Theatre of the Dead #14 - I am Legend (2007)

Director: Francis Lawrence Stars: Will Smith, Alice Braga

Review:

I am Legend (2007) is a movie adapation of the 1954 novel in the same name written by Richard Matheson, which is the inspiration of the whole zombie idea, and influenced even Night of the Living Dead (1968). It stars Will Smith and showcases some beautiful visual. But I hate this movie. To me this movie is pointless and un-necessary, and nothing more than a ATM for the production company to milk the movie-goers.

The only man around wandering on abandoned empty street?

I understand it based on the novel, but I couldnt help but feel it just captured the success of 28 Days Later, and the production said, "You know what, I can make a better movie with higher production value!" The main idea surrounds Will Smith being the last man on earth and his loneliness, which very much like the first half of 28 Days Later. It did nothing that hadnt been done, and despite that fact that the visual is better and it shows the whole New York city being abandoned, but I feel sick knowing there is no heart in it and the whole thing is solely for the production to cash in.

Will Smith's acting has always been screaming commercial to me. He is not bad and on the contrary, he is really good, but it makes you feel it is cold and calculated in every possible way for you to pay to get into the theatre. He makes everybody like him, and that is evidence of lacking personality. There goes the right word which I have been searching to describe this movie. This movie has no personality. It is carefully calculated that most of the crowd would walk in and pay, and that is all this movie cares.



The movie starts with some Dr. being interviewed on TV about her new vaccine or something. Apparently it's a virus that has genetically engineered to help human rather than do harm. It poses good theory that some experts actually praises the high possibility that it actually happens. I am no expert in bio-chemistry and all I care is what does it have to do with the movie. And you know what? Absolutely nothing. It can be the some research for new Viagra which went wrong and that would not make any difference. The zombies here are afraid of daylight, but does it matters anything? Nope. It just makes excuses for our hero to hang out during daytime.

You were hurt so bad that could get up? Damned!

The plot is alright with some moments that can be nitpicked. When Will Smith is trapped (and Yes, trapped by the zombies), and paralyzed his legs, he used his hands to drag himself away. But we have only seen him hurt in one leg. Cant he jump with a single leg or something? So he dragged himself for a while, under some screaming of the zombies coming, and after a while he finally jumped with a single leg. Why didnt he do that at first? Is he so hurt that he would rather be eaten by the zombies?

Oh so you can. Maybe you just wasnt in the mood back then.

Towards the end he met some other survivors, who told him there is a whole survivor's colony up on the north, since the virus wouldnt stand the cold. "How did you know that?" Will Smith asked. "God told me so." Oh great. Evangelicalism in "Signs" (2002) style. If God can be so specific to tell you the whole fact, why havnt he told you the cure of the virus directly? Oh right it is because Will Smith that should become legend, not you. Whatever.

"God told me." If I start praying now will God tell me the next lottery number?

And zombies can lay traps. Ok I can deal with that. But zombie that have a wife and cares about her? Remember all those moments a zombie bite off the flesh of its loved ones? Remember the gravity of one become a mindless corpse that have no feeling but hunger and eat anyone he sees, even his family? And now one that is emotionally comprised and cares about his women?

I am Legend (2007) is nothing about a trap to make us take our money from our pockets. It is so derivative that I despise it. And I know that it may be supposed to talk about nature and how wrong we are to alter it with science, and I call that whole idea bullshit. It is a block-buster movie and that's it. Zombie movies so far were low-budget and bold to display gore and violence, and this movie has no balls. That single fact could make it lame.

Theatre of the Dead #13 - Land of the Dead (2005)

Director: George A. Romero Stars: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo

Review:


After 30 years George A. Romero, the father of the zombie genre, comes back with Land of the Dead (2005). The expectation is high and critical response is generally good. However to me, some of the magic from the original trilogy is gone. The situation is ridiculous and it is difficult to suspend my disbelief on the whole premise.

Apparently this movie loosely picks off after the original trilogy. Now that people have developed a systemic way of dealing with the whole zombie apocalyze thing. Defenses have been setup and people barracaded inside, and life goes on for them. Some rich people can live in a skyscraper called Fiddler's Green, and poor people live on the skirt of the city within the blockage. Every once in a while some hired mercenaries went out in an armoured and armed vehicle to get supplies from abandoned supermarkets or other places. Our main characters are two of those mercanaries, on a final night out but for different reasons. Denbo (Simon Baker) wants to get out of the city, and Cholo (John Leguizamo) wants to have his own apartment in the Green, but they will both be pissed for not having their wishes come true.

The zombies are obsessed of watching fireworks. The smart zombie, like the audience, has no idea why.

Problem: what are these guys working for? Money. In a world that is full of zombies, and we havent seen them breeds any poultry or grow anything, food supply is gonna run out fast, and we have been told that they stayed like this for years. I am pretty sure food and water supply is in shortage. So what can they do with money? Buy supplies. Are they dumbs? They grabs supplies out in the jungle of zombies just to get money for some supplies that they would already have if not sold them out? Besides, money dont mean jack-shit without a operating issueing bank, and I dont think the banks are open under zombie days.

What have these stupid rich assholes contributed to the situation? Aint that obvious protecting them for money is stupid?

That being said, why is the people hired for money to protect the rich, that doesnt do anything but shopping. The residents in the Green, whom I imagine would be accountants, lawyers, or investment bankers, do nothing but shopping and having high teas. What do we need them for since clearly the stock market and court has been shutdown, and we do not even have an account.

Lastly, with that much of firepower, they could easily end the whole thing by killing all the zombies. You can just run it over with the armoured automobile.

Having an argument with the door wide open. Brilliant. Guess what happen next.

I understand it sort of address the problem of the contrast between rich and poor, but this scenario seems far-out for me. I imagine it more like in Mad Max 2 (1981), in which people trade supplies for supplies, and there is no rich man that can just sit down and enjoy art.

Now with that out of the way, we look at how Romero dealing with the zombie scenario again. In Land of the Dead we goes back to the Romero zombies, which are slow-moving, but like in Day of the Dead (1985), they can learn. A more intelligent zombie seems to learn how to use tool, shot a gun, and walk underwater. He leads other zombies to breach the perimeter of the city, and storm Fiddler's Green. I have already talked about how I do not like the learning idea, and while in this one they do not seems like retarded, it is closer to a point that we can reason with them. So are they even mindless zombies anymore...?

Tom Savini makes a cameo in this and it does kinda awesome to kinda suggest this is the same character from Dawn of the Dead.

The plot and characters are pretty standard. Money arguments and interest conflicts cause troubles, and Cholo wants to kill the richest by threatening them he would storm the place for ransom, while the good guy Denbo has to stop him for the innocient riches, pretty much like in many other movies such as The Rock (1996). We can have the story goes in other post-apocalyptic situations, like nuclear war, tsunami, epidemic, you name the rest. Zombie has nothing really to do with it.

Overall, I would not rate it good. Although comparing this to other movies at the time, it does take a bold step to make something different, but doesnt really work for me. On the entertaining level I would rate it more or less the same as the Dawn of the Dead remake (2004) gives me, and aint that a shame. George A. Romero would follow this with Diary of the Dead (2007) and Survival of the Dead (2009), and things got worse. Maybe in all walks of life, we got it at some point and lost it.

Maximum Overdrive (1986)

Director: Stephen King Stars: Emilio Estevez, Pat Hingle, Laura Harrington

Review:

Ah...Stephen King, one of the most popular horror novelist of our time. Funny fact is that horror movies based on his stories usually sucks. Sure The Shining (1980) is an absolute classic, and I do like IT (1990), but if you count the garbage ones there are a million more. This time is about killer trucks that move by themselves. Well...that's about it.

At the beginning of the movie we were told earth is in the tail of a comet, and we see trucks and other machinery moves by themselves, causing harm to human beings. That is the whole idea of the movie, and the rest is mostly slapstick comedy routines. It is a little funny at the first ten minutes or so, watching people falling clumsily into water or so, but after 20 minutes it really outstaged its welcome, and hopeing for something to happen for a change.

Guess what happened next.

The characters are stupid, forgettable and annoying. Some of their misfortune was not even remotely connected with the whole "machine coming alive" thing. One ugly chick who just got married just wont shut the fuck up. I hate her chicken voice and I waiting to see her die the worst possible way. But she survived. Oh what the hell.

Oh I'm sorry man...Thanks for get rid of one monster on earth though.

There is a difference between movies that make people forget about logic, or does not have any logic at all. This movie is the latter case. Why do trucks turn over when you shot bullets at it? Why the trucks wont crush down the honky tonk earlier? Why the girl immediately believe some DJ on the radio talking non-sense of staying off any highway? Why they do not fire a rocket launcher at the machine-gun vehicle? Oh the hell with reasons.

