Zombie
Zombie (1979)
★ / ★★★★
After I’ve seen zombies that can run like the wind à la “28 Days Later” or “28 Weeks Later,” slow-moving flesh eaters just don’t impress me anymore unless they’re being spoofed like in “Shaun of the Dead.” But I always try my best to put things into perspective because modern zombie pictures wouldn’t be the same today without the classics. A woman (Tisa Farrow) and a reporter (Ian McCulloch) decided to go on an island in the Caribbean to look for the woman’s father. Along the way, they met a couple (Al Cliver, Auretta Gay) on vacation who were kind enough to take them to the island of interest. But little did they know that the island was infested with the living dead. Although considered now as a classic, I believe “Zombie” was a mess. It talked about voodoo being the reason why the dead were rising from the grave but the word was not really explored nor did it touch upon its source. Voodoo has a variety of definitions depending on the culture–did this one involve dolls and pins? Furthermore, characters would ask something like, “What ARE those things rising from the grave?” in utter disgust. And someone would reply he didn’t know. However, after a few seconds the word “zombie” was thrown around like a football. That inconsistency in the script bothered me as much as the characters choosing to make one stupid decision after another. If the characters are as stupid (and as slow-moving) as the zombies, the fun is immediately taken out of the equation. Time and again the character would purposely run into an area where she knew there would be a dead end. I also hated the fact that characters would stand around and wait to be bitten. Horror movie directors should always ask themselves, “What would I do if I was in this particular character’s situation?” Thinking how we would respond and applying that instinct to the characters would not only make the characters more believable, we would be able to relate to them so much easier. If I saw a zombie a few feet away from me, I wouldn’t even think about trying to find the best weapon. Instinct would tell me to run as if I was in a 200 meter dash. And if I happen to run at a dead end and I had no choice but engage in combat, I would fight like I’ve never fought in my life. The last thing I would do was to stand around and say, “Oh, here I am. Bite me.” This was supposed to be a spiritual sequel to George Romero’s original 1978 “Dawn of the Dead.” “Zombie” or “Zombi 2″ certainly wasn’t as intelligent or as ambitious as that film. Although I must say that the zombie versus shark scene was pretty neat. Oh, and I suppose I liked the soundtrack, too.
Daybreakers
Daybreakers (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★
It was year 2019 and vampires have taken over the world while humans were forced to hide because the creatures of the night hunted and used them for blood. Now faced with a shortage of blood because there were more vampires than humans, a hematologist (Ethan Hawke), a vampire who also sympathized with humans, aimed to create a blood substitute that could solve vampires’ problems. However, the leader (Sam Neill) of the company in which the hematologist worked for and the hematologist’s brother (Michael Dorman) himself had other plans. This movie had an interesting take on vampire movies because, like “28 Days Later” in terms of zombies, it related vampirism to a disease because it talked about having a cure. That scientific angle fascinated me, even though not 100% of it made sense in the end, and appreciated that it tried to do something new with the genre. Hawke did a great job as a man who, ten years being a vampire, hated what he had become because he did not want to become a vampire in the first place. I enjoyed his interactions with Claudia Karvan, as a human who led a resistance against vampires, and Willem Dafoe, as a vampire who accidentally turned human. The action sequences where exciting, thrilling and sometimes startling because it went in directions I did not expect. I just wished that the picture had a stronger last twenty minutes. It felt anticlimactic instead of urgent (especially if the fate of the planet boiled down to one showdown) and the abrupt ending left much to be desired. I was not quite certain whether it was setting itself up for a sequel or we were supposed to be hopeful for what would happen next. The ending needed a defined tone but it did not have a chance to reach a certain point because the filmmakers did not allow it to simmer. “Daybreakers,” written and directed by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig, caught my attention and managed to keep it because it had grand and creative ideas about vampirism. It had its weak moments such as introducing a politician who was not explored in any way but it also had strong moments showing how far vampires would go to get food. Perhaps it took itself too seriously at times (it certainly would have benefited if it had taken some pages energy-wise from “Zombieland”) but I could not help but admire how dedicated it was with its new concepts.
