Showing posts with label Shaun of the Dead. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shaun of the Dead. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Hump-Day Harangue: A PLEA FOR MORE EDGAR WRIGHT

This small rant is brought to you by BJ-C of Day of the Woman


I'll be the first to say it, Edgar Wright is THE man. I don't think there's ever been a film or television show that was associated with him that I didn't like. In my eyes, the man can do no wrong. He's universally accepted as being awesome and has brought us one of the best genre films of the last decade. So why the HELL is Michael Bay still getting more publicity than him? My god. If I have to turn on the television and see one more film having to do with Michael Bay, I'm going to throw up. How many explosions does one film need?! I'm so sick and tired of sub-par film makers being given oodles of money simply to stroke the minds of idiot film-goers and teenagers sitting in the theaters hoping to get to second base by the credits.


Cinephiles everywhere constantly complain about the lack of character development in 99% of the films that hit the silver screen, and yet one of the few directors who consistently gives an audience a slice of life in his films gets brushed under the rug. Avatar may have made a kazillion dollars, but what do you remember about the film other than "it looked sweet"? When you discuss Shaun of the Dead, I guarantee the first thing that comes to mind is how amazing the characters interacted with each other, rather than the zombies.


The man knows how to make a film, and how to do it well. I want more Edgar Wright in the films. I know he has some incredible projects coming up, but I want to REALLY put this man to work. If I had it my way, Edgar Wright would be involved in just about any film of merit ever created. I want the Blood & Ice Cream trilogy to be a never ending saga, damn it! BRING ME MORE CORNETTOS!!!

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

21st Century Terrors, Part 5: 2004

By the middle of the first decade of the century, the horror genre renaissance was in full effect. And perhaps no other single year was more indicative of this than 2004. A few specific movies were at the heart of it, and for various different reasons they all made a major impact on fans and critics alike. To a certain extent, we're still talking about them today as if they just came out, which is more indicative of their influence than anything.

Perhaps most ironically of all, the most beloved of these--and perhaps the most beloved horror film of the entire decade--was actually a horror comedy. Birthed from the minds of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg via their obsessive love of all things Romero, Shaun of the Dead was more than a movie--it was a movement. The zombie fad had been cooking for a couple of years already, but SOTD distilled it into a single, transcendent experience--a film that celebrated not only the zombie genre, but zombie fandom as well.

The misadventures of Shaun and Ed have since become iconic in a relatively short period of time. They were perhaps horror's finest comedy duo since Abbott & Costello tangled with the Frankenstein Monster. And the brilliance of the film was that it managed to be so genuinely funny while still being true to the genre it so blatantly worshiped. The movie works equally well as a zombie picture and as a romantic comedy, hence the now famous subgenre title, "rom-zom-com".

Shaun of the Dead was the kind of film that defines a generation of fandom, and without question represents horror in the 2000s for many people. Yet there is also another film which does that for others, and that's James Wan's Saw, the film that, for all intents and purposes, thrust the "torture porn" subgenre into the limelight (along with Hostel a bit later).

Yet ironically, the film itself doesn't quite conform to the stereotype of that subgenre, not having the trademark explicit depictions of graphic violence and sadism for the ostensible purpose of audience titillation. The original Saw, taken apart from its never-ending stream of sequels, is actually an imaginative, psychologically based thriller, which manages to put a unique spin on the slasher motif and packs one hell of a punch with its rollercoaster of a storyline.

Jigsaw is a character very much of his time, just as Dracula, Norman Bates and Freddy Krueger were of theirs. And his sinister m.o. of byzantine traps and warped morality--inspired strongly by the previous decade's Seven--definitely touched a nerve with audiences. Saw would go on to become one of the most successful franchises of the decade, becoming almost what Friday the 13th was for the 1980s--for better or worse.

The two giants of Shaun of the Dead and Saw gave horror a relatively high profile in 2004, but there was even more going on. For one thing, in addition to the Romero zombie parody, there was also a Romero zombie remake, in Zak Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. For a film that had a lot of ill will pointed toward it, Snyder's film made the most of it, and shut a lot of people's mouths in the process.

James Gunn's script upset many purists with its fast-moving zombies and the ejecting of most of Romero's social commentary, but the finished product can nevertheless stand on its own merits. It's an effective, energetic horror film with characters we can get behind, and quite possibly one of the most impressive opening sequences of all time. For a movie that seemed doomed to fail, Dawn of the Dead stands as one of the decade's triumphs.

Beyond the big triumphs, zombie cinema continued full speed ahead with no end in sight. We got the first sequel to the movie that arguably kicked off the whole craze, with Resident Evil: Apocalypse. And in addition to SOTD, there was another foreign zombie comedy, Night of the Living Dorks, which although far less inspired and extremely overrated, was another testament to the subgenre's worldwide staying power.

Sequels were also in full effect, as they always seem to be in our beloved genre. Yet just as with everything else in 2004, even the sequels seemed to stand out--although not always for the best reasons. Case in point: Aliens vs. Predator, a clunker of a film that managed to murder two adored franchises in one fell swoop. Although long followed enthusiastically by comic book fans, the battle of everyone's two favorite space monsters just didn't add up to cinematic magic.

It seemed like studios were anxious to bring back successful series and characters amidst the burgeoning interest in horror that was going on at the box office. The Child's Play franchise puttered on with Seed of Chucky, a subversive little flick that admittedly went in a completely bizarre and unique direction, delivering laughs as well as scares. Blade hit the wall with Blade: Trinity, a movie that proved that even horror comics aren't immune to the "third movie curse" of comic book franchises. Even the classic Universal monsters got back into the mix with Van Helsing, a poorly received action vehicle from Stephen Sommers, the same guy who resurrected the Mummy in similar fashion the 1990s.

And then there was the infamous Exorcist: The Beginning, the granddaddy of all troubled horror sequel/prequels. Looking to reap more financial rewards from the most successful horror film of all time, Warner Bros. commissioned a new film that would explore the origins of Father Merrin's relationship with the demon. Unfortunately, when Paul Schrader's version was a little too artsy for them, they brought in Hollywood mercenary Renny Harlin and created a whole different picture, which was a notorious disaster. In an unprecedented maneuver, Schrader's version would see the light of day the following year.

Leading the pack of foreign remakes was The Grudge, an American version of the acclaimed J-horror thriller of two years earlier. It seemed like a logical follow-up to the highly successful The Ring, yet failed to similarly capture the power of the original.

Yet don't let that mediocre final note fool you. The year 2004 was a banner one for horror films, and in some ways, it can be argued that it was highpoint of the decade.

Also from 2004:
  • Dead and Breakfast
  • Ginger Snaps Back
  • Ginger Snaps Unleashed
  • Satan's Little Helper
  • The Village
Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003

Friday, June 20, 2008

Don't Say the Zed-Word: 40 Years of the Modern Zombie Movie, Part 4

It's been pointed out by many, including George Romero himself, that the contemporary renaissance in zombie movies was brought about not by anyone in the film industry, but rather by the video game industry. By the mid 1990s, the genre was all but nonexistent among horror pictures. But then, in 1996, Shinji Mikami of the Japanese company Capcom designed a game (originally for the PlayStation console) called Resident Evil. The zombie was about to be awakened from its grave.

Taking its cue from classics such as Dawn of the Dead and Lucio Fulci's Zombie, Resident Evil was a game intended to frighten players, something that hadn't really been tried yet. Known as Biohazard in its native Japan, the game was a massive hit, familiarizing an entirely new generation with the basic archetypes of the modern zombie movie. It was followed by other games, including House of the Dead and Silent Hill.

The influence would first be felt in Asia itself. Zombie movies hit their stride there like never before, leading to films like Bio-Zombie (1998), Junk (1999), Versus (2000) and Stacy (2001). Naturally, it was only a matter of time before the phenomenon spread to the United States, the birthplace of the modern zombie.

By 2001, with the game series a resounding success, Capcom had authorized a movie adaptation. Originally, Romero himself was tapped to script the project, then famously fired after his screenplay was deemed too heavy on gore and lacking the game's non-zombie monsters. Clearly, the filmmakers were looking for a more sanitized, mainstream-friendly take, and that's exactly what they got with Paul W.S. Anderson's Resident Evil (2002). Starring Milla Jovovich, the picture plays more like a video game than a movie, and contains little to endear it to hardcore zombie lovers.

But what the flick did accomplish was to further reestablish the zombie subgenre, and pave the way for a veritable explosion of followers. That same year, acclaimed British director Danny Boyle would give us 28 Days Later, taking the phenom begun by Resident Evil to the next level.

We can debate whether or not Boyle's film is a true zombie movie till the cows come home. But while the movie's disease-crazed killers may not literally be ghouls, 28 Days Later is constructed with so much of the modern zombie template in mind, that in the end this debate becomes a tired exercise in semantics. The fact is that 28 Days Later is a zombie movie at heart, and by becoming the most critically praised film of its kind, it kicked open the floodgates once and for all.

