Brilliant, I thought, a cross between Deep Space 9 and Strictly Come Dancing. What can go wrong? Surely Alexander Siddig and Bruce Forsyth are in it? Er... no. And it's a film about a man trying to recall his memories of events in the 1982 Lebanon War. Ah... maybe this isn't the light-hearted sequin festival I was expecting.
When Ari Folman (the director) was 19 years old, he was a soldier in the Israel Defense Forces. After realising that he has been burying memories about a massacre being perpetrated by members of the Lebanese Christian Phalange militia, he interviews various people, including a psychologist and people who he believes were there with him. So Waltz with Bashir is a documentary. But it's also animated.
The animation is slightly disappointing with a severe Flash animation look. It takes a while to accept it, although it helps that there are some gorgeous images. One recurring image of Ari and two of his buddies rising from the water at sunset and walking, naked, towards the city, is particularly great. Another aspect of the film that goes a long way to glossing over the dubious animation is the music. The minimalist score by Max Richter is one of my favourites for quite a while. Well worth a listen.
I've reviewed a couple of films recently that employ the use of switching between styles or techniques to create a great emotional impact (colour to black and white news footage in The Hindenburg, and black and white to colour in Portrait of Jennie). At a critical moment, Waltz with Bashir uses a similar technique. It pulls the film together and makes the story real for the viewer. Great stuff.
The thread of Ari trying to recall his lost memories runs through the film and is probably the most engaging aspect. Other stories are woven into this, but they are not necessarily connected, creating a larger picture of war. This gives the film the feel of an anthology with the usual problem of some parts being better than others. Despite this, if a film is able to make me interested enough in an historical event to make me want to learn more, then it's got to be pretty good (and it's also way better than any Star Trek/glitter prance crossover could ever hope to be).
7/10 evlkeith
If you like this you could also try: Persepolis, City of Life and Death, The Congress.
Alarm bells started ringing on this one as soon as I read the comment on the cover "...a cross between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and BAD TASTE" - LOADED. If the film's any good, it doesn't really need comparing to other half decent films. Plus would you really use a quote from LOADED? Consider the barrel well and truly scraped.
Local beauty René (pictured above in a Fort Boyard style pose) lives in the peaceful town of Berkeley, when her world is thrown into turmoil by a strange meteorite shower. And amazingly, seeing as though this is a zombie film, the meteorites turn people into the living dead. She meets up with a small group of survivors and the usual zombie fun and games ensue.
After watching Undead, I got the distinct feeling that the Spierig brothers, the writer/directors, have got more talent in visual effects than they have in storytelling. The whole film seems to have gone wrong at the writing stage. It's the equivalent of a nil-nil draw on an overcast afternoon in February. And you've forgotten the half time cereal bars. Nothing much happens for the whole running time. The first half of the film consists of the characters being shunted from one cramped location to another. It all gets a bit Groundhog Day.
The characters don't help. Saying that they're one dimensional is a stretch. Closer to one quarter dimensional would be more accurate. The two main offenders are the cop, Harrison, and the outsider Marion. The loop goes something like this: Harrison swears a lot in a frantic high pitched "I'm in charge" kind of way, Marion contradicts him in his unwavering deep voice. The other characters don't help. They occasionally chip in but don't have anything meaningful to say.
Does anyone care why people have become zombies? Radiation, strange insect repellent machines, rabid monkeys, are all just the means to an end. As seen in the Zombie Checklist I'd skip any explanation and get on with the munching action. So it doesn't help Undead that its main original idea is irrelevant. Although it does lead to one great visual moment where a van is picked up by a beam of light. It's also a pretty nifty effect.
The effects, considering the budget are fairly impressive. Climactic scenes involving an aeroplane and vast swathes of people are pulled off incredibly well. The gore effects meanwhile suffer from too much CGI. Compare the walking legs (sans body) with the ones in Braindead. No contest. The practical zombie make up is standard issue, but well done.
But there's no point having sugar sprinkles on your cake if you've got no cake. The Spierig brothers managed to make a watchable film in Daybreakers (again as writer/directors) so they obviously learnt a lot from making this film. (It wasn't good enough to make me look forward to their, now shelved, sequel to The Dark Crystal.) But Undead hasn't got nearly enough story content to make it worth watching. 2/10 evlkeith
This is a gloomy, tense depiction of the infamous Australian convict Alexander Pearce’s escape into the Tasmanian wilderness with his gang of convict buddies. Based on a true story, it doesn’t take long before the guys realise there is no food in this harsh and challenging environment and they must survive through cannibalism. Don’t expect any empathy or justification for their actions like the Andes plane crash film Alive, this is an altogether more brutal tale of the survival of the fittest.
I was expecting something akin to those Ray Mears reconstructions when I purchased this DVD. The ones where hapless tourists find themselves lost in the woods and have to dig up roots and filter the goodness out of bear droppings to survive. Van Dieman’s Land is no fluffy tail of bush-craft however. This is a dark, claustrophobic piece of Australian cinema with a tangible sense of fear running through every frame.
The soundtrack is stark and droning, the imagery is shadowy and oppressive, and the characters are dehumanised by the dirt, the cold and big bushy beards that make then difficult to differentiate. The most disturbing part of the film however, is when they decide to kill an unlucky member of the gang to form the basis of their next non-vegetarian friendly stew. This is invariably carried out by sneaking up behind the unfortunate comrade and whacking them with a sickening blow from the back of an axe. The accompanying sound effects and body convulsions are some of the most shocking scenes I’ve witnessed recently outside of Antichrist. It’s not pleasant, but after this the scenes of stew munching seem tame by comparison, although I doubt Linda McCartney would agree.
It’s another grueller to sit through and would seriously benefit from some humour, hope or even someone doing magic tricks or juggling. There is nothing positive on show for humanity in Van Diemen’s Land, only a selfish and steadfast will to survive. Maybe evlkeith will love the copious tracking shots of dense forest and undergrowth, but for me the film was a soulless piece of historical grit that depressed rather than inspired.
Maybe they should do a remake with Ben Fogle, Ray Mears and Bear Grylls to lighten the mood? 3/10
Doccortex
If you like this you could also try: Alive, Cannibal Apocalypse, Cannibal Holocaust.
It is relatively easy to imagine the thought processes of Mr Girolami as he pondered his next film project: 'Mmm, what shall I knock up next. Erm... ooh, Zombie Flesh Eaters has just come out and has been really successful. Why don't I re-use the general idea of that. And the locations. And the lead actor. And a supporting actor (sadly not Al Cliver, it's Dakar). Hey, let's be crafty though. I don't want to be accused of being a dirty little homager. Er... I know. Cannibals. Let's throw some of them in too. Cannibals + Zombies = Can't fail. And to be on the safe side let's get the leading lady to display her prize winning begonias at every opportunity. Perfect.'
And that's exactly what you get with Zombie Holocaust. It's the Nisa version of Zombie Flesh Eaters. That's not to say that it's without its merits. There are some half decent gore moments, the highlight is a zombie being given a nice, close shave with an outboard motor. And due to the cannibal contingent, there has to be a bamboo type trap spike incident followed by disembowelment and a spot of light lunch. Although, I was very grateful that there was no animal cruelty, unlike other cannibal films of the time.
Ian McCulloch isn't given much to do, but is still a joy to watch. But the top performance has to be by Donald O'Brien as the mad doctor. He delivers some absolute pearlers, all with a straight face. A straight face that is hamming it up like no-one's business, but a straight face nonetheless. Watch the trailer for some of his words of wisdom. As for Alexandra Delli Colli, she gets subjects to some severe Barbie-ism of the privities. (As did Linnea Quiggley in The Return of the Living Dead.)
In fact the American trailer, where the film's title was Dr. Butcher M.D., is an absolute cracker. It bears little relation to the film but if I hadn't already seen the film, this trailer would convince me. One of my favourite trailers ever.
The zombies are of a similar ilk to the early Fulci zombies, crusty and no doubt stinky too. They manage to reach iconic status in parts. At one point the appearance of the zombies scare away all of the cannibals. And you'd be forgiven for thinking that these zombies were going to be pretty nasty if cannibals leg it from them. Sadly, they are used more as low quality henchmen rather than proper zombies, their flesh eating powers reduced to a spine-tingling ability to link arms with our hero and restrain him. It's as if they've been on a manual handling course. Great.