Carriers
Carriers (2009)
★★ / ★★★★
A deadly virus ravages the world in Àlex Pastor and David Pastor’s thriller starring Chris Pine, Lou Taylor Pucci, Emily VanCamp and Piper Perabo. The four struggling survivors of the pandemic agreed to adhere to several rules that they thought would ensure or at least maximize their chances of survival. However, when they ran into a man (Christopher Meloni) and his infected daughter (Kiernan Shipka) in the middle of the road, it seemed that nothing would go according to plan. From reading several synopses, I got the impression that this was going to be a zombie flick. It actually wasn’t because even though there was an infection (thanks to “28 Days Later”), the people who died did not rise from the dead and start chasing people. It was simple: you get the virus, you die. I was really into the first half of this picture because of the chemistry of the four main characters. They were all very different and I liked them because they weren’t afraid to have fun even though death was all around. I even thought to myself that I wouldn’t mind being stuck with them if there was a pandemic of such calamity in real life. However, the second half became a little too serious and the pacing began to slow down considerably. For instance, the extended scenes in the fancy hotel was completely unnecessary. I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to deliver the creepy atmosphere and maybe some disgusting rotting flesh because the place was huge. Unfortunately, the movie did not use that setting in its favor. The moral conundrums the characters were put into were interesting in the first half but they became heavy-handed during the second half. The decisions the characters had to make did not affect me in the slightest. They seemed like completely different people compared to the beginning. I felt like the Pastor brothers’ writing became preachy (pardon the pun) and it got stuck. It would have been nice if none of the four got infected because right from the very beginning, I just knew that some (or possibly all) of them would die. I could tell that the directors wanted to do something different so I didn’t understand why they didn’t risk it all. Nevertheless, I say “Carriers” is a decent Friday night rental considering the level of thought that was put into the material, the charismatic actors and the limited budget. One should not expect the movie to be a horror film (as I did). There were a couple of shocking scenes but that was about it so it really was more like a thriller.
The Crazies
Crazies, The (2010)
★★★ / ★★★★
A remake of George A. Romero’s 1973 original of the same name, “The Crazies” was about a man (Timothy Olyphant) and his wife’s (Radha Mitchell) struggle for survival when a strange chemical started affecting their friends and neighbors. At first, the infected would have a fever but after two days, they would exhibit strange behaviors which ranged from catatonia to full-on violence like killing their families or random strangers. I was surprised with how good this movie was because most of the reviews I read expressed disappointment. I really liked that this film, directed by Breck Eisner, knew how to build suspense and had a pay-off every ten to fifteen minutes so I was engaged with what would happen next. I loved the way it used tight spaces to its advantage, such as the horrifyingly terrific scenes in the morgue and the car wash. When at its best, it reminded me of the relentless scenes in “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later.” Unfortunately, the film had its drawbacks thirty minutes into it when the military started taking over the small town. Prior to that, I thought the movie was fantastic because it felt personal. The main characters had no idea what was going on and slowly but surely, the safe life they were so used to living was broken by very strange and creepy happenings which started during a baseball game. With the military in the picture, it became cold and impersonal. Having said that, since this was a remake, I knew that it still had to remain loyal to its original source. However, I felt as though the movie could have minimized the military scenes, which they did during the last twenty or so minutes. But maybe this version minimized the politics as much as they could. I’m not sure because I haven’t seen the original. The movie was at its best when the lead characters who were easy to root for were placed in paranoid situations in which they either had to hide from an infected or think that a friend had the virus and it was only a matter of time until they wouldn’t be on the same side anymore. “The Crazies” was fun to watch because when it’s serious, it gets pretty scary, but it had unintentionally funny lines. It reminded me of a hybrid among the zombie pictures mentioned earlier, “The Happening” and the highly underrated “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” back in 2003. It could have used a little more brain and character development but those elements were the furthest things in my mind when the characters were being attacked from left and right in the most gruesome ways possible.
