Archive for the Zombies Category

Scoring Horror: Interview with MARCO BELTRAMI (Part 1 of 2)

Posted in 2013, Apocalyptic Films, Barry Dejasu Columns, Based on a bestselling book, Film Scores, Movie Music, Music for Film, Scoring Horror, Soundtracks, Zombie Movies, Zombies with tags , , , , on July 2, 2013 by knifefighter

Scoring Horror Presents:
An Interview with MARCO BELTRAMI
By Barry Lee Dejasu
(Part 1 of 2)

If you’ve seen any of the following movies…

  • ·         SCREAM (1997)
  • ·         MIMIC (1998)
  • ·         SCREAM 2 (1998)
  • ·         THE FACULTY (1998)
  • ·         SCREAM 3 (2000)
  • ·         THE WATCHER (2000)
  • ·         DRACULA 2000 (2000)
  • ·         ANGEL EYES (2001)
  • ·         JOY RIDE (2001)
  • ·         RESIDENT EVIL (2002)
  • ·         BLADE II (2002)
  • ·         TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003)
  • ·         HELLBOY (2004)
  • ·         I, ROBOT (2004)
  • ·         FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX (2004)
  • ·         RED EYE (2005)
  • ·         LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD (2007)
  • ·         3:10 TO YUMA (2007)
  • ·         THE HURT LOCKER (2008)
  • ·         MAX PAYNE (2009)
  • ·         SOUL SURFER (2011)
  • ·         SCREAM 4 (2012)
  • ·         THE THING (2012)
  • ·         THE WOMAN IN BLACK (2012)
  • ·         THE THING (2012)
  • ·         TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE (2012)
  • ·         WARM BODIES (2013)
  • ·         A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD (2013)

…then you’ve also heard the music of Marco Beltrami.

Composer Marco Beltrami

Composer Marco Beltrami

To date, he has scored almost sixty films and a number of television shows, in just about every genre.  Mr. Beltrami is recognized not only by the sheer abundance of his résumé, however; he was nominated for two Academy Awards for Best Film Score for his respective work on 3:10 TO YUMA (2007) and THE HURT LOCKER (2008).

Earlier this year, he’d scored the “romantic zombedy” WARM BODIES (partnered with fellow composer/producer Buck Sanders), as well as the latest adventure of John McClane (Bruce Willis), A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD.  This fall, moviegoers will also hear Mr. Beltrami’s music in the CARRIE remake, as well as in the post-apocalyptic snowbound train thriller SNOWPIERCER.

At present, however, moviegoers will be thrilled with the double-assault of two big summer tent pole films featuring Mr. Beltrami’s work, WORLD WAR Z and THE WOLVERINE.  Mr. Beltrami was kind enough to carve some time out of his busy schedule for an interview about his music in these films.

***

Part One: WORLD WAR Z

 world-war-z-poster03

This is the story of the end of the world in the rise of a zombie apocalypse, and humankind’s attempts to end the threat.  A former UN investigator, Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), is forced to leave his family to help in the war against the undead

BLD: This movie, as just about everybody knows, faced an unusually long and bumpy ride in its production.  When did you become involved?  And did you have to keep up with any of its final changes (including the filming of an entirely different ending)?

MT: I started a year ago, last October.  We had a movie to work from, to look at, to get ideas from.  They had some additional photography they were doing, and some reshoots and stuff, and during that period, I stopped working, because there was no picture to work on.

BLD: So during all the reshoots, did you have to just sit and wait, or did you try to keep working at the score on the side?

MB:  It’s a long time to be on a film, and plenty of times (I had) ideas as the footage came in.  It actually wasn’t that long of a time; I already had things fleshed out for some scenes, but in terms of getting things written, it was time consuming, and the picture was not really locked (because) even then things were changing.  So it turned out to be a short schedule for something that was a long process.

BLD: Was it hard to stay focused, or did you have a general plan that you stuck to?

MB:  No, I had ideas.  We had a really good music editor that guided us on it, John Finklea, and he really stayed in close with the editorial team and the producers and was able to get a good sense of what they were looking for.  There were different people involved, creatively, and anytime there’s more than one person involved, it becomes a little bit of a translation thing, to figure out what exactly is the common ground for everybody.  (John) was really instrumental in deciphering that and helping the process go smooth.

BLD: This film focuses largely upon one particular person (Brad Pitt) and his plights in the zombie uprising.  How did you approach that dynamic of individual empathy against the backdrop of worldwