Search This Blog

Showing posts with label London. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London. Show all posts

Monday, December 10, 2012

Day 345: 28 Days Later

28 Days Later
Cheerio!

For years (and I'm talking about decades), zombies were slow flesh-eaters that rise from the grave and whoever they bite, dies and turns into a zombie. For arguments sake, we'll call them “Romero Zombies”. Yes their were zombie movies before Romero, but Night Of The Living Dead popularized them more than any previous movie. There were slight variations in zombies over the years, such as the unkillable brain-eating zombies from Return Of The Living Dead, but by and large, they always retained the same attributes. That all changed with one movie. One single, solitary movie allowed zombies to be super fast infected human beings. Now, most zombie movies are about plagues rather than the dead coming back to life and have sprinting zombies. All because of one movie and I'm not even mad about it.

28 Days Later is a 2002 British zombie movie staring Cillian Murphy (Red Eye, The Dark Knight) as Jim. At an animal testing lab in Britain, animal liberation activists release chimps that are being experimented on. The chimps are infected with a highly contagious virus called “Rage” and as soon as they are released, they attack people, causing the virus to spread among humans. 28 days later (get it?) Jim, a bicycle courier, awakens inside an empty hospital. He was hit by a car and has been in a coma for almost a full month. He manages to stumble through the hospital out into the equally empty streets of London. He wanders into a church which alerts a small group of zombies. They are extremely fast and chase a confused and terrified Jim through the streets. He is saved by two survivors, Selena (Naomie Harris, Skyfall, Pirates Of The Carribean) and Mark (Noah Huntley, Holby City, Snow White & The Huntsman) who hurl Molotov cocktails at the zombies. They retreat to a Metro station where they tell Jim about the virus and how it quickly spread throughout the country. The virus, they say, has even reached Paris and New York City. Wanting to be with his family, Jim and the group travel to his home where they find his parents have committed suicide. That night, two zombies attack the house and Mark is cut badly in the melee. Selena swiftly and brutally kills him, explaining that the virus spreads too quickly to say any goodbyes. As they enter a city, they meet two more survivors, Frank (Brendan Gleeson, Braveheart, In Bruges) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) who have been living in a flat for some time. With supplies running low, the group decide to head to Manchester where a pre-recorded message from a military blockade promising safety and a cure for the infection .has been playing. Along the way, Frank is accidentally infected, but before he attacks, he is killed by a group of soldiers. Jim, Selena, and Hannah join the soldiers at their headquarters. Not is all that is appears though. Is the group safer with the soldiers or with the zombies?

"Crud! Crud! Crud!"

As I've said in other zombie movies review, I much prefer slow zombies. While in the present, a slow zombie is relatively easy to beat. It's when things progress and there are hordes of zombies do things get more difficult. I find those movies to be far more scary because it's a slow, crushing loss of hope from beginning to end. You will eventually run out of weapons and food and no one coming to help you. 28 Days Later forgoes the slow hopelessness for a fast, vicious terror uncommon in horror movies. Director Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Million are) employed ex-athletes as his zombies, using their nature athletic abilities to make the zombies more believable. I don't usually like shaky, erratic camerawork, but during the initial chase scenes through London, they actually work perfectly with the overall fear and tension. The zombies themselves look good though the movie never really focuses on one for too long. They reflect the infected portion of the story rather than rotting corpses. I'm glad the movie took a few minutes to explain why people were zombies as many modern zombie movies just say “Eh, fuck it. There's zombies around just because”. I will say that one disappointment was the lack of destroying the brain. It seems you can kill these zombies like you would a person. I suppose the fact that they are infected with a various rather than undead, a rule change is acceptable, but I still like a good head shot.

Like all good zombie movies, 28 Days Later has solid and clear political commentary throughout. We have man vs. nature, a classic horror and science fiction theme. We have man vs. man, another classic. We also have citizen vs. government, which has become more common in horror over the last few decades. The movie even includes the Romero staple of having one white lead and one black lead. Both Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris play their parts very well and Brendan Gleeson is enjoyable in just about everything he does. Danny Boyle manages to capture the action perfectly while also giving time for emotion and feeling. All too often, horror movies focus on the guts and gore and forget to make the audience care about the characters. Each character is different and has their flaws, but above all else, they are believable and likable. The music is also good, including an edited version of Godspeed You! Black Emperor's song “East Hastings” which is quite effective.