Nowhere near as good as Zombie Flesh Eaters then, and nowhere near as well made. But it's enjoyable enough. It just falls a bit short of the initial promise of cannibals vs zombies. Mid-table zombie fodder. But great trailer. 5/10 evlkeith
If you like this you could also try: Zombie Flesh Eaters, Nightmare City.
Certain films can be summed up in a single word. That word in Polisse’s case is ‘harrowing’. This is an undeniably gritty, fly on the wall style drama that is realistic, but at the same time disturbing and difficult viewing. For grit fans it may fall under the select few films that are just too real for their own good. On the other hand, if you enjoy a couple of hours of harrowing drama, then you’ll love this.
The whole film looks and feels like a documentary. It’s based around the work of the Child Protection Unit in Paris and follows the lives of the officers both on duty and in their private lives as they struggle to cope with the various horrific situations they meet on a daily basis. Maïwenn spent time with the actual unit and used the specific cases she encountered throughout the film. Needless to say it’s pretty harrowing stuff.
Sadly there are numerous reasons why I didn’t engage with the film rather than just the harrowing nature of the subject matter. The acting is not convincing from any of the unit’s officers with Joeystarr and Karin Viard the worst offenders at looking out of place, awkward and generally trying too hard. Secondly, the humour that the officers no doubt use as a coping mechanism in real life comes over as crass and distinctly unfunny in the context as the film. And finally, as I’ve stated before on several occasions (Biutiful, Gomarrah, etc.), a great gritty film needs hope. Polisse does not leave you with a grain of hope for humanity and leaves you feeling drained and depressed.
The ending also has the ‘bolt on’ feel of a sixth form goth’s poetic screenplay. And the sub plot about the seconded photographer woman is neither necessary nor coherent. Do I need to go on?
When all a film has got in its favour is its ability to harrow, then it’s probably best avoided. 2/10 Doccortex
If you like this you could also try: JACKPOT, False Trail, The Hunt.
It was with some trepidation that I watched Return of the Living Dead 3 again. I first saw it when it originally came out and have seen it a few times since, but it has been a while since I last sampled its delights. Would it be as good as I remembered it? Let's take off the rose-coloured glasses and have a look...
Curt Reynolds (J. Trevor Edmond) lives with his dad, Colonel John Reynolds (Farscape's Kent McCord) who is working on dubious experiments designed to use zombies as military super-soldiers. A bit like Captain America but more flaky. Curt and his girlfriend Julie (the ubiquitous Mindy Clarke) witness one of his dad's experiments where he uses Trioxin - supposedly the chemical that caused the zombie uprising in the original Night of the Living Dead - to bring a deady back to life. What Curt doesn't see is the resulting zombie going bonkers and smashing a poor lab technician's head against a window until there is a severe case of brain leak.
After an argument with his dad, Curt takes off with Julie on his motorbike. Whilst he is distracted by Julie rearranging his trousers, ahem, they crash and Julie is killed by coming into contact with a telegraph pole a bit too quickly. You can see where this is going...
I can remember thinking that the special effects were stunning. They're still okay. Not brilliant, but okay. I was disappointed by the first zombie that came lurching out of a vat of Trioxin. Its face looked a bit gormless more than scary. Then the left side of his stupid looking visage sloughs away and the design is properly revealed. Ah, that's better. There is plenty of gore for the entrance fee and self-mutilation galore.
Like The Living Dead Girl, this filmdeals witha zombie who knows she is dead and is not too happy about the whole affair. She resents Curt for bringing her back in this condition. Maybe this film is one big advert for euthanasia, rather than using modern medicine to prolong a poor quality of life, or maybe, I'm reading too much into it.
Julie finds that pain helps to stave off her hunger cravings. She stabs herself with pins, springs and a shard of glass. (This isn't a comedy like the first film.) Eventually she goes the whole hog and we are treated to the iconic image of her as displayed on the DVD cover. Her reveal is as great today as when I first saw it.
One of my favourite things about this film is the false ending. It all seems to be nicely tied up with a satisfying conclusion. Then all hell breaks loose again. Admittedly the emotional ending borrows heavily from the original Return of the Living Dead but we'll let it off seeing as though it's from the same series.
So, it's not quite as good as I remember it but it is still very enjoyable. Just don't expect it to be a laugh-a-minute like Return of the Living Dead. 7/10 evlkeith
