Day of the Dead (1985) Review

Director: George A. Romero
Stars: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joseph Pilato, Jarlath Conroy
Genre: Horror

The final film of Romero's original Trilogy of the Dead, which is, in my opinion, the greatest horror trilogy ever.

The film follows a group of survivors living in an underground Army base. We have a lot of different survivors here; the rugged military guys, the scientists, the mad scientist, the wise black man, and some alcoholic guy. This is perhaps what makes the film so good, the character variety.

As with all the original Romero zombie films, they're films not about the zombies, but rather about the people surrounded by them. In Day of the Dead we get to see how the situation would be handled by various people. We see how it would be handled militarily, scientifically, and even religiously. The military with their guns and aggressive nature with a seeming lack of logic. The scientists with their rationality and experiments but their sometimes questionable means. Or the two religious guys, who seemed to be somewhere in the middle.

We get to see the scientific angle most prominently, which is good because it is definitely the most interesting.   The experiments and tests they do on the zombies is actually quite fascinating. They even try, and somewhat succeed, in training and domesticating a zombie. We learn a lot more about zombies here than in the first two.

The zombies are much more humanized and easier to sympathize with here also. We see them being abused and I admittedly did feel a bit of sorrow for them. We also learn that they do in fact maintain their memories from their past live, which, obviously, makes them more human. It was a nice addition.

The zombies here look better than ever and are definitely the most graphic of the trilogy. The zombies don't just have painted faces like the last two, they have torn flesh and drooping faces. It's awesome. The makeup effects and gore are excellent, even better than the first two. Much compliments to Tom Savini, returning from Dawn of the Dead. There really are some pretty gruesome parts and chilling imagery. Awesome death scenes too. 

In my opinion this one is more similar to Night of the Living Dead than Dawn was. Just like Night we have different parties constantly fighting each other in a power struggle and ultimately killing each other. Some of the scenes even reminded me of Night, like some of the shots when the zombies were hunched over eating flesh was very reminiscent of the basement scene in Night.

There are a few cheap jump scares in here, but nothing too much, and they actually kind of work well. There are some parts where it was only a brief dream, but this is okay because it's not just there to have some cheap scare and weird scene, it's actually used as a plot device and progresses the story along.

The characters are excellent and so is the character development and psychology. Almost every character is memorable; the scum bag leader, the guy who looks like Walter from the Big Lebowski, the madly zany scientist, even the zombies are more memorable and distinguished. The woman character here is much stronger and intelligent than the women in the previous entries. Which is definitely a welcomed addition.

This film is not without it's political statements, though maybe not as prominent as in the last two. Ultimately the film shows that lack of cooperation with one another will kill us faster than any apocalyptic scenario will.

The cast here is filled with unknowns (just the way I like my horror casts) and they do a pretty damned good acting job, which really do their characters justice. 

The soundtrack here is almost as awesome as it was in Dawn, if not as awesome. It compliments the film and helps build a superb atmosphere.

Some complain that the film is a bit slower paced, which I suppose is true, but it's not without good reason. The slower pace allows for great tension, character development, atmosphere building, and more, all while still managed to gave tons of killing and gore. Pretty impressive of you ask me.

Day of the Dead is often viewed as a good film, but the weakest of the trilogy. I'd have to disagree with that and say that Day of the Dead is as good as its predecessors, if not better. Very much worth watching. 

Predecessors: Night of the Living Dead (1968), Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Purchase Day of the Dead on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - VHS

Dawn of the Dead (1978) Review

Director: George A. Romero
Stars: David Emge, Ken Foree
Genre: Horror

With George A. Romero directing, Dario Argento producing, Tom Savini doing the effects, and Goblin composing, Dawn of the Dead is a horror fan's dream come true.

Right from the start of the film we are thrown into a state of chaos, not a chaos of survival or zombie fighting, but a chaos of normal people arguing and yelling at each other and even fighting each other. Right away we see that the people are most likely to kill each other before the zombies even get a chance.

The plot follows four survivors who steal a helicopter and make their way towards a shopping mall, where they stock up and shelter themselves. They are constantly challenged and threatened by zombies, raiders, and even themselves. Can these four survive the zombie apocalypse? Well, watch the fucking movie and find out.