Undead
Undead (2003)
★ / ★★★★
Written and directed by Michael Spierig and Peter Spierig, this Australian zombie horror-comedy plays more like a science fiction movie more than anything. Rene (Felicity Mason) goes into a farmhouse to escape the zombies that were chasing her after a meteor shower. In the farmhouse, she meets a few others (Mungo McKay, Rob Jenkins, Lisa Cunningham, Dirk Hunter, Emma Randall) and they must figure out what is happening in the town while trying not to get eaten by the zombies. I didn’t enjoy this movie at all due to a number of things. The characters kept asking, “What were THOSE things? Why are they trying to eat us? Are they dead?” as if they’ve never seen a zombie movie before. Moreover, the characters are very one-dimensional. It would have been so much better if the cops were the cowards and the regular folks would have been the leaders. Taking some of those obvious elements and putting them upside down would have given the illusion that the directors were trying to make a better movie. For a horror picture, this is very light on the scary factor. The zombies are slow enough but did the characters have to be slow as well (mentally and physically)? None of them had actual survival skills and I wouldn’t buy for a second that they would survive if there were real zombies running around. If I see a zombie trying to get to me to eat my brains, I would run so fast, I wouldn’t even think about silly things like leaving something behind. The stupid characters were good at three things: screaming, yelling at each other, and asking redundant questions. Lastly, I’m very frustrated with the fact that there were actual aliens in this movie. It was so random and everything was spelled out for us in the end: why there were zombies and why the aliens decided to visit our planet. What made other zombie flicks so successful (1968′s “Night of the Living Dead” and “28 Days Later”) was the fact that there were questions left unanswered. Even if they were answered, those films left a possibility that the truth lies beyond the given explanation. Overall, “Undead” was a random mess of a movie. It is far from creative and it didn’t have enough enthusiasm to keep my attention. I thought “Zombieland” was far scarier and that was a comedy. That should give you an idea with how lackluster this movie truly is.
[REC]
[REC] (2007)
★★★ / ★★★★
Having seen and being impressed with the remake called “Quarantine,” I just had to see the original. I think both are very effective even though they pretty much had the same scenes. In “[REC],” astutely directed by Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza, it had less exposition but the audiences quickly cared about the reporter (Manuela Velasco) and her cameraman. The reporter had a certain spunk and enthusiasm and what the cameraman saw, we saw so there was an automatic connection there. Everything starts off pretty light as the reporter interviewed the firemen about their every day happenings. Things quickly went for a darker turn when the firefighters got a call from an old apartment complex. At first, they thought it was just an old woman that fell and needed help. But when she started attacking and biting people, everyone pretty much knew that something more sinister was going on. People started dying in gruesome ways in the hands of zombie-like infected people and they get quarantined by city officials without an ounce of explanation. What I love about this film was its natural ability to build tension after each scene. There were moments when I thought that if I was stuck in the building with them, the exact same thing could happen so I was definitely more than engaged. “The Blair Witch Project” was undoubtedly this picture’s biggest inspiration but it managed to tilt just enough to have an identity of its own. The best part of the movie for me was the last fifteen to twenty minutes when they finally made it inside the apartment on the top floor. Such scenes revealed to us that it had more to it than “28 Days Later”-like zombies. The disease had a history and I wanted to know more about it. (Maybe a sequel?) But, of course, the scares did not end there. I felt like I was in that dark room with them as they tried to use the night vision option on the camera. I tried not to blink because I was expecting those “shock”/”jumpy” moments. But even then I was surprised and things popped out of nowhere. If one is a horror film fan, this is a must-see. However, this is definitely not for those who dislike shaky cameras in order to add some type of realism to its craft.
Splinter
Splinter (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★
I was surprised by the quality of this little horror film. Directed by Toby Wilkins, “Splinter” is a story about a couple going camping on their anniversary (Paulo Costanzo and Jill Wagner) and are ambushed by an escaped convict (Shea Whigham) and his girlfriend (Rachel Kerbs). Initially enemies, the two couples had to team up right away after running over a creature that feeds off human and animal blood. Not to mention that it can take over its host after it feeds off the host’s blood. I was horrified because of the way the body moved when the creature was controlling its victim’s bodies. It reminded me of the possessed girl in “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” and those rabid zombies in “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later.” Even though this is a small film, it was surprising how much gore it has. It goes to show that a script with smarts and a creative director can go a long way. I was also impressed by the acting. Even though I liked the “good guys” right away because they were cute and funny together, I also found myself feeling for the “bad guys” because of their circumstance. Another thing I liked about this film was that it didn’t even bother to explain where the creature came from. Most creature-feature films fall for the trap of having to elucidate why and how a monster came into existence. I was glad that this one did not. If one is a fan of horror movies where the characters are trapped in one place (in this case, in a gas station), the characters are smart but not above being silly, and there’s a plethora of effective thrills, “Splinter” is definitely the one to see. I couldn’t help but shudder (and maybe even squeal a bit) during some of the most intense scenes.
Blindness
Blindness (2008)
★★ / ★★★★
I think a lot of critics and audiences alike have been way harsh on this film. I concur that this picture is not easy to swallow and digest since most of the story took place in one area. It definitely got suffocating because the audiences are subjected to see the same place for about an hour and fifteen minutes (the middle portion); the only things that changed are the increasingly disgusting living conditions of the blind and the dynamics among the wards. Mark Ruffalo and Julianne Moore lead one of the wards, a doctor and a doctor’s wife, one lost his sight and the other one kept her sight (though it must be kept a secret), respectively. It was interesting to watch their relationship change as the film went on because Ruffalo depended on his wife regarding pretty much everything. There was a brilliant scene when Ruffalo talked to Moore about not seeing her the same after she feeds him, bathes him, and cleans him up in ways that a nurse or mother normally does. There was this undeniable tension between them but at the same time they must stay together because everything around them is falling apart. I thought it was interesting how Fernando Meirelles, the director, chose to tell the story. In the first few scenes, we focus on this one man who suddenly goes blind in the middle of traffic (Yusuke Iseya) and slowly transition to other people suddenly going blind to the point where it becomes an epidemic. The epidemic and ravaged city reminded me of “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later,” only instead of zombies roaming the streets, it’s blind individuals. I also liked the slightly hopeful ending because the suffering was not entirely for naught. Still, by the end of the picture, I still wanted to know the source of the epidemic. That lack of explanation somewhat got to me (and I imagine as most people would). I don’t deny the fact that I saw some hints of great filmmaking here such as the stark contrast between certain images in the beginning and the end of the movie. I also liked the “Lord of the Flies” element in the quarantine zone when everyone had to decide who would get how much food, who the leader should be and who would emerge victorious between the wards. I’ve never seen Gael García Bernal so immoral so his character definitely took me by surprise. With a little bit more explanation and less saggy middle portion, this would’ve been a much powerful film. The acting was already really good and there were scenes that really tugged at my heartstrings. See this if you’re curious and hopefully you’ll see what I see in it: potential.
Black Sheep
Black Sheep (2006)
★★★ / ★★★★
This movie is genius because it is able to make generally harmless sheep as dangerous as those ravenous zombies in “28 Days Later.” Even though it’s more comedic than horrific, the film is clever not just in its title but also in its way of telling the story. I think this is perfect for those who are too scared of “real” horror movies because there are a lot of genuinely funny scenes, but it won’t leave out the horror fans because it has plenty of gore. I shouldn’t have watched this while I was eating because some scenes are so gruesome to the point where I wanted to throw up. Nathan Meister is great as the “black sheep” of the family who went to live in the city after his father’s accident, leaving his brother (Peter Feeney) to take care of the farm. Over the years, Meister developed an unhealthy fear of sheep but chooses to return to the farm to find some sort of closure (according to his therapist). Things go horribly wrong when Danielle Mason’s character and her friend try to steal a biohazardous material from the farm’s laboratory. Teaming up Meister and Mason was a smart move because they do have some sort of chemistry even though they don’t realize it. Mason is hilarious as the activist who doesn’t eat meat and yet is plunged into a world of tearing up flesh and blood squirting out all over the place. It’s irony in its most obvious, but at the same time, in its finest. In some scenes, I noticed some of this film’s influences: “An American Werewolf in London” during the transformation scenes and “Night of the Living Dead” because of its story and the film is set in a farm in the middle of nowhere. I recommend this especially to those people who are into cult films. This picture is not meant to be taken seriously (it’s about sheep zombies, for heaven’s sake!), but it does have implications about how we treat animals, the environment, and each other.
Slumdog Millionaire
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★
I enjoyed this film quite a bit but I think most people tend to oversell it. Yes, it’s uplifting because it’s about a boy who lived in poverty and is eventually given the chance to win twenty million rupees. Dev Patel (“Skins”) did a pretty good job as the main character but his acting is not ground-breaking. He shows potential to become more nuanced as an actor and that’s always a good thing. And I have to admit that the last twenty to thirty minutes are very exciting and involving because everything is at stake. However, I’ve seen it all before. I expected more from Danny Boyle because he does make great movies such as “Trainspotting,” “28 Days Later,” and “Millions.” This film, however, doesn’t leave the platform of “just good” because the middle is too messy; it ran thirty minutes too long. When I look at the big picture, the film would’ve been stronger if the middle had been condensed because it would’ve had more focus. This picture aims to please the crowd and it will definitely hook the fans of (another overrated film) called “City of God.” Both feature impoverished individuals trying to attain a chance to lead a better life. I’m glad that foreign films are being recognized, but I wish casual American moviegoers wouldn’t jump at every foreign film where they see some sort of hardship. It really shows how unaware they are about the state of the rest of the world. Anyway, I’m recommending this film despite the familiarity of it all because it has an interesting premise and a good soundtrack. It’s not as great as everyone says it is but it does entertain and makes one ponder about his destiny.
Quarantine
Quarantine (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★
This movie genuinely scared me. It is comparable to “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later” because of the zombie-like creatures that are fast and extremely menacing; “Cloverfield” comes to mind because the entire picture is seen through a hand-held camera. Despite the content of the film, without Jennifer Carpenter (“White Chicks,” “The Exorcism of Emily Rose,” “Dexter”), this movie probably would’ve failed. Providing a character that’s real, good-natured, and one of the boys (established during the amusing first fifteen minutes), we ultimately care about her when the creatures roam about the apartment complex. She really amazed me during the last few scenes because not only can she scream and look good doing it, I wanted to reach out into the screen and help her escape. Another stand-out is Jay Hernandez (“Hostel,” “Planet Terror,” “Lakeview Terrace”) as a firefighter who is both strong and approachable. I wish he and Carpenter had more scenes together because when they interact, the movie feels more alive. As for the scares, a lot of them are memorable: whether something is moving in the background, strange noises coming from a dark room, or bodies falling from above–all of it worked because the characters are trapped in one place. Danger is always around the corner and it doesn’t let go until the credits appeared. I thought the use of lighting is excellent. Most of the time, it makes me want to look closer because the “thing” that we’re supposed to be looking at is shrouded in darkness. Therein lies the trap because once you look closer, something pops out–your heart starts beating and your eyes try to look for an escape. This is one of the better horror films to come out recently and I’m glad to have seen it in the cinema with a friend and enthusiastic horror fans.
Just a Question of Love, August, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Just a Question of Love
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]
This is another good European gay film that exceeded my expectations because of a script that’s alive. Cyrille Thouvenin is very convincing as a twentysomething that refuses to come out to his parents because of two things: he’s afraid that his parents will not accept him and in turn he cannot accept himself. Thouvenin has great chemistry with Stéphan Guérin-Tillié as the argricultural researcher. I just wish that the filmmakers would’ve gotten rid of the slow parts in the second half of the film. It should have focused more on a character’s decision that lets everything out in the open. I wanted to know more about Thouvenin’s parents, why they despise the idea of homosexuality so much. The parents being old-fashioned is simply not enough of a good reason. I also wanted to see Thouvenin and Guérin-Tillié’s straight male friends. Surely they have at least one. Shortcomings like that made some of the characters a bit one-dimensional. I like that the ending doesn’t neatly tie everything up; that we’re leaving the characters when their lives are just beginning. Most LGBT American films don’t even come close to this film’s performance and script so I’m very glad to have seen this picture.