Hey plastic or wood is insulator!

What could possibly tip him over?

This is a junk film, sure, but was it even worth a laugh? I personally do find it quite hilarious, as I have said the jokes are really monotone that based on only slapsticks. Some people argued, "It's worth a watch just for the AC/DC soundtrack." Yes the whole soundtrack comes from AC/DC, Stephen King's favourate band. It tried to give a "O Yeaaah!" response after something blown up or someone got killed. After the 10th "O Yeaaah!", it becomes "o yeah?" or "o shit". If you love AC/DC so much, why not just listen to their CDs?

At the end, we were told, by text on the screen, it was from an alien masterplan all along and the comet tail has nothing to do with it. O whatever. After this failure Stephen King swore to never direct again. Thank god.

Quentin "Foot Fetishist" Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino is one of the best director in our time. His movies are bold, stylish at the same time fun to watch. His Pulp Fiction (1994) is regarded by many others to be their favourite movie ever made. It came to media attention that some Indian girl spilled the beans about a night she had with Tarantino. "And thus began the weirdest 10 minutes of my life - having my feet made out with by an Oscar-winning filmmaker while he pleasured himself," she spoke to the media.

This aint news. This is what everybody have already known ages ago, even before he drank champagne out of Uma Thurman's shoe, if you have seen his movies. Many scenes were just weird, like it was shot through the eyes of a foot fetishist.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
The movie that brought Tarantino to international fame, Reservoir Dogs (1991), almost features an all male cast and have no chance for foot fantasies. However in Pulp Fiction (1994), John Travolta discusses with Samuel L. Jackson about foot massages. Samuel L. Jackson said foot massage is nothing like licking a woman's spot of "holiest of holiest". John Travolta argued, "Would you give a guy a foot massage?" But I dont think when Travolta said this line, he fully knows what foot massage means to Tarantino.

"Would you give a guy a foot massage?"

There is also this scene that especially shows Uma Thurman's bare foot with strange camera angle. Usually to cover up someone's identity, one would shot the backside, or not showing the full face. In Tarantino's style, he shot her feet.

Aint the pose a little bit weird for one just casually standing? Is it especially to show the foot?

Correct me, but does one need to be bare feet to do the twister dance?

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
From Dusk Till Dawn is a movie directed by Tarantino's friend Robert Rodriguez. Tarandino had a role as sort of a mental killer, and oh boy aint Tarantino's acting bad. However he does look obsessed when drinking wine from Salma Hayek's feet. The scene apparently is used to establish the seductive power of Salma Hayek's role, that she can make others fallen under her spell. But down inside, you cant help but wonder if Tarantino is really acting in that scene.

Hey indian girl, is that night something like this?

Kill Bill (2003)
It's Uma Thurman again. She have to wiggle her toe with her mind after get her legs disabled from long period of coma. The scene makes sense but we audience have to stare the toe with her for like 3 minutes. What movie else you got to see just woman's toe for 3 minutes? Also the whole disabled leg thing was inserted just for showing this scene, since it does not cause her any actual trouble at all.

It has a more close shot scene, but this is enough.

Death Proof (2007)
Tarantino went totally out of control in this one. There is no more subtlety or excuse, but just foot scene after foot scene. He even made Kurt Russell a foot fetishist too.

It gets a little disturbing on thinking what's on Tarantino's mind in this shot.

Girls are always bare feet inside a car, and wearing flip-flops on street.

I imagine this is a tough scene for Russell.

Acutally the only foot I found awesome.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
As if Tarantino got it out of his system in Death Proof, he was more conserved in this movie. But he just couldnt help just add this one shot.

But honestly it does not seem out of place and it fits within the storytelling. So it could be considered acceptable.

Tarantino is a really talented director, but his romantic attachment ran to, shall we say, the exotic. I accept different...sexual behavior, but injecting the fantasies into movies for everyone is anothing thing, especially when those movies are such enjoyable. Those things are best kept to yourself.

Theatre of the Dead #12 - House of the Dead (2003)

Director: Uwe Boll Stars: Jonathan Cherry, Tyron Leitso, Clint Howard, Ona Grauer

Review:

Finally we come to this: the infamous Uwe Boll's House of the Dead. Aint that bad. It is so significant in the history of the zombie genre that it makes the new low that nobody had gone before, or even among movies in general. Definitely there maybe Z / zero-budget movies that were worse, but it may be the worst movie that travelled the distance over half of the earth to land on my videostore for my torment.

