I'll tell you now: Marc Singer is out of the cup. Jennifer Connelly has got it sewn up and she only got 5/10 for The Hulk. Dead Space (nothing to do with the games) is a very poor film that homages to within an inch of its sad and sorry existence.
All it says on the IMDb summary is, "A deadly virus attacks the crew of a Saturn space station." Yep, that's about it. Oh as long as by 'virus' you actually mean 'alien'. And that is 'alien' in the sense of Alien and Aliens. The virus idea is virtually non-existent in the film; despite it being a mixture of every known disease, everyone quite happily walks around without hazmat suits or even face masks. In fact, their high level protection against this virulent virus is to "keep away" from it. So it's an alien then.
It thieves blatantly from the Alien franchise. But even then it does so in a tedious fashion. An android gets torn in half. Amazingly, it's not a patch on the shot from Aliens. It's so blatant that it nicks a complete line from the same film. As time goes on the alien, I mean virus, becomes quite large, a bit like the alien queen perhaps. But whereas the proper queen charges around scrapping with Ripley and chasing Newt through ducts in a manner befitting Scooby Doo, this virus quite spectacularly stands still for a bit. Well, for a while really. It's not the most mobile of creatures.
Marc Singer does nothing to liven up the proceedings; in general he wanders around aimlessly shooting. That about sums up his performance. At least he would have been able to buy himself a chip butty from his wage packet. As long as he cadged a quid off his mum.
Is this film recommendable to anyone? Maybe. There is one small subset of society that may benefit from watching this turgid piece of poop: blue spandex fetishists. Even then they could fast forward to a couple of scenes where some ladies get a bit frisky in said garments, and forget the rest. Even lovers of futuristic ear rings shouldn't bother; the best they can manage here are some curly telephone cables. Pathetic.
The only thing that Dead Space has going for it is the most prolonged bout of a creature being stabbed by a dart committed to celluloid and some waking up acting to rival Grandpa Walton. Avoid at all costs. 1/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Blue Spandex Babes VI.
Big Tits Zombie. Let's take a more in-depth look at that title. Now, being a Professor of Linguistics and All Things Languagey I can clearly see that the title splits into two distinct parts: Big Tits and Zombie. This raises a few intriguing questions: 1. Do the sizeable bouncers belong to the titular zombie? 2. Is it someone (possibly a lady) with a hefty array of begonias fighting a zombie? 3. Or is this a detailed character study into the trials and tribulations of a male zombie trying to get a pair of improbably huge bazongers on the NHS? Surely these are such tricky questions that they should have only been posed on The Krypton Factor. But I will attempt to answer them...
Actually it's none of the above. A more accurate title would be Slightly Smaller Than Average Booble Dumplings Zombie. In fact the largest bongos on show belong to a rather rotund fellow. This is false advertising on a massive scale (although it could be said that the title implies that the film is going to be rubbish, and it is).
Now that we've got the jumbo jubblies out of the way we'd better start to dissect the intricate story. Lena (Sola Aoi) is an exotic dancer who works in a rundown and virtually unattended strip club. After a fight with one of her co-strippers (in a typically under-dressed fashion) a wooden door is revealed that leads to a creepy old cellar. The stripping chums investigate and discover some books of the occult. Maria - a stripping chum - decides to read a passage from the book. Ooh la la, mon dieu, and most importantly, zut alors, the dead come back to life.
Whereas low-budget offering Alien vs. Ninja had poor production values it made up for it with a large dose of fun. Big Tits Zombie just looks like it's been made by the recurring character in many Japanese films: the seedy giggling bespectacled bloke who peeps up school girls skirts. Saying that there's probably more flesh filled entertainment in the average Carry On film. This is in no way saucy fun though, it veers more towards the dirty side of things (but rest assured that it gets nowhere near the grubby low standards of Zombie 108). The fact that one scene involves a lady zombie with a flame-throwing tuppence pretty much says it all.
There's really nothing positive I can say. The acting is terrible all round, although I found Lena vaguely likeable (in a shallow way that could be because she's a bit attractive). The effects are equally dire. Wires can clearly be seen on one zombie who has an extendable tentacle neck. You would have thought that even their meagre budget would have stretched to wire removal. But no. As for the zombies, there are some professional gurners in their ranks. One bloke in particular is really annoying with his overacting rivalling that of dancers. And the same ones constantly reappear. Top hat zombie (amongst others) crops up way too often.
