ongoing arguement with zombie fanatics as far as which is better or more pure, running or shambling? As far as I'm concerned, zombies are zombies. If they run, that's scary as hell. Thinking about something that wants to kill you that has no remorse, no slowing down and will kill anything that gets in its way, is pretty damn frightening. It's like swimming in the ocean and coming across a school of sharks with blood in the water. But the shambling zombies can be just as scary. Thinking about being surrounded by hordes of the undead who all want your flesh, is frightening. Just the overwhelming numbers will always overcome any amount of weapons someone has. So both options pretty much suck, if you were in them.

Watch from the 7 min 25 sec mark forward and you'll see one pretty fast and pissed off zombie. He's going to get Barbara and have a Barb-a-ra-Q, damn it.

In the end, my point of writing this was to set the record straight on the whole running/shambling arguement. I don't think one is right and one is wrong, they both have their place in horror cinema. I'll love them no matter what. For me, zombies are the bread and butter of my horror world. I guess I've made my point.... if there ever was one.

(Follow up: I went back and researched who said that the ankles would break on running zombies and low and behold, it was George A. Romero himself that said that! I guess he forgot that he started the whole trend long before zombies were in vogue. Silly boy.)

my very brief thoughts on.... 'George A. Romero presents: Deadtime Stories vol. 1'

Okay, this pains me to say.... but I've been coming to this realization for a while now. George A. Romero is not the best film maker, unless it's zombie films. Granted, this collection of three short stories was not directed by him, but he put his name to it. This "movie" is not good. It's dumb, pointless and redundant. There is nothing new or original about this. Sadly, George isn't the only one involved in this that I respect.... Tom Savini made the third installment in the story. His installment is the closest one to having any redeeming qualities.

*SPOILERS!*Story 1: A woman is searching for her husband in a jungle. At the very beginning you see her face, bloodied, talking to the camera. At the end, SURPRISE!, her head in the beginning was actually on a stake!!!! She was killed by the same headhunters who killed her husband. Story 2: A man gets turned into a scary ass merman thingy by a scary ass mermaid thingy. Dumb. Story 3: A woman has a son that is having problems. A priestly man comes to help. After a LONG drawn out story, we find out that the man is actually the original vampire who turned the boy into a vampire! WHOA! He kills him and then kills the mom. The End. Now you don't have to bother watching it.I'm sorry George. I love your films and you, as a person. However, like with many other projects you've stuck your name to as either creator or producer.... this wasn't good. It doesn't mean I've given up on you, it just means I'll be leary of future projects that aren't zombie related. This was barely 1 out of 5 stars. It is an example of someone not taking the time to read about what exactly they were paying money for. Instead they just blindly gave money to someone to make this garbage. It's OnDemand, but that doesn't mean you need to watch it. Stay away.

Final note: vol. 2 is in the works. Sorry.

If you would rather watch a good anthology series, see: 'Trick r' Treat' or 'Creepshow'

my brief thoughts on.... 'Survival of the Dead'

for the longest time this was just called '....Of the Dead'.... eventually George A. Romero chose a full title.... and thus we had 'Suvival of the Dead'.... now as you all know, George A. Romero is my hero.... he created the modern zombie and my favorite sub-genre of the horror world.... i love zombies more than any other monster out there.... so just knowing that George was taking on yet another zombie epic made me happy.... what's kind of interesting though, is that the first 4 films: 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'Dawn of the Dead' (1978), 'Day of the Dead' (1985), and 'Land of the Dead'.... were all part of a series of films.... a quadrilogy of sorts.... he didn't necessarily start out to make them be a series, but it kind of organically happened and he made an epic series of films.... since then he almost rebooted his own series.... 'Diary of the Dead' was a new take on the original genre.... we're still dealing with the shambling dead, but it's at the beginning of the outbreak.... so it's a do-over.... it's like the first 4 movies never happened.... then with 'Survival of the Dead' he ties it in with 'Diary of the Dead' in such a way that it's almost a sequel.... which could mean more in the series.... despite the fact that critics say that George has said all he can say with the zombie genre.... he seems to still have stories to tell.... and as long as i'm alive and he's alive, i'll keep seeing an zombie movies he puts out.... despite how good or bad they may be.... so far, i've been satisfied with all of his work to date.... and this movie was no exception.... do i honestly think this will reach out to all of the masses and leave an impression, no. i'll be honest.... this is for die hard fans.... i don't know that the casual horror film buff would count this as a modern masterpiece or anything.... the story is original and the characters are kind of a mixture of characters from all his other movies.... and he's started to rely some more on humor in his films to help carry them and make them seem more fresh.... some of it works, some doesn't....