"Who's ready for a zom-beatdown?!"

28 Days Later is a highly enjoyable zombie movie that managed to completely change how zombie movies are done. One could make the argument that this movie sparked the current zombie craze that we are going through. We're at the point where zombies are on TV and in romantic comedies. That never would have happened without 28 Days Later. The action is fast-paced and harrowing with plenty of blood and gore. The acting is very good and the directing is solid. The movie touches on plenty of social commentary without ever feeling preachy. While I still prefer my zombies undead and slow, I've come to accept them as super-fast plague carriers. That says a lot for a movie to be able to change the way you perceive something your enjoy.

9.5/10

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Day 320: The Woman In Black

The Woman In Black
Back in black

It's rare that I watch a movie having absolutely zero knowledge of what is going to happen. Contrary to the belief that someone who has watched one horror movie a day for over three hundred days, I don't sit online watching trailers and researching everything horror. I like the genre, but I just don't hang out on horror forums and websites. Still, I usually have a general knowledge of what movie I am about to watch. I was almost completely in the dark for today's movie. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter, but it put me in an interesting spot as I had no idea what to expect.Today's review is a request by Rob. If you'd like to request a movie for me to review, send me an email at 365daysofhorror@gmail.com.

The Woman In Black is a 1989 British television horror movie based on the novel of the same name by Susan Hill. The movie stars Adrian Rawlins (multiple Harry Potter films) as Arthur Kidd. Arthur is a solicitor in London who is sent to the small coastal town on the east coast of England to attend the funeral of a widower named Alice Drablow. On the train to the town, Arthur meets Sam Toovey, a wealthy landowner who appears to be unsettled at the news of Arthur dealing with Mrs. Drablow's belongings. Arthur attends the funeral with a local solicitor when he notices a lone woman in black at the back of the church. After the ceremony, Arthur once again sees the mysterious woman among the gravestones. He travels to Mrs. Drablow's isolated home, Eel Marsh House, near the coast. As he walks around the home's graveyard, he sees the woman in black. She begins to walk toward him and Arthur flees to the house in terror. He inspects the house, coming across the death certificates of two people and pictures of a woman who looks suspiciously like the woman in black. He also listens to disturbing wax cylinders recorded by the late Mrs. Drablow. While walking on the path outside the home, Arthur hears the horrendous screams and crashing sounds, but cannot find any accident. After visiting Mr. Toovey in town, Arthur returns to the home with Mr. Toovey's dog, Spider. The strange occurrences continue, including strange sounds from upstairs in a room with a locked door. Arthur gets an ax to break it down, but discovers that the door is now open. The room was an old nursery and Arthur begins to hear the voice of a child. After doing some research, Arthur learns that Mrs. Drablow had a sister named Jennet who had a child. The boy was adopted by Mrs. Drablow and her husband, but Jennet took her son and both were killed in an accident on the trail outside the house. Is Jennet the woman in black and what does she want with Arthur?

Stop! She can't see you if you stand perfectly still.

As I said before, I had no idea what to expect from The Woman In Black. The story itself plays out like a mixture of Poe and Lovecraft's non-science fiction work. It's a slow-boil ghost story that trickles out clues throughout the entire film. The big factor that separates this movie from others is that it was created for British television and not for a wider audience. Being on television obviously cut down on the potential for violence and truly horrific scares, but the movie does have a few good jolts. They are old-school horror scares with strange sounds and phenomena. The woman in black is supremely unsettling to look at as she stands very still in the background, watching and waiting. The disembodied screams are also unpleasant, especially considering how loud they are. Be careful watching this at home because a neighbor may call the police on you.

As a boorish Yankee watching this, I did find it occasionally difficult to understand some of the regional words and phrases being used. A lot of the characters had the “stiff upper lip” attitude, which wore on me after a while. Again, boorish Yankee here. The movie is a tad long, especially considering the movie's slow pace and minimal action. The acting is very good as Adrian Rawlins manages to convey a true sense of terror even when he is alone in a scene. The end of the film may be controversial for some. I am still on the fence about it. On the one hand, it was a genuine surprise, but on the other it was too definite in it's scope. I think a little bit of ambiguity could have been scarier.