It's hard to make a sequel to Night of the Living Dead and have it live up to expectations, luckily Dawn of the Dead managed to do just that and then some. Night was a movie with a message, a statement, and a very powerful one at that. Dawn also has something to say. The first obvious statement is the fact that the entire film has zombies wandering around a shopping mall (of which were pretty new at the time), so there's the obvious satire of consumer culture and capitalism.

Eventually the four survivors barricade the zombies off and are pretty much entirely safe. They gather all the supplies they need and they even decorate their safe-house to make it appear as if it was a normal suburban home, with a kitchen and bedroom and whatnot, it actually looked pretty cozy. The girl was even pregnant. It was very clever the way Romero set this up. These people had access to the entire mall, virtually any material need was at their fingertips. But what happens? Once they're safe and have everything they could ever want, they become more miserable than they were before. "What have we done to ourselves?" the woman asks.

It's a very clever film, and it may seem that its message is very frank and blatant, but it is actually very well delivered and powerful nonetheless. 

I can't really say time has done this film much justice, the zombies do sometimes look pretty funny, but Tom Savini (Friday the 13th, Creepshow, Day of the Dead) did a remarkable job with the makeup and effects, as he always does. There's plenty of gore and all of it looks very good. Savini also plays a small role as a biker, which is pretty fun to watch.

The film is actually fairly visually pleasing. Whereas Night had a very grainy, newsreel, paranoia/claustrophobic, realistic feel to it, Dawn has a very bright and colorful look, with very wide shots showing the vastness of their environment. It has a bit of that '70s feel to it, but it's just really colorful and its garishness really compliments well.

Goblin did the wonderful soundtrack, who are most well-known for also doing the soundtracks to Dario Argento's Deep Red and Suspiria. As far as soundtracks go, this is as good as it gets. It's enjoyable to listen to, it adds tension and suspense in all the right places, it almost always reflects what is happening on screen. Just an overall superb soundtrack. 

This isn't really a scary film, some creepy parts, but there's not even any jump scares or anything, as was also the case with Night of the Living Dead. I like this. Because Romero's Living Dead films aren't about some external monster, they're about ourselves and the psychology of everyday people, and how they deal with the situation.

Many people list the acting as one of this film's flaws, which I don't completely agree with. It's nothing spectacular but I though all did a pretty good job with some pretty great acting in a few scenes.

It's always been hard for me to pick between Night and Dawn. They're both just so awesome and each have their own unique charm. It's definitely a tough choice, but both are highly enjoyable and probably the two best zombie films of all time.

A great look at apocalyptic effects on society and on individuals. A film that, like all Romero's original Living Dead films, not only did a great deal in progressing the genre, but also serves as inspiration for nearly every zombie film after it. Highly recommended. 

Recommended for: Zombie fans, horror fans, fans of any cast or crew

Predecessor: Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Sequel: Day of the Dead (1985)
Remake: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Purchase Dawn of the Dead on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD 

Looper (2012) Review

Director: Rian Johnson
Stars: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Paul Dano
Genre: Science Fiction, Thriller

EDIT: I re-watched it again in theaters (I didn't pay for the ticket) and it pretty much sucked. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote this review. All the charm wore off on a second viewing and all the incosistincies and plot-holes became so much more obvious. Very average film. You can pretty much disregard the entire following review bellow, but there's still some truth in it. Maybe just read the bold text. Updated rating: 2.5 out of 5. 

OLD REVIEW:
I honestly thought I would hate this film. I don't know, it just seemed like more of the same typical science fiction we've been seeing in the last ten years, and it kind of is, but it's very well done. So, I did, for the most part, like it.

The film takes place in 2044. In 2074 time travel is invented and immediately outlawed, and the only people that have access to it are big time criminals. Apparently in 2074 it is extremely hard to dispose of a body (for reasons never stated) so instead criminals in 2074 use time travel to send people to 2044 and be killed and disposed of. The people who do these killings, in 2044, are called loopers.

After thirty years every looper is killed by the criminals (again the reasoning doesn't make much sense, but apparently it's to avoid association). So, every looper much eventually "close the loop" and has to kill their future selves.

If all that is a bit confusing then go watch the trailer or something.

One of the only real problems I have with the film are its plot-holes and inconsistencies. There are aplenty and probably some I even missed. I'll only mention a few. If you haven't seen the film you might as well skip the next paragraph or two. (1) Why do loopers have to kill themselves? Can't the criminal organization just send them to a different looper to be killed? Sure, they won't get their gold payment but I'd imagine it'd avoid a lot of problems, i.e., everything that happened in the film. (2) Why does the criminal organization have to kill them after thirty years anyway? They give a reason, but couldn't a looper just snitch on them before thirty years or leave a message for the police or something? (3) Where the hell are the police? All these killing and explosions and stuff and I didn't see a single fucking cop or even hear a mention of concern about the police.