the story revolves around two seperate groups of people.... some rogue army members who are living by their own laws and just trying to stay alive.... it also involves two groups at war on a small island debating on whether it's better to keep the zombies and try to train them to eat something else or to kill them all and live safetly on the island away from the threat of the outbreak.... the first group overtakes the second group and banishes them off of the island into the real world where the outbreak is all to real.... where the two sets of main characters collide is when the army folks hear that the group that's been banished has plans to go back to the island and take it back over and make it safe for families to live on.... thus begins a shaky partnership.... of course all is going well until they get to the island and things get sketchy and what was going to be a peaceful ending to a horrific situation.... ends up far from peaceful....
i can honestly say this isn't George's strongest work to date.... but it was an enjoyable ride and a unique take on a genre that has been over saturated with the same things over and over.... he was able to create something new and different.... but compared to some of the other things that George has done outside of zombie films, this is still his bread a butter.... and i hope that he continues to play with genre.... i think he has some more interesting tales to spin.... now my ratings on this movie are a little biased due to my love of the genre and of George A. Romero.... it's because of this that i gave it 4 out of 5 stars.... do i think that it 100% deserves that high of a rating, i'm not sure.... all i know is that i enjoyed my time spent watching it and know that it will be added to my DVD collection when i get the money together to do so.... as no zombie collection is complete without all of Romero's work.... and this is the only one i'm missing.... go watch it if you have the time.... but go into it just expecting to have fun.... don't expect high art and i think you'll get a kick out of it....

if you like this, check out: 'Diary of the Dead', 'Land of the Dead' and 'Day of the Dead' (1985)

my thoughts on.... 'The Crazies' (2010)

in George A. Romero's original film version of 'The Crazies' from 1973, he used the military as opposed to the actual "Crazies" to show how crazy the military actually is.... not nearly as much as the "Crazies" themselves.... in this 2010 update.... i don't think the producer, writer and director didn't seem to get that.... granted, i think that everyone wanted more of the actual "Crazies" in the original.... and me, personally, was kind of let down in the way it was handled by Mr. Romero.... i actually reviewed this movie already on this blog and let's just say that i didn't care too much for it.... and i'm a fan of his.... so when the trailers and previews for this movie seemed to indicate that they were making it more focused on the "Crazies" themselves, i was happy.... it looked more like a zombie movie or a plague movie.... like '28 Days Later'.... what we got instead was a watered down mixture of the military version from Romero's vision and the zombie-like victims of this version.... and the mixture didn't work.... it ended up just being kind of a big mess of a movie....

the story behind the infection and containment revolve around a plane crashing into the main water supply of a small town.... the plane contained a bio-chemical weapon that was headed to another location for destruction, but crashed instead.... and what happens next is the slow downfall of a community under the grasp of a horrific virus and the tight fisted grip of the military.... it's a total breakdown of society itself.... and as the military takes over the town to try and stop the spread of the virus, things get out of control.... and our heros must fight against all odds to save themselves and whatever they can of the town...

this isn't a terrible movie.... but it's also not great either.... even the lovely Radha Mitchell can only do so much to save this movie.... it's just a big mess.... i don't think it really knew what it wanted to be exactly.... and that shone through the entire movie.... granted there were some pretty darn creepy moments.... and some very tense ones.... and that made the movie worthwhile to watch.... but there just weren't enough of them to save the movie overall.... the scene in the schoolhouse with the man with the pitchfork is especially effective.... and probably one of the most powerful scenes.... and i've heard some complaints about the ending.... i think it was the best way to end it.... and without giving anything away, i think it made sense and gave a solid finish to the movie....

i give it 3 out of 5 stars.... which might be a bit generous.... but i felt that the good vs. the bad balanced themselves out pretty well.... would i own it....? maybe if it was a few bucks to help complete my Radha Mitchell collection.... but i don't know that i would make a strong effort to watch it over and over.... i just don't think it has that kind of staying power.... i would ask that you give it a chance.... you might dig it.... it's an improvement over the original, which is considered a classic.... i just expeceted more.

if you like this, check out: '28 Days Later', 'Quarantine' and 'Day of the Dead' (1985)

my thoughts on.... 'The Crazies' (1973)

as you all well know, i love zombies.... and anyone who loves zombies, loves George A. Romero: King of the Modern Zombie.... this all but forgotten movie of his, which was sandwiched between 'Night of the Living Dead' and Dawn of the Dead' has very similar themes.... just minus the dead folks.... a lot of people consider this to be a classic and love it like a cult religion.... and it has drawn enough attention to create a remake that is about to hit theaters.... which looks like it has promise....

the idea behind the movie is very similiar to his zombie films.... in so much that people start going crazy and killing each other due to a government screw up.... the big wigs call in the army in biohazard suits to contain the virus and start the clean up.... but soon all hell breaks loose and people start getting killed as mass hysteria adds more fuel to the already problematic fire....
i love George.... he provided me with one of my all time favorite movies and in the zombie genre can, basically, do no wrong.... however, everytime i venture outside of that realm i get lost.... his other films tend to not have the same punch.... or something just feels like it's missing.... as a matter of fact, i haven't seen a non-zombie Romero film yet that i loved.... or even liked very much.... sadly, this falls in that category.... granted.... it's not terrible.... it just seems like it might be trying to say too much about society and the government and the like.... or maybe i'm just reading too much into it.... who's to say....? but it rubbed me the wrong way....

so all in all, not something i would recommend except to die hard Romero fans.... there is hardly anything to really do with the 'crazies'.... as a matter of fact they're barely a part of the story at all.... it's more about the guys in the white suits with the guns.... and how they react to the situation.... i wish i had more positive things to say and i could tell you all to run out and see this.... however, i'm thinking that you may want to wait for the remake and give that one a try instead.... (i can't believe i just said that.).... either way.... 2 out of 5 stars.... sorry George, i love you, but just not that much.

if you enjoy this movie, check out: '28 Days Later', '28 Weeks Later' and 'The Crazies' (2010)