The forehead in pale

Sometimes it's good not knowing what to expect from a movie. I had no preconceived notions and allowed the movie to progress naturally. The Woman In Black has a good, traditional horror story that many literary fans will enjoy. If you're looking for lots of action and blood, this isn't for you. The movie does have a few genuine scares and plenty of unsettling moments. It's a little long and dry at certain points which slows down the overall horror. The acting is good and the atmosphere is appropriate. The movie is handicapped a bit by being made-for-television, but not to the point where the quality is cut off. While not a perfect horror story, The Woman In Black is still enjoyable.

7.5/10

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Day 259: The Zombie Diaries

The Zombie Diaries
Dear diary, why does this movie suck?

The United Kingdom has had a good run recently with zombie movies. 28 Days Later and Shaun Of The Dead were both huge successes in the zombie genre despite being two completely different movies. They told different stories, but still respected the genre and created fun and entertaining zombie movies. As I've said before, it's much easier making a bad zombie movie than a good one. Just about every horror fan thinks they have a good idea for a zombie movie. While an idea may sound good on paper, the movie's fate lies in good execution. Today, I turn back to the UK for another zombie movie in hopes of lightning striking a third time.

The Zombie Diaries is a 2006 independent horror movie later released through Dimension Extreme films. The movie is shot in the "found footage" style and is not presented the typical (and expected) linear format, so I'll try to do my best in explaining things. The movie is also split up into chapters to make things even more unnecessarily confusing. Set in England, the movie begins with reports of a viral outbreak originating in Asia. Compared to bird flu, initially the Western world ignores the danger until reports of the virus reach London's doorstep. In the first chapter "Outbreak", a documentary film crew goes out to the countryside to interview a farmer dealing with the outbreak. When they reach the farm, they find no one is home and leave. Their car breaks down (of course) and they walk back to the farm and break in. They believe they are alone, but hear loud noises upstairs. They investigate only to find an eviscerated body and a zombie lumbering towards them. They run out into the words and try to plan their next move. The second chapter "The Scavengers" takes place one month after the first chapter and shows a separate group of people raiding a market for food and supplies. We now see the zombies have grow in number, despite being incredibly slow. In the third and final chapter entitled "The Survivors" we meet yet another group who have set up camp in a farm. They spend most of their time fighting zombies and bickering amongst themselves. One in the group, Goke, is particularly difficult to deal with. How are all these stories connected and how does Goke fit in with the first chapter?

Not-fast-enough food

There are good zombie movies, bad zombie movies, and zombie movies so horrendous that they make you want to completely give up on the genre. Look at that first picture at the top. That's the DVD cover to the movie. Looks pretty cool, right? Zombies emerging from a city in ruins and a badass protagonist ready to kick some undead ass. Yeah, the problem with that is there is no such scene in the movie. Not even close. The dupe people into thinking they're in for a fun zombie movie with lots of violence and action. Instead, we are forced to suffer through a pointless and insipid movie with the world's slowest zombies. I prefer slow zombies, but the ones in The Zombie Diaries move at the sound of smell. You could literally moonwalk past them and yet they are somehow able to sneak up and bite people. You would have to have your eyes closed, your nose plugged, and your fingers jammed into your ears while you loudly sing "Come Sail Away" in order to miss them.

As I've said in previous reviews, I'm not really a fan of "found footage", but done right, the style can create real scares. I felt it worked best in Cloverfield, but even Paranormal Activity had it's good moments. Above all else, both movies had a good reason for having a character hold a camera. It also boggles my mind that since this is supposed to be found footage, why the hell is their music during the movie? I mean, the music is really just electronic ambiance and swells, but in the characters' world, where did that sound come from? Did someone find the camera and then add music to it? Other than the original film crew, I have no idea why these other groups have cameras. It's never clear if it's the same camera being used and with all the time lapses and different groups, I have no way of taking a guess. Speaking of jumping around, when the movie switched from the first group to the second, I had no idea who these people were. Actually, I still don't know since their names are only mentioned once or twice and they're not particularly important.