Ooh wait a minute! I can come up with a positive. At the start Lena knocks about in a rather more revealing version of the iconic Game of Death costume. I'll give it half a point for that.
So was it a total waste of time then? No, not quite. It gave me the chance to write a cheeky schoolboy review that contained many references to la grande garbonzas. And for that I'll round it up to: 1/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Allo, Allo.
Doccortex couldn't resist getting in on the zombie action. Let's see what he thinks of Zombie 108 - evlkeith
Taiwan’s first ever zombie film almost defies belief let alone description. It’s a shocking experience in every sense of the word and not in a particularly good way either. Maybe it’s a cultural issue or perhaps it’s our higher expectations of the genre, but although Zombie 108 sounds great on the back of the DVD box, in reality it’s a terrible piece of film making.
There are very few positives, other than the opening credits signalling a much higher quality viewing experience. It’s all downhill once the film starts. Our heroine and her daughter escape the Zombie Apocalypse only to be abducted by a disturbed, psychopathic, meat-faced torture merchant. That’s about as far as the plot goes, as cops, gangs, Americans and zombies combine in random acts of attacking each other, usually with guns, but occasionally with kung fu. At times you have little idea where the story is heading or indeed if it is heading anywhere.
It’s all very seedy, sleazy and unpleasant with women treated particularly harshly, and no matter what role or character they represent, they always wear hotpants. Even the lady cop wears them as part of her uniform! Perhaps this is the female garment of choice in Taiwan, but I seriously doubt that they’re that omnipresent.
All in all it’s rubbish, with few, if any redeeming features. There’s a weak plot, poor special effects, unconvincing make up, cheap camera work and comedy acting. It did however make me laugh a lot when I discussed it with evlkeith, so for that reason alone, it scores:
1/10 Doccortex (To stick to my pledge of watching one zombie film a week, I've watched this too. I completely agree with Doccortex's findings except I would be a bit harsher on the rating. Generally, the inclusion of hotpants in a film lifts the rating a couple of points, e.g. Tombs of the Blind Dead, but any film that sullies hotpants is always going to receive an extremely low score. Terrible, terrible film. As for Meat Face, even looking at his picture makes me want to scrub myself clean with napalm - evlkeith)
If you like this you could also try: Sticking a slice of Pek to your face.
You may well have been wondering when I was going to get round to the zombie maestro Lucio Fulci in my year long festival of all things shambling. Well, wait no longer. Here's the long awaited review of Zombie Flesh Eaters 2. What the hell? What's that 2 doing at the end of the title? Yep, sadly I've plumped for this celluloid travesty as my first foray into Fulci realms. Things can only get better after this.
You may have gathered that this film is pretty dire. In fact, it's a complete mess. There are many stories regarding the production. Probably the most common is that Fulci became ill during the making of it and Bruno Mattei was brought on board. It all sounds a bit suss because Claudio Fragasso, the writer had previously worked on Zombie Creeping Flesh with Mr Mattei and they were top buddies. A large proportion of Fulci's footage was deemed unusable and Mattei fleshed out the remaining running time. It's hard to believe that Fulci's work was actually worse than the shambles that Mattei has knocked out.
One shot that Fulci admits too is the only hint of the supernatural in the whole film. A flying zombie head zooms out of a fridge to bite an unwary victim. It sticks out like a sore thumb in a film that is more akin to Nightmare City. The zombies here charge around brawling with the protagonists rather than shuffling politely up to them. But don't get your hopes up expecting that the a bit that Fulci definitely directed is any good. It's still rubbish. Just different rubbish.
It also bears virtually no resemblance to its namesake. This escapade actually bears more similarities to a Romero film, The Crazies. Althoughthe original Zombie Flesh Eaters cashed in on the success of Dawn of the Dead, Fulci managed to make a pretty great film. Despite The Crazies not being the best film ever, this farce doesn't even get any where near its quality.
Admittedly, I was marginally tipsy when I watched this (you need to be, believe me) but about half way through I couldn't quite work out who the main characters were or where they'd come from. They are so lacking in personality that I'm not even sure that they're in the first half of the film. I'd worked out that there were some soldier types involved, possibly. Although, I only noticed them due to their shockingly bad dialogue. But I'd got no idea where the leading lady had come from. In fact, I wasn't even sure if she was the leading lady. She could have been a dinner lady, who'd mistakenly wandered on to the set. I'm convinced that if you freeze frame the film at 67 mins and 34 secs you can see her serving a young gentleman some flapjack.
Lots of reasons come to mind for why Fulci didn't succeed with this project: he was ill, budgets were becoming smaller and he didn't have his dream team of actress Catriona MacColl, writer Dardano Sacchetti, effects genius Gianetto De Rossi and cinematographer Sergio Salvati with him. I get the feeling that his four classic zombie films are the product of team work, and a perfect mix of creative talent, rather than the work of an auteur.
There is one moment, where a zombie barges about as if he's migrated from Resident Evil 4. Put a sack on his head and give him a chainsaw and he's a dead ringer. It's also got a great poster. And Hitler makes an appearance. But apart from all of that, this is a total waste of time. Unless you like watching random encounters with badly made up zombies and a surprising lack of gore. Let's all just pretend that Fulci had nothing to do with this and look forward to his greater works. 1/10 evlkeith NB I lied about the flapjack sighting, so don't waste your time buying the film and searching for it.
If you like this you could also try: Zombie Creeping Flesh, Nightmare City.
The blurb proclaims that this is a near perfect film, and in so many ways it is just that. The whole thing is a technical masterpiece; it's shot perfectly, the imagery is perfect, the plot, characterisation and atmosphere are all perfect. However the question needs to be asked, "Why is it not a particularly enjoyable viewing experience?"
The answer almost creates a new genre of film in its own right. This is a grimy little film. There is no hint of positivity here, no hope, no humour. Just grimy degradation, exploitation, illness and deprivation. With more guns, drugs and prostitutes it would be full on gritty, but we are even denied this level of excitement and are left with a seedy, dirty and depressing picture of real life for the Bacelona underclasses. Call it what you want; 'Grimy', 'Grime-core' or 'Grit-lite', Biutiful almost writes its own grimy checklist.
There's no criticism of the actors and Javier Bardem (Vicky Christina Barcelona) in particular is stunningly downbeat and depressing. Parcel him up in a world of immigrant workers, disease, marital problems, guilt, lawlessness and bizarrely, clairvoyancy(!), and you have a deeply disturbing 141 minutes ahead of you.
The start and the ending are fantastically weird, it's the two hours in-between that almost make you lose the will to live. It has something in common with other grimy offerings like Sex Party & Lies, Y Tu Mama Tambein and Amoros Peros, but takes the whole genre down to a new level of hopelessness. The best gritty films add a sprinkling of hope to proceedings (City of God), but Inarritu ignores this convention and we are left looking into the abyss. Only watch if your world looks rosy, because a couple of hours later it will certainly have a darker tinge. 9/10 for technical.
1/10 for enjoyment. Doccortex
If you like this you could also try: Butterfly's Tongue, The Sea Inside, The Secret in Their Eyes.
It was all going so well... then Derverlar Kirwans makes an appearance. No, give it a chance Mr Keith, it might surprise you. Okay then, let's have a look at it...
Derverlar Kirwans plays TV psychic Ruth Peacock, on a trip to a site where some people were killed in Russia. Her film crew hope that she finds something interesting to bolster their ratings. Suffice to say some ghostly occurrences happen.
So it's a ghost story. What's the first thing that springs to mind? Scary jumpiness. Yep. Well forget that, you'll not find any of that here. What you do get are loud noises (yawn) and the camera being thrown about in wild abandon. Confusion instead of shocks. Useless.
The fact that the director said that Paranormal Activity was an influence and how it made tonnes of money shows how cynical this film is. Sadly, the director can't even get a jump out of a still camera focussed on a room, a technique central to the above film. All you need to do is get something to quickly move, accompanied by a bang and Robert's your mum's brother. Nope, they didn't even get that right.
Now, I was willing to give Derverlar Kirwans a chance but her character is so devoid of character that I was hoping that Derek Acorah might pop up and take over. The presenter of the fictional programme 'Darkest Secrets', Kate (Charlotte Riley) is moderately watchable but suffers badly at the hands of the script. Another character advises her that they need to get out quickly. She acknowledges this and then proceeds to faff about on her laptop for ten minutes (using her quality 'Darkest Secrets' proprietary editing software).
The TV programme premise leads to the next problem: the film intercuts between proper footage and footage that the fictional camera operator is taking. The only difference is that one is handheld, the other isn't. It really jars as there needs to be a greater difference between the two types of footage. The 'found footage' style shots are fine but the proper supposedly filmic footage just doesn't look good enough.