As other movies of Uwe Boll, House of the Dead is a movie adaptation of the videogame in the same name. I played the first House of the Dead at a very young age, probably 10 or 11, and I could remember nothing from the plot, just shot, shot and shot some more. So saying this movie has nothing to do with the game would be unfair. But indeed it is.

Zombie bitch flying over for taking a single shot. O wow.

A group of young people wanted to get on an isolated island for a rave party, but they were late for the ship. They hired a captain to take them on the island by his boat. "Forget it. Do you know what the natives call the island? Isle de Morte! Whichs mean island of death in Spainish." The captained said to the kids. "And if this is some lame attempt to hit me up for more cash..." "It aint. There ain't enough cash in the world to make us go back there." The captain firmly replied. "$1000". "Ok." O wow. So it is a lame attempt to hit for more cash afterall.

Zombie fighting Power rangers. 

So what do you know, there are zombies on the island and the kids try to survive. Havent we seen this somewhere before? Go to an island, where zombies are there. Hmm....Zombi 2? Yeah it would make more resemblance to Zombi 2 than to House of the Dead. It even have the zombie underwater fighting scenes just like in Zombi 2, but of course this is much lamer.

To tell how stupid the plot is, one needed to talk about the movie frame by frame, which I would not do that. I cant even analyse it under the framework of this review series since it is so stupid and inconsistent throughout the whole movie. So I may well talk about why this movie sucks so much.

1. Dumb characters. The movie always mention that one character "has a smile of Tom Cruise and the brain of Rainman." Firstly Rainman is austic but not stupid. Secondly that character is not much goodlooking. Thirdly he was not much dumber than any of the others. So at the end when he had his face ruined by zombie acidic saliva (o yeah), I feel nothing at all.

2. Stupid dialogue. The kids found an old house on the island, and one said "What is this....?" A house. You are too stupid to figure it is a house? When a pair travelling though the wood, one suddenly said "What is it!?" "I couldn't hear anything." "Me neither". Then what the fuck is what!? Such dialogue is throughout the whole movie.

"What is this...?" 

3. The action music. Whenever there is a chase scene or action sequence, there is techno or rock music, which does not adds to the tension but plainly annoys me. I did not found it cool or anything, but a lyric from Eminem pops in mind "Who listens to techno? Now let's go."

4. Game footage for changing scenes. Do I even need to say why?

The scene I hate the most is the action sequence in front of the house the kids find, in which they fight off a bunch of incoming zombies. It does a 360 degree camera close-up on each and everyone of the character, which stretches the sequence so long and so boring. It makes me feel like the power rangers, but even power rangers are more fun.

The camera spirls around her as she stands still. More like a catwalk show than a gunfight.

House of the Dead is one of my most hated movie of all time, and I was not even a fan of the original game. Uwe Boll really knows how to make shitty movies, and have done a really good job by far. When does the hurting stops?

Cinema Extreme #2 - Suicide Club (2002)

Director: Shion Sono Stars: Ryo Ishibashi, Masatoshi Nagashe, Mai Hosho

Review:

I have doubts to put this movie in the list of Cinema Extreme, as despite how thought provocative it is, it does not receive much ban from release. However the notorious opening scene does shocking and stunning enough to the point of anti-humanity, and I rate this as lying on the boundary of extreme cinema.

Girls ready to jump off onto the railroad.

The opening scene shows a mass suicide of 54 school girls. They were chatting happily on a train platform, and when the train comes they held hands and jumped to the railway together. This scene is powerful not for its gore factor, which we have seen something much exceeded, but the whole idea. Cute school girls kill themselves happily, under some teenage adorable background music. It sparkles all sorts of questions. Do they think suicide is hip? Do they think being death is much more happier than they already are?

Well what else could have happened?

Next we see people committed suicide all around Japan. People hung themselves together, stab himself in the neck, stuck her head into a burning oven, and chop up her own hands while preparing dinner. The police were on investigating but could have any leads except for a bag appearing in the scenes that contained human skins of the suicide victims stitched together.

Aghhh!!!The lights are ON!!! Wait....what?