Instantly, zombie flicks were being greenlit left and right, to a degree not seen in 20 years. But while back then, zombie movies were confined to the cult periphery of the horror scene, overshadowed by slashers and Satanism movies, this time around, the zombie was firmly fixed in the public eye, at the forefront of the horror rebirth.

Naturally, as with any other movement, they weren't all classics. Some, like the Australian effort Undead (2003), were decidedly mediocre affairs, while others, like the infamous Uwe Boll's game adaptation House of the Dead (2003), were downright awful.

Almost as unexpectedly as the fact that the genre was revived by video games, would be the fact that the best movie to come out of the decade's revival would not be a straight-up horror movie, but rather a horror comedy. More specifically, one of the funniest and most memorable horror comedies ever made.

Shaun of the Dead (2004) was the brainchild of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, who had already proven their comic sensibilities on the small screen in their native U.K. Self-proclaimed worshippers at the altar of Romero, Wright and Pegg brought a genuine love for the entire zombie ouvre, and it shows.

Shaun of the Dead is a loving tribute to the classic zombie flicks of a generation earlier, most notably of course, Dawn of the Dead. It works equally as both a horror film and a romantic comedy, making the tropes of zombie cinema instantly hip in a way that no earnestly serious zombie movie ever has. Directed by Wright and starring Pegg in the title role, it is that rare spoof that actually manages to outdo what it's spoofing.

With all this attention being lavished on the living dead, it made sense that sooner or later specific attention would begin to paid to the work of Romero, and to the man himself. First came news of a remake of the director's 1978 masterpiece Dawn of the Dead, an announcement met with considerable disapproval by died-in-the-wool horror fanatics.

But what the filmmakers were counting on were not that marginal demographic, but rather the general 18-34 year-old movie-going public at large. And miraculously, Zack Snyder's 2004 film proved to be one rare example of a situation in which the studio was wise not to heed the hardcore fan base. In spite of the low expectations and downright ill will of most Romero boosters, the new Dawn of the Dead proved to be a well-made, fresh and generally effective take on a genre classic.

While predictably lacking in the original's social commentary and filmed to conform to the standards of an R rating, Snyder's Dawn of the Dead is a very good horror film, and no level of admiration for the original can nullify that. Perhaps more importantly, the film's success would prove more of a boon for Romero himself than he first expected.

After years of aborted plans and false starts, the sudden marketability of zombie cinema finally helped George Romero to secure the backing he needed to film the fabled fourth installment in his living dead series. None other than legendary monster factory Universal stepped in and gave the director his largest budget to date for the production of Land of the Dead (2005).

Much slicker and more "Hollywood" than any of its predecessors, and featuring name actors such as John Leguizamo and Dennis Hopper, Land of the Dead was a significant departure. For the first time, Romero was dealing with a major studio. Compromises were made, including the decision to reign in the gore and keep the film within "R" standards. The picture was not the box office success the studio had hoped for, and it divided the fan base. Some enjoyed it, others felt the director had lost his touch. Most agreed it was a notch below his earlier efforts.

Yet Romero's tale of evolving zombies and humanity's desperate attempts to survive within a dystopian stronghold has already benefited from reappraisal in the three years since its release. It was to be expected that such a film could never live up to the expectations placed upon it, and it's likely that in years to come, much like its predecessor Day of the Dead (1985), future fans will look more kindly upon it.

Ironically, the modern zombie subgenre had grown to be much bigger than the man who invented it. Although his earlier films had defined the subgenre, Land of the Dead proved to be just a part of it, and so it continued to march on. Danny Boyle gave us 28 Weeks Later (2007), a sequel which in some ways surpassed the excellent original. Another franchise, Return of the Living Dead, was resurrected, albeit with nearly unwatchable fourth and fifth installments so weak they were introduced as Sci-Fi Channel movies.

Certainly, there were signs that the movement was running out of steam. The public's hunger for such fare may have been becoming satiated--plus, there is admittedly only so much one can do with any movie formula before a total reinvention is required. The sense of repetition was inevitable.

For that reason, the most memorable zombie films of the past couple of years have been the ones that tried something new. The sharply satirical Canadian horror comedy Fido (2006) gives us an alternate 1950s in which the living dead are subjugated by the living in a "Leave it to Beaver" suburban nightmare. Romero's fifth zombie chapter Diary of the Dead (2007), although met with further mixed reviews and derided by even more fans than Land was, was a solid attempt by the director to inject new life into his creation by going back to the beginning of his zombie outbreak and telling the story via a first-person, documentary style perspective.

Many have pointed out that Romero was outdone in this department by the stunning Spanish film [Rec] (2007), perhaps the most downright terrifying motion picture to come out of the entire zombie renaissance. More than anything, the movie is proof that, in the right hands, the genre still has life in it.

In the year 2008, forty years after George Romero's Night of the Living Dead, the future still looks good for the modern zombie movie. Romero himself is in talks to continue the story he began in Diary of the Dead; Danny Boyle is returning to his own series for 28 Months Later; [Rec] is getting a sequel of its own; and the American remake of the original, entitled Quarantine, is set to hit theaters this fall. Perhaps most promising of all is the script adaptation of Max Brooks' excellent novel World War Z, the epic tale of a global zombie uprising that is currently in pre-production with Brad Pitt as producer and star.

Even if the explosion of zombie cinema falls off within the next few years--which seems likely--it will only serve to give it a much-needed rest. Think of it as a period of dormancy--one of several throughout the subgenre's four-decade history. The zombie isn't going anywhere. Thanks to the efforts of Romero and his multitude of disciples, it has grown to become one of the classic horror movie monsters, alongside vampires, werewolves, masked maniacs and the rest. Much like the zombies themselves, zombie movies move forward, unstoppable. You may get away from them for awhile, but they'll be back.

And eventually, they'll get you.

Friday, March 21, 2008

Gore Goes Mainstream: A History of Horror Movies, Part 7

It's ironic that the horror genre would be so quiet at the turn of the 21st century. Ironic, because in the years that followed--the final years of this seven-part history of horror--we have seen scary movies hold mainstream America fascinated to a degree greater than anything witnessed before, or at the very least since the heyday of Universal 75 years ago.

Whereas in the past, horror was treated as the forgotten stepchild of the movie biz, the sordid secret kept hidden away and relegated to midnight showings and niche subcultures, these days it's all around us, accepted like never before by a culture which has perhaps become too cynical and overexposed to real-life horrors to truly be shocked any longer. More on that later.

In recent years, the last true example of cinematic dread we've seen has been the surge of unnerving films that have come out of the Far East. In the Western world, the trend became to remake these films for American audiences, starting with The Ring in 2002. By far the most effective of the bunch, it was followed by the likes of The Grudge (2004), and more recently Shutter and The Eye.

Much of what became hip for the genre this decade has had to with a nostalgia for the films of a generation past. In part, this can be pointed to for the dramatic resurgence of the zombie subgenre--it can also be attributed to the success of videogames like Resident Evil. It was that game that kicked off the undead renaissance with a film adaptation in 2002. That same year saw the release of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later, which introduced us to the concept of "fast-moving zombies."

It might not be an exaggeration to say that the past half-decade has seen more flesh-eater flicks than at any point previous. George Romero's Dawn of the Dead got a surprisingly high quality 2004 remake; Romero himself finally got to continue his saga with 2005's Land of the Dead; and Edgar Wright brought us the ingenious Shaun of the Dead (2004), the finest horror comedy this side of Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein.

The other face of this nostalgia was a throwback to the gritty, over-the-top exploitation horror of the 1970s. After more than a decade of restraining itself, Hollywood was starting to let its hair down again. The result is epitomized by the work of rocker-turned-director Rob Zombie, whose House of 1,000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005) exemplify a return to the early work of Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven.

But the logical extension of this would turn out to be a development that has been troubling to some old-school fans, yet exhilirating to a whole new generation just now embracing the genre. It should be said that the major difference between the exploitation flicks of then and now is that now they enjoy the mainstream spotlight. Filmmakers who grew up on this form of entertainment have helped bring it to the fore like never before. And as a result, a natural evolutionary step has occurred.

In direct contrast to the previous decade, in which some of the most bloodless horror films of the modern era were released, the past few years have born witness to an almost unprecedented amount of gore. And this time, it's not hidden away in a rundown grindhouse theater, playing to an isolated subculture of aficionados, or relegated to a few racks in the back of your local video store. This time it's front and center, and right in everybody's face.

Although the first Saw film, released in 2004, was actually quite psychological and contained little graphic violence, it has become the most recognizable touchstone of what is now usually referred to as torture porn, a subgenre of horror that focuses on depicting bodily trauma in unflinching detail. In the later Saw pictures, and even moreso in a movie much more typical of the category, Eli Roth's Hostel (2005), some might even argue that the depiction of torture takes precedence over character and plot.