August (2008)
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]
I liked this film because it is an indie movie but it doesn’t feel like an indie movie. I thought the performances by Naomie Harris (for about ten minutes, I knew she looked familiar and then it occured to me that she was in “28 Days Later”), Adam Scott (in a surprisingly serious character), and particularly Josh Hartnett were strong so it didn’t become completely tedious. But what keeps this movie from becoming great is its extremely slow pacing and very low-key way of storytelling. There were moments in the film where I wondered where it was going or if it was even planning on going anywhere. It started off as a business drama, but it eventually focused on Hartnett’s relationship with his family and ex-girlfriend. I wish it could’ve focused more on the former because there are already a lot of better movies out there that focus on the dynamics of the family. I think if the writers had cut off the scenes that had nothing to do with the business, this picture would have been more thrilling and not too bogged down by sappiness. If it weren’t for the performances, I would’ve been completely frustrated with this film. Hartnett has proven himself again as a serious actor instead of just being a pretty face. Hopefully, more people will realize his potential with a better vehicle the next time around. I’m not saying that one should avoid this film but if one likes slow movies that sticks close to real life, then go ahead and see it.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]
I really loved this film the first time I saw it but that was back in 2003. I had not seen that many films then so I regarded it quite highly. Five years later, I saw this picture again but I didn’t like it as much. The script was stale compared to “The Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” but the acting somewhat made up for it. Some other elements that didn’t work for me was Claire Danes’ character. She was annoying because all she did was scream when she was in danger, yell when she didn’t get her own way, and waited to be rescued. I also didn’t like the fact that the writers killed of John Connor’s mother. She was a central figure in the first two films and disposing her was a fatal mistake (even if they couldn’t get Linda Hamilton to reprise her role). Still, this installment is a pretty good one despite its flaws. The visual and special effects were first rate so it’s impossible not to pay attention during the intense action sequences. Arnold Schwarzenneger’s return was more than welcome and choosing Nick Stahl to play John Connor was a wise choise because Stahl can be both weak and strong at the same time (I blame the puppy dog eyes). I also loved the ending because it was quite touching for a science fiction film. I heard from Entertainment Weekly that “Terminator Salvation” would not consider this film’s storyline. I’m not quite sure if that’s a good move (or how it’s going to work out) because this installment is a pretty good transition to the future war against the machines. This was a solid 2003 summer blockbuster film and it’s recommended to any fan of the “Terminator” franchise.
The Bourne Ultimatum, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later
Bourne Ultimatum, The
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]
Jason Bourne pulled a Sydney Bristow. For the fans of the great show called “Alias,” you’ll know what I’m talking about. If not, that’s okay. All the more reason for you to see it. Although I predicted that something like that happened to Bourne, it remains extraordinarily exciting. No one is safe in this supposed final installment. I am immensely glad they had the bravado to kill off a potential main character in the first few scenes, not to mention put Julia Stiles’ beloved character in an unimaginable danger in the roofs. It was so exhilirating, I got numb and shaken at several points throughout the film. The assassins are deadlier, the hand-to-hand combats more real, and the car chases at its best. Not to mention desperation is in the air as characters switch from one side to another in search for the truth. I can only hope they make a fourth movie in the future–I can’t get enough of Jason Bourne! For me, “The Bourne” series has revolutionized the spy-thriller genre in so many levels. Which one is the best “Bourne” movie? All of them. They’re unique in their own way. This one expertly used flashbacks, past dialogues, scenes, character foils, and similar situations that happened in the past two movies. It was eerie yet it provides some form of closure. It reminded me of the last season of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” It is officially my favourite film series of all time, right next to “Indiana Jones.” “The Bourne Ultimatum” is THE best movie of summer 2007.
28 Days Later
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]
The first time I saw this film, I was in total awe because of how well-written and well-executed it was. Cillian Murphy was great as a man who wakes up in a London hospital, completely unaware that the city has been evacuated… and the ones left are the hungry undead. I must admit that I love placing myself in his shoes, knowing that all of it is fictional. But when I actually had a dream that is extremely similar to this film, I was absolutely horrified and woke up soaked in sweat, my heart pounding a thousand beats per minute. The tone of the film is nothing like I’ve ever seen in a horror movie, which was really refreshing. The use of silence is masterful and the scares are first class. Although the movie takes a bit of a dive in its third act, it’s more than forgivable because the rest of the film was eerily consistent. This was also interesting because this is not a zombie film that takes a look at the global crisis. It focuses on one group of people, which means it is more personal and we get to learn more about the characters as the movie goes along… That is, until or if they get infected by the Rage Virus. This is a modern classic zombie film, which I have no doubt will be a horror favourite twenty or fifty years from now.
28 Weeks Later
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]
A sequel that is as good, at times better, than its predecessor. What made this movie better than the original is that there were more scenes where the characters were being attacked. With that comes a sense of danger lurking around the corner wherever they go, so the audiences anticipate what’s coming and it becomes engaging. This movie also had some sort of progress: the focus is now on the family rather than the individual like in the first movie. It also embraced a possibility of how the virus infected others society-wise prior to the first scene in “28 Days Later.” Not only that, they also managed to talk about the idea of a mutation and a cure which, as a Biology student, I appreciated because the scientists’ explanations made some sort of sense. What this film lacked, nonetheless, is that bleak tone the first movie had–that sense of hopelessness, misery, and isolation. It also lacked a sense of sadness that the first movie fully grasped. This is a solid effort and, I must say, I’m looking forward to “28 Months Later.”
Heat, Jaws, Breakfast on Pluto
Heat
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]
It’s so exciting to watch Al Pacino and Robert De Niro being in the same movie let alone the same scenes. Even though this film is almost three hours long, there are more moments of brilliance that made me not want to blink in fear of missing a crucial piece of information. There are three stand out scenes in this picture: Pacino and De Niro’s diner scene, the bank robbery showdown, and the silent but epic final duel between the two leads. Those scenes made my heart beat so fast, I thought I was watching “The Departed” for the first time. I also admired the cinematography: the use of color and images to convey or highlight the unsaid is spot-on. The use of the film’s score is never distracting because it is used at the right time. Michael Mann’s direction is impressive in every level because he keeps us guessing by telling a familiar story in a different approach. The supporting actors such as Val Kilmer, Jon Voight and Amy Brenneman are very strong and crucial to the bigger picture. But the downside that I can’t ignore is the fact that there were more than ten scenes that I thought could’ve been edited out. This could’ve been a two-hour film and still be a great movie. If it didn’t take too much of its time setting things up, I think this movie could’ve been leaner, meaner, and more exciting. Still, it is a very good movie and definitely one of the best directed crime-thrillers I’ve seen.
Jaws
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]
This is one of the finest examples of suspense and horror. From the very first scene to the very last, there’s a certain menace that’s present so the audiences never really let their guards down. The idea of sharks eating people whenever they go in the water is such a simple idea but Steven Spielberg’s execution made it unimaginably terrifying. When the film is not scaring the audiences, it’s making them laugh by using the characters’ dialogue, but those hints of sunshine don’t last long because the danger is never dispelled until the very end. Spielberg’s technique of not actually showing the shark until the first hour is brilliant because he keeps us guessing on how big the fish actually is. When we finally get to see what’s eating the people, it’s that much more exciting. The second part of the movie is nothing but relentless scares: what the audiences see (when the shark attacks) and what they don’t see (the characters’ stories right after they talk about their scars). I was surprised by how much this movie affected me because it was made in 1975; most horror films are dated but this one of the few that is timeless. It relies on genuine scares and situations that can actually happen so the film becomes universal. Lastly, I must commend John Williams for the score. The already scary scenes are elevated to the next level because of the music. This is not a typical summer blockbuster film because it doesn’t rely on visual effects; it is character-driven, extremely suspenseful, occassionally funny, and the timing when it comes to horror is impeccable.