Thrilling

 I know the filmmakers were trying to go for a big surprise ending, but the style just makes everything so confusing that I didn't even care. Normally, movies go from A to B to C. The Zombie Diaries went from A to Hot Dog to Elephant to B to C back to B to Beach Ball to A. They attempted at making social commentary, about man being the real danger, but it's presented in such a random way that it fell completely flat. Now that I think about it, there are barely any good zombie scenes in the movie.There is one or two scenes of gore and violence, but not nearly enough to even give the slightest hint at entertainment. The acting is "passable" with the best parts coming at the beginning when interviews are being conducted on the street asking about the outbreak. They're so good I think that they actually interviewed real people instead of hiring actors.

Horror fans have a certain expectation when it comes to zombie movies and The Zombie Diaries fails in every aspect. The story makes little to no sense and is a confused jumble of random characters that we feel nothing for. The zombies are incredibly slow and yet somehow manage to sneak up on some characters. There is no real reason why the characters continue to film and the addition of musical ambiance makes the style of shooting even more questionable. To my utter disbelief, they actually made a sequel to this movie. The only good thing this movie did was run for less than an hour and a half. At least they didn't bother to drag it out. Whatever you do, avoid The Zombie Diaries at all cost. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!

0/10

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Day 33: An American Werewolf In London

An American Werewolf In London
There's a bad moon on the rise

I have to admit, I was a little gun-shy about watching another werewolf movie. Wolves of Wall Street was so bad that I never wanted to see anything involving werewolves for weeks. It's so easy to make a bad werewolf movie, let alone a bad horror movie. I thought that they only way to get back into the genre was to not take any risks and watch a well-known and much-liked werewolf movie. That's where this movie came in.

An American Werewolf In London starts off with two young Americans, David and Jack, backpacking across Northern England, on there way to Italy. When night falls, David and Jack stop in a small pub called “The Slaughtered Lamb”. After a strange encounter in the pub followed be a warning of “Beware the moon,” David and Jack head out into the moors where they begin to hear terrifying baying and growls. Jack is brutally murdered by a werewolf and David suffers wounds before the people from the pub kill the creature. David wakes up in a London hospital where he is cared for by Dr. Hirsch and the beautiful nurse, Alex. David suffers from horrible nightmares and is visited by a mutilated Jack, who informs David that he is in limbo and that to end his torment, Jack must end the werewolf bloodline and kill himself before the full moon. David falls in love with Alex and goes back to her apartment where the the nightmares and visits from Jack continue. Dr. Hirsch travels to The Slaughtered Lamb to question the locals about the attack and learns the truth. Meanwhile, the full moon rises and David goes through a horrific transformation into a werewolf and goes on a killing spree throughout London. How will they stop the transformations and save David from killing again?

Werewolf? There, wolf.

AAWIL has a seriously good mix of scary moments and lighter moments. The scenes of horror and not just scary, but frightening. The transformation scene is the best example. In previous werewolf movies, such as the classic Wolf Man, the transformation into a werewolf was partially scene or done completely in the shadows. In this movie, the scene is brightly lit and is shown in it's entirety. You see muscles grow, hair spread and bones snap while David screams in agony. It is easily one of the best pre-CGI special effects ever used in a horror movie. Scenes in the Underground have great perspective and you really feel the werewolf bearing down on you. The subtle humor and upbeat music is juxtaposed well with the horror, so you never feel like the movie is slipping into actual comedy and losing it's edge.

The acting is solid all around and the story is good all the way through. John Landis knows what he's doing with some creative shots and great direction. Good location choices help to fill out each scene and convey whatever feeling Landis is trying to create. The makeup and effects for Jack and the transformation are the real stars of the movie. It makes me long for the days where paint and supplies were used over computers and programs.The romance does feel a little bit forced and convenient, but for the sake of moving the story forward, it's ok.

Sloppy Joe Day is the best!

Simply put, An American Werewolf In London is a good movie. It sounds silly, but its so hard to find a good movie nowadays. The story if entertaining, the acting and directing are solid, there is plenty of horror, and the effects are amazing. Well worth your time if you're a fan of horror movies or just a fan of movies in general. It's so easy to make a bad werewolf movie, but when you know there is a good one out there, take the time to watch and enjoy. Your brain and your heart will thank you.

9/10