The overly spelt out ending doesn't help matters either. You're told at least three different times what's happening. I'd got it the first time, thank you very much. Plus, the ending doesn't link back to the theme of the film, it's simply a way to end the whole sorry mess. Add to that the fact that the first section of the film looks like it was filmed in the little forest outside the back of my house (Russia, my bottom) and virtually every element of the film is designed to pull you out of the experience and remind you that you're watching a film. Not good for building tension.
While Dominic Brunt has got a future in horror, either in front or behind the camera. Derverlar Kirwans hasn't. The best thing about this film was that I had a really good rant with a pint afterwards. This is a dire film, not as bad as V/H/S, but still really bad. Avoid like syphilis. (There's a quote to put on the poster.) 1/10 evlkeith If you like this you could also try: Paranormal Activity, Lake Mungo.
If there is a film that sums up everything that is useless about horror films, then this could well be a contender.I was half looking forward to this. It's Australian, and there have been some okay horror offerings from there recently, The Horseman in particular (let's forget Snowtown, we'll allow one mistake). As you may have guessed, Dying Breed is more in the latter camp.
Nina (Mirrah Foulkes) is on the trail of an incredibly rare, and possibly non-existent, Tasmanian Tiger. Her sister was drowned whilst on exactly the same expedition eight years previously. Nina is accompanied by her boyfriend Matt (Leigh Whannell - Saw, I know, my Spider-Sense should have tingling at this), his incredibly irritating buddy Jack (Nathan Phillips - amusingly he was John 'Teabag' Teasdale in Neighbours) and his girlfriend Rebecca (Melanie Vallejo). Standard issue stuff so far then. Irritating characters who you can't wait to die: tick. Weaved in with this tiger tickling tale is the story of The Pieman, Alexander Pearce, who escaped from the penal colony in 1824 by eating human flesh: interesting contestant for 'Come Dine With Me'. Actually if he started tearing into the other microwave botherers, I might be tempted to watch it.
Nothing really happens for the first half, apart from Jack being really annoying. Then at about fifty minutes in, it kicks off with, funnily enough, a character dying. Not that you're really aware that they are dying until you see their dead staring eyes at the end of the scene. This death is shot in glorious 'let's-throw-the-camera-around-really-excessively-and-then-edit-it-together-mega-quickly-to-be-down-with-the-kids-in-an-MTV-kind-of-fashion-and-disguise-the-fact-that-we-don't-really-know-how-to-kill-this-character-o-vision'. It is the anti-Fulci style. Terrible.
Now, you'd expect that when you hit that turning point at fifty minutes, you're roughly at the half-way point. So using my powers of mathematical trickery that would put the running time at approximately a hundred minutes. Nope. It clocks in at eighty five minutes. There is nowhere near enough proper horror action in the second half. When the end is reached you can almost feel those missing fifteen minutes. There is a definite, "Oh. Is that it?" moment when the credits start to roll.
Something that is always ridiculed in horror films is the stupidity of the characters, "Ooh, let's go down into this blood bath of a basement filled with flesh-crazed mutants with just a torch." - kind of thing. The characters' motivations and behaviours are so pathetic in this film that it is ripe for top stand up comedians, such as Bradley Walsh, to really rip into it. The number of times characters get told to "Stay here" while nutter moonshine guzzling hillbillies are lurking around killing willy-nilly is beyond belief. Jake, in yet another irritating moment, slashes a mountain man's tyre and then has a toddler strop when one of them keys his new jeep. What did you expect you idiot? I could go on and on and on...
Are there any redeeming features? Mmm... maybe one. Jake's death - is it really a spoiler to say that an irritating character gets killed in a horror film? - is fairly amusing, but even that doesn't have the expected impact. Rather than being a moment to have a little cheer at, I spent a couple of seconds deciding whether what I thought had happened, had actually occurred. In the next shot it is confirmed but by then it's too late. Wait, I've thought of another (oooh). There are some cool shots of a lake. And that's it.
Australia. Tasmanian Tigers. Mountain men. Cannibalism. This should have been a recipe for a fun-filled chomp-fest. Sadly, it's more of a recipe for dog gip. 1/10 evlkeith
If you like this you could also try: Wrong Turn, Deliverance, The Hills Have Eyes.