Never before have movies containing such images played to such a wide audience. They are a part of our pop culture in a way that their predecessors were not, at least in their own time. The reasons for this have been debated endlessly by social commentators both professional and amateur. Are we desensitized as a society? Or worse, have we grown to enjoy such macabre displays, like Romans at a gladiatorial event? Some have argued these points, while others simply say that horror filmmakers are only looking for new ways to disturb us, for new ground to cover.

If it is just all about exploring new territory, that's at least more admirable than the latest trend that has all but taken over the production of horror movies as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century: remakes.

Too timid to try anything original, the majority of those willing to back horror flicks these days are looking to cash in on bankable properties; proven titles that are almost guaranteed to bring in a buck, if only on name recognition alone. The 2003 remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre kicked it off for all intents and purposes, and it has only grown more commonplace in the past five years. We've seen Zombie redo Halloween (2007), plus slavish rehashes of classics like House of Wax (2005), The Amityville Horror (2005), The Omen (2006), The Wicker Man (2006), The Hills Have Eyes (2006), When a Stranger Calls (2006), The Hitcher (2007) and many others, with decidedly mixed results.

In the year 2008, horror fans have a veritable legion of upcoming horror redo's to look forward to: Prom Night, Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Rosemary's Baby, Hellraiser, Sleepaway Camp, etc., etc. Perhaps it's a commentary on the state of the genre that it seems to be torn between groping to depict more and more horrifying images, and endlessly trying to recreate that which worked in the past.

So where do we go from here? Maybe overseas, where films like the excellent [REC] threaten to steal away America's dominance of the genre. Or maybe the upcoming Wolf Man and the rebirth of Hammer Films signify a return of the classic monsters. Then again, it's most likely a heretofore unseen new development as unimaginable as the likes of Psycho or Night of the Living Dead would've been to pre-1960s audiences.

If it survives this latest cannibalistic phase, the horror film genre can survive anything, and it will almost certainly continue to thrive. From Count Orlock and Erik the Phantom, to Dracula and Frankenstein, to the Gill-Man and Norman Bates, to Leatherface and Jason, to Jigsaw and Captain Spaulding, the cinema of fear has firmly held our imagination in its icy clutches for a hundred years. Ironically, for as long as there exists real horror in this world, we'll always seek the escape of its morbid, yet safely unreal on-screen counterpart.

Other major releases:
  • The Others (2000)
  • Final Destination (2000)
  • Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
  • Wrong Turn (2003)
  • The Descent (2005)
  • Silent Hill (2006)
  • Fido (2007)
  • Hatchet (2007)
  • 28 Weeks Later (2007)
  • Diary of the Dead (2008)

Sunday, November 4, 2007

So Does Showing My Toddler Shaun of the Dead Make Me a Bad Parent?

My three-year-old son loves him some zombies. I guess I'm the one to blame for it. I broke him in on the classic Universal stuff, Dracula, Frankenstein and the rest. A rambunctious and hearty little boy, he ate it up like candy. No shrinking violet is he.
So I figured the time was right for something with a little more bite to it (sorry...) The other night, when his mother and older sister stepped out to the store, my boy and I kicked back our feet and enjoyed some British undead parody goodness.
His reaction? Pure delight. He laughed, he cheered, he jumped up and down. I figured it was smart to go with a horror comedy, with a lot more light-hearted moments and slapstick. To tell you the truth, other than that nasty bite scene in Barbara's driveway and the stuff at the end, the gore is not all that bad (of course I skipped through all the really bad stuff. We can save the gut-munching until he's at least seven.) Actually, I was more concerned about the expletive-laced dialogue than anything else. But he really is too young for any of that to register with him anyway.
In the end, it was great bonding experience. I got a major kick out of him trying to pretend he wasn't scared, I could see the thrill in his eyes that I got watching stuff as a kid that seemed just a little too dangerous for me. At one point, when he thought I wasn't looking, I caught him doing his best little zombie impersonation. Other fathers can have their little league--now this was a moment to be proud of!
Needless to say, the idea was to keep the whole thing a secret from his mom, who I could imagine would not totally approve. But all pretense of secrecy went out the window that very night when the boy gleefully exclaimed to Mommy that he could hear zombies outside the house. As Ricky Ricardo might say, I had some 'splaining to do.
So now Shaun of the Dead is one of the boy's favorite flicks, right alongside Cars, Madagascar and Finding Nemo. A little weird? I guess so. But he is my son, after all.