If you can look past all the plot-holes and unanswered questions though, it's a real great film. The plot though, in theory, is pretty good.

I can't say all the characters were well developed, because they weren't. But one thing that was done well was the fact that the film has no clear antagonist. I mean, you can understand where all the characters are coming from. You get that Joseph Gordon-Levitt just wants his life back to normal, and Bruce Willis wants to be back with his wife, or that mother just wants to protect her son. They're all understandable, yet they all contradict each other and they can't all get what they want.

It wasn't a story of good versus evil (although the criminal organization was evil and essentially the reason behind it all, although that one guy, Abe, was pretty likable). So sure, it does have evil and it does have good, but it's not the focus. When it comes down to it it's a man fighting himself...literally. At times I was actually rooting for Bruce Willis, and at other times for JGL. So, I just think it's really cool how the film doesn't have a clear antagonist, or at least not a stereotypical one.

There's no character that you completely hate (except for Kid Blue). Though the main character (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) was kind of an asshole. He did, after all, allow his best friend to get killed just so he could keep his silver. I mean, talk about a d-bag. I wish they kind of dealt with the morality of it more.

The characters themselves were only decent though and never really fleshed out properly. And there was a brief romance going on, but fortunately it didn't last long.

Also, what the hell was with all that make-up on Joseph Gordon-Levitt? While watching I wasn't even sure if it was him or not.

There's some really stereotypical action parts though. Like Bruce Willis taking out an entire building of armed assassins with two P90s. But, he's Bruce Willis so I guess it makes sense.

The world is somewhat believable. We don't get to see much of it though, only bits and pieces, but what there is is pretty good. I found it kind of a let-down that half of the film takes place on a fucking farm house. For a film about cool futuristic stuff it's kind of odd that most of it took place on a farm.

I must compliment the sound in here. They really let you hear every noise that's happening. The soundtrack was good, but the sound work really complimented the film well. From car doors opening to paper being torn. It's just real neat.

The second half of the film has some weird supernatural elements going on, but I didn't really mind. In my opinion the second half was nowhere near as good as the first. Mostly because it took place completely on a fucking farm.

A lot of people disliked the ending. I actually liked it. I won't spoil anything but I thought it worked. It managed to be powerful, thought-provoking, and, for me, satisfying.

Definitely one of the better sci-fi flicks of the year, and worth the watch.

Recommended for: fans of cast or director, fans of time travel films or sci-fi in general

Pros:

+More than just a story of Good vs. Evil

+Keeps you compelled and interested

+Solid ending

+Great use of sound

Cons:

-Undeveloped characters

-Plot-holes and unanswered questions

-Could of better utilized the futuristic setting

Purchase Looper on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD 

Seven Psychopaths (2012) Review

Director: Martin McDonagh
Stars: Colin Farrell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson, Sam Rockwell, Tom Waits
Genre: Black Comedy, Crime

I went into this not really knowing what to expect. I really just wanted to see it because Tom Waits has a small role in it, and I'm a huge fan of Waits. However, the film as a whole was actually very impressive.

First off, I must say, this film has one of the best openings ever. Two guys standing and talking and then just getting their heads blown the fuck off. It really sets the tone of the film.

The plot is a bit tricky to explain. It's about a guy who is writing a screenplay called Seven Psychopaths, which is the film within the film. He has a friend who kidnaps people's dogs and then gives them back to get the reward. Turns out he ends up robbing a big time gangster's dog, and the gangster comes and hunts them down. And throughout the film we eventually get to meet the seven psychopaths. It's pretty crazy. 

The film kind of feels like a Tarantino film. In a good way. I'd even say this film does certain things better than many Tarantino films do. But I don't really want to make this a comparison of directors, but if you like Tarantino's stuff you'll probably love this. 

I'm not a huge Colin Farrell fan but I guess he's alright here. Christopher Walken, one of my favorite actors of all time, is superb here; loved his character. Sam Rockwell is cool too, took me half the movie to finally realize he was the guy from Moon. Wood Harrelson is great here if you're a fan of his. And my main man Tom Waits is also great to watch here, being completely weird, as always. It's quite an awesome cast and all the actors deliver. 