It does builds up suspense and keeps us want to understand the whole affair. Why? Who is behind all these, and why stitch the skins together and give it to the police? The answer is quite obvious since every victim we saw them listen to a song from a teenage girl group. You know there is connection but what and why? Why do some teenage girl pop group want people commit suicide? The people receives call from a stranger, who is coughing, and claims he/she knows the truth and predict the next suicide event. And all that leads to big disappointment.

I thought all hope was lost when the movie suggests it is these punk rock dummies were whose behind.

It turns out the prediction was incorrect, and why is he/she coughing is never explained. A girl, whose boyfriend is a big fan of the pop group and a suicide victim, found out that the poster of the girl group contained a stupid sublimal message of suicide, by a stupid way of decoding it. She meet the girl group in their concert location, and the kids asked "Are you connected to yourself?" "You are connected to your boyfriend even if you died." "Why are you still living?" Ummm.....why not? So this is why they commit suicide? They are connected to themselves? What the fuck does that even mean?

No. I come to kick ass and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of bubble gum.

I rather the reason goes unexplained, and in that case we make up our own reasons. Japan is the country that the suicide count topped the world, and there is a whole million of reasons for that. But this is not one of them. This is just confusing and stupid. Nobody aint kill themselve because a bunch of little kids asked them about question of life. What do the little kids know. Fuck off.

Some scenes stretches too long when there is nothing actually happening, like the police went to the train station platform to prevent mass suicide as predicted by the stranger on the phone. Nobody really jumped on the railway and we wasted about 15 minutes of screen time.

I would not put this movie in the "Good movie" catergory, but then, extreme movies tend to be bad. There is no consistent character and once the character was nearly established he dies and the narration was handed off to a character we barely know. Also I wasnt much scared since I know the movie title is Suicide Club. They commit suicides, and would not hurt me even if all of them dies.

Noir de Noir #2 - Strangers on a Train (1951)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock Stars: Farley Granger, Robert Walker

Review:

Checking through the Film Noir element checklist, Strangers on a Train got some ticks and got some crosses. A crime plot, check. Use of shadows and silhouettes, check. Narration, nope. Femme Fatale, nope. Bad ending, nope. So I would say it barely considered a Film Noir, but close.

A tennis player Guy Haines (Farley Granger) meets a complete stranger fan of his, Bruno Anthony. Bruno is a very talkative person who knows no boundary, and talks about Guy's unhappy marriage situation. Guy was to marry another woman, but need to get a divorce first. Apparently Bruno is also very trustful to strangers, as he tells Guy about how much he wanted his father dead to succeed his wealth, and propose "What if I do your murder and you do mine?". In that case there would be no motive for the actual murderer, and perfect alibi for the suspect.

Guy's wasnt the material to kill anybody, but Bruno, being a rich spoiled brat, doesnt think it was such a big deal. He killed Guy's wife, and demands that Guy holds up the other end of the bargain. Guy refused and he stalked him, threatened him and enters his life. On the other hand the alibi for Guy when Bruno committed the murder was not such perfect, that his witness doesnt remember him. Now Guy has to fight for his own innocence.

The crime plot here is interesting, though not as clever as it sounds. Firstly is what happened in the movie. What if the other one does not follow the contract? What do have against him? Well in here Bruno got Guy's unique lighter, but he obtained it accidentally. If not so, what you gonna do then? Besides, wont the police suspects that the prime suspect hired a hitman or something, instead of straightly assuming that man who benefits the most is innocent?

There was a lot of usages in shadows and silhouettes in the movie. The presence of Bruno, who stalks Guy to pursuit him killing his father, is in an alternative sense a shadow of Guy. It usually sets up thrills and suspense, but I sort of distracted with the slightly comedic moments, like in the tennis scene which the whole is looking left and right tracking the tennis ball, while only Bruno is looking right at the audience. It shows how tennis is perceived in general American people and is a bit thrilling for Bruno to look at us.

However Bruno is a character that is too flamboyant to be scared of. He is laughing and joking and acts like a spoiled brat. Every scene when he and Guy is talking I feel the homosexual overtone, even more obvious than in Rope (1948). Despite he looks like at least 30 years old, he is a spoiled kid. With such clumsy and native character I cant sense any menace a villain should have.

Strangers on a Train (1951) can be classified as one of Hitchcock's earlier work, before he become fully a widely considered master. The visual style for some scenes just scream noir, but the tone and story does not back it up. It does remain an entertaining movie but not a significiant piece in the whole Hitchcock collection.