Breakfast on Pluto
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]
Cillian Murphy is a chameleon. Instead of playing a man on the run from zombies (“28 Days Later”), a psychiatrist who wants to drive Gotham City into madness (“Batman Begins, “The Dark Knight”), an assassin who terrorizes Rachel McAdams (“Red Eye”), and one of the chosen few whose goal is to ignite the sun (“Sunshine”), this time around he plays a sympathetic transvestite whose mission is to find his mother in London. Even though the approach of the film is slanted toward the comedic side, there’s a certain sadness and tragedy that lingers throughout the picture. The only main flaw that I could point out is the middle portion is a bit saggy. The little adventures that Murphy’s character (Patrick “Kitten” Braden) went through are interesting but some of them didn’t add up to anything in the end (Maybe that’s the point regarding how life really is sometimes?). The film regains its focus when the idea of family is again introduced during the last thirty minutes. It’s heartbreaking, touching and hopeful at the same time. I also liked the fact that we got to know the friends of Braden. Even though Braden travels to all these places, the audiences get this feeling that his friends have always got his back. Overall, this is a solid film that could’ve been extremely sentimental and cliched but ultimately did not because the writing is smart and the direction is focused.
Zombieland
Zombieland (2009)
★★★ / ★★★★
I love zombie movies because I’m fascinated with the idea of the dead taking over the world of the living. (Did I mention I have nightmares about zombies?) Not to mention zombie flicks usually have social commentaries which were not absent in this little gem. “Zombieland,” directed by Ruben Fleischer, stars Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus, who wants to make his way to Ohio to be reunited with his parents. On the road, he meets Woody Harrelson as Tallahassee, a man on a mission to find Twinkies; Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock, respectively, sisters who initially look innocent but turn out to have a knack for survival. The very “28 Days Later”-like gathering of very different people was smart because all of them yearned for that rare human connection in a world full of flesh-eating monsters. All four of them eventualy head to Southern California in order to find refuge with other humans. I love this movie’s self-awareness. It seemed to know its strengths which were highlighted in the beginning of the film as Eisenberg described his survival guide. It was done with such craft because the jokes were genuinely laugh-out-loud funny so the realization that it was all a gimmick later on became insignificant. The flashback scenes were done well, especially how Eisenberg’s character reflected on how much of a loser he was back when humans still ruled the planet–staying in on a Friday night playing video games, not socializing with people, and not getting enough attention from girls. A lot of people compare him to Michael Cera but I think there’s an important difference between the two. I think Eisenberg’s awkwardness is edgy and his characters usually have a certain toughness. Cera’s awkwardness, on the other hand, is softer and cuter–the kind that makes you go “Aww” and maybe pet him afterwards. That awareness was also highlighted via pop culture references from Russell Crowe, Facebook to Ghostbusters. Comparisons to “Shaun of the Dead” is inevitable because it is a horror-comedy about zombies. But I think “Zombieland” is a little scarier because the characters didn’t stop to analyze a zombie, imitate, and make quirky comments about them. All of that said, I had one problem with the film. I thought it slowed down a bit somewhere in the middle because it spent too much of its time showing the characters bickering on the road. It got redundant and such scenes could have been taken out and instead added terrifyingly slow suspenseful scenes. Lastly, I thought the final showdown at the carnival was inspired. The movie was able to find ways on how to kill zombies using the rides or the characters using the rides to their advantage. It made me want to ride a rollercoaster right then and there. I’ve read audiences’ reviews about how surprised they were with how good the movie was. To be honest, right after I saw the trailer for the first time, I had a sneaky feeling that it was going to be good. It certainly didn’t disappoint and in some ways exceeded expectations. If you love zombie movies, blood and guts, cameos, and pop culture allusions all rolled into one, then see this immediately. It’s total escapism and it has the potential to get better after multiple viewings.