The film constantly satirizes and even parodies action and crime flicks, with Billy constantly saying that there has to be a shootout at the end. At one part, and this is an actual quite from the film, he says: "Peace is for queers" and starts blasting away. It was pretty hilarious. 

And the film is very funny. I mean just the entire plot is completely ridiculous and when you stop and realize that all these people are getting killed because of one little shih-tzu, it gets even funnier. There are a lot of genuinely funny moments, and overall I'd say it's a very funny film. But, there are a few moments when it feels like a very typical comedy, thankfully it's not too frequent. 

All the characters are well written and likable. When characters die, you really do feel sad, and when characters are in trouble you can sympathize with them, all before another laugh comes about. All the characters feel real and as if they were actual friends with each other, and this is a film about friendship and what friends will do for one another. For example, Billy may appear as if he isn't too great of a friend, but then we realize that everything he does he does with a good heart and in hopes to help his friend.

I'd definitely check this one out. It's funny, it has tons of violence, but it's also a very touching and moving story. 

Recommended for: fans of cast or director, fans of Guy Ritchie/Tarantino-esque films

Purchase Seven Psychopaths on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD

Drag Me to Hell (2009) Review

Director: Sam Raimi
Stars: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, David Paymer
Genre: Horror, Black Comedy

With Sam Raimi directing, the man behind the Evil Dead trilogy, many were exciting. This was his first horror film since Army of Darkness, so many fans were oozing with anticipation to see this. Does Raimi still got it? Yeah, kind of.

The story follows a bank loan officer, named Christine, who denies an old gypsy woman an extension on her mortgage payment, even though she could have easily granted her the extension. She denied the old woman in order to impress her boss, in hopes of getting a promotion. Anyway, old gypsy woman puts a curse on Christine (as old gypsy women tend to do) and Christine is haunted by this curse, which makes her life a living hell, and she must try and find a way to undo the curse.

The plot is really nothing new. It borrows a lot of its elements from the 1957 British horror film Night of the Demon. But the film does have a moral, which is cool, though it's very simplistic. A women wrongs someone else for their own gain and then face the consequences. It's also very relevant to its era, showing the hardships of foreclosures and whatnot. Who isn't behind on their mortgage payments these days?

The film does have comedic elements in it, as Evil Dead II had. It's all intentional humor, and some of it is pretty amusing, but unfortunately no where near the level of amusement Evil Dead II provided. So of the stuff is obviously inspired by Raimi's earlier work, like the demonic goat, or the gallons of spurting blood. Even the old gypsy woman kind of reminded me of a deadite in a few scenes.

None of it is really scary. There's not much of an atmosphere, save for some parts in the gypsy house, or that graveyard scene towards the end. But a lot of the scares were very cheap. The thing is, Drag Me to Hell is not quite a horror film, but it's also not quite a comedy. So what is it? What is this film trying to be? I'd say it's more horror than comedy but I don't think it completely satisfies fans of either genre.

Some of the effects were very impressive, but just as many were cheap CGI crap. Like all the scenes where Christine is fighting the old gypsy were highly entertaining and well done. But then there's other scenes with such obnoxious CGI and not even good CGI at that. Really wish they opted for non-computer generated effects.

Raimi's cinematography is actually very good here. You'd think it'd be hard for Raimi to keep bringing new and unique camera angles and shots with each of his films, but he manages. Some very cool camera work in here. 

The script is not terrible. There's some cool lines, but none of the characters are really memorable or developed. Let's call it a very average script. The acting is decent enough. Justin Long's face is in here, of which has been permanently burned into my subconscious ever since I watched Happy Campers.

I actually liked the ending. I can't really say much about it without spoiling it, but it worked.

There's some joy to be had in here, and it is worth watching just once. I can't say I didn't enjoy it. But when it comes down to it, it's really only something to watch because it's directed by Sam Raimi. Besides that it's pretty standard. I'm split on whether I should give this a 2.5 or a 3, it's probably somewhere in between there. I can only just barely recommend this one. Watch it once. 

Pros:

+Has its moments

+Has good ending; presents moral

+Good cinematography

Cons:

-Doesn't do anything great, only okay

-Meh script

-Awful use of CGI

-Pretty typical film

Purchase Drag Me to Hell on Amazon: Blu-Ray - DVD - Stream