Change Your Image
jdrakeh
Reviews
Virus Undead (2008)
Surprisingly good, low budget, zombie flick.
It's not Jet-Li + Undead, which seems to have disappointed some folks, but it *is* a decent zombie film that even manages to outshine some of its big budget contemporaries where plot consistency and character depth are concerned (Resident Evil, I'm looking at you).
The acting isn't brilliant, but it's far above that exhibited in real trash like Street Zombies, while not being all that much worse than the acting exhibited in some legitimate Hollywood blockbusters (again, I'm going to pick on Resident Evil). So, to recap — not Shakespeare, but not wooden studio extras either.
The plot is admittedly shallow, but no more so than many dozens of other zombie films — a virus gets out, infects a lot of innocent people, zombies rise up, and chaos ensues. It's pretty formulaic. That said, it's also very consistent, which a lot of other zombie movies using that same basic plot are *not*.
Virus Undead doesn't try to dazzle you with clever plot twists or drop in five or six espionage/conspiracy/romance sub-plots. The first half of the film is a little slow, but it's because it takes time to build up the characters and present a little backstory (something that I wish more zombie films did).
Finally, the special effects are pretty darn good, all things considered. There isn't a lot of on-screen gore, but the zombies are convincingly creepy, the virus-infected birds menacing, and the few on-screen injuries better than a lot of what passed for F/X in the 1980s.
All things considered, this film isn't a bad way to burn a little bit of free time.
Outlander (2008)
Beowulf hasn't been this much fun for years!
I had been interested in seeing Outlander ever since I heard it described as a fantasy re-telling of the Beowulf legend. It did not disappoint in this regard. From beginning to end, Outlander is an action-packed genre mash-up that manages to make Beowulf more fun than any retelling in recent history (including The 13th Warrior). All of the above having been said, there are some things to keep in mind before viewing Outlander.
First, the film is not historically accurate. Anybody who goes into a film that features aliens and spacecraft in its advertising and expects a faithful historical reproduction of Beowulf will be disappointed with Outlander rightfully so, I might add. A lack of historical accuracy in a film that showcases spacecraft and aliens? How unexpected!
Second, Outlander is an action movie first and everything else second. This being the case, some laws of physics have been suspended in pursuit of entertainment. Anybody going into Outlander expecting to see a detailed, painstaking, recreation of real world physics or a seminar on the chemical properties of whale oil will be just as disappointed as the aforementioned history buffs (and, again, rightfully so).
Outlander has never claimed to be a history text or a physics class and it (unsurprisingly) fails at being both of these things. Outlander is, on the other hand, an entertaining piece of action cinema. If the idea of Vikings fighting aliens sounds like fun to you, go see Outlander. If you're looking for a historical docudrama or recreation of Viking Age warfare, go see something else.
Friday the 13th (2009)
Good for real slasher fans (and not a bad re-imagining, either).
Do you know what Italian movie inspired almost all of the kill scenes in the original Friday the 13th film? If you do (and didn't have to Google to find the answer), this reboot of the Friday franchise is for you! Michael Bay manages to tone down the overt humor of more recent Friday installments, ditch the lame supernatural elements completely, and resurrect Jason as the crazed, reclusive, wild man that he was originally portrayed as in Friday the 13th Part II.
Bay's burlap sack-wearing psycho is a nice homage to the earlier (i.e., scary) films in the franchise, taking the best bits of Jason from the original film, as well as Parts II and III, and molding them into a clever, violent, predator.
For the first time in almost two decades, Jason isn't portrayed as a slow-moving, mentally deficient, zombie with supernatural powers and an arsenal of running prop gags that put Carrot Top to shame. This is a good thing.
This new, re-imagined, Jason made it much easier for me to suspend my disbelief than any of Hodder's incarnations have and the payoff was some genuine discomfort.
As for the gore it's stylish. Recalling the artful executions of the Italian Giallo genre, the kill scenes in this new Friday (from an arrow through the head to an instance of sleeping bag immolation) are brutal enough to shock but not on screen long enough to be tasteless.
Now, in an age dominated by the rampant excess of Eli Roth, stylish gore and tasteful brutality are lost on many theater patrons which is why I opened this review as I did. If you answered that question, you know that the best gore is defined by execution, not excess.
Bay gets it right. The kill scenes in this new Friday feature are absolutely artistic.
And the nudity? Let's talk about the nudity a lot of people are convinced that teenage breasts are a fundamental feature of slasher films. Those people are going to be disappointed with the new Friday. Really disappointed. Thankfully, I'm not one of those people! As somebody who has watched a great many slasher films from around the world, I'm convinced that gratuitous nudity is indulged only in the worst films that the genre has to offer, serving as a device to distract the predominantly male audience members from a work's otherwise obvious pitfalls.
The short version of a much longer thesis is that the more gratuitous nudity a slasher flick contains, the thinner the plot, the worse the acting, and the less worthy it is of your hard-earned cash. Bay's new horror epic contains a single scene of prolonged partial nudity.
Finally, let's look at the acting. Going in, one will do well to remember that this is a slasher flick and that most acting will consist of screaming, bleeding, or running through the woods screaming *and* bleeding. If you're looking for Oscar material here, you're looking in the wrong place (and arguably the wrong film genre).
The screaming and bleeding is something that the actors in this new Friday the 13th have down pat. Predictably, however, things fall down in the dramatic acting department. This isn't to say that the acting is bad it's absolutely not. It just isn't very memorable. The real star of this move is the mute, axe-wielding, maniac.
So, the final verdict? Well, again, it all depends on if you can answer my first question without cheating. If you can, see this movie. If you can't? Well, you'll probably be better off watching the next re-skinned Scream retread.
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005)
Far better than the first Dungeons & Dragons film.
Of course, by "first Dungeons & Dragons film" I mean that horrible piece of drek released in 2000. This made for television movie manages to trump its immediate predecessor in almost every regard, though Bruce Payne is *still* horrible as Damodar.
Indeed, the largest failing of the film is reintroducing Bruce Payne (whose acting was horrible) as Damodar. I can't help but think how much better the film could have been had they ditched the high-priced Payne, replaced him with a better (albeit lesser known) actor, and used the money saved to foot the bill for better CGI.
Where Wrath of the Dragon God succeeds is in its faithful portrayal of many common D&D tropes, from actual dungeons and dragons to common monsters (e.g., Lich) and the stereotypical D&D adventuring party. If you listen carefully, you'll even find some nice (and appropriate) references to classic AD&D adventure locations.
Likewise, the quality of acting in Wrath of the Dragon God is markedly better than than displayed in the first D&D move, despite this film's cast being composed primarily of unknown actors. Indeed, Tim Stern, Mark Dymond, and Ellie Chidzey are actually quite *good* in their respective roles as the stereotypical Fighter, Thief, and Barbarian.
Finally, while the plot here is nothing to write home about in terms of originality (which itself may be a clever homage to D&D adventure modules), it is at least comprehensible further, it manages to rise to the level of "entertaining" at times (usually when focused on the exploits of the adventuring party).
If Gerry Lively had canned Bruce Payne and been given the same budget that Courtney Solomon frittered away on the first film, I can only assume that Wrath of the Dragon God would have been *great* rather than merely adequate (a measure of quality that the first film never came close to achieving).
Seeing Wrath of the Dragon God outperform its big screen counterpart in almost every possible manner reminds me that, sometimes, the television screen is better than the silver screen for fantasy.
Amusement (2008)
Not original but at lest it was entertaining.
I've seen a lot of horror films and, while amusement has its problems, it's much better than the low/no budget fare of the 1980s and a great deal better than the endless stream of 'Scream' clones that have been flooding the theaters since the late 90s.
Although the acting and dialogue aren't great, they're both better than what I've seen in most horror movies of recent vintage. I've absolutely seen far worse acting and goofier dialogue in horror films that have achieved some sizeable following (most of the old Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, for example).
The only truly notable pitfalls of Amusement are the multiple plot holes that plague the film and the fact that the director gives away the 'twist' ending far too early for it to be considered a 'twist' ending. That said, if you can suspend your disbelief for the physics-defying movement of a certain hockey mask killer, neither of these things should interfere too much with your enjoyment of Amusement.
The best thing about Amusement is that it doesn't try to be anything other than a horror movie. It's not trying to be arthaus theatre or shock cinema, it's not trying to be a high-tension thriller, and it certainly isn't designed to 'make you think' or carry some kind of a pseudo-political 'message' to viewers.
Amusement isn't great cinema, but it's definitely a decent popcorn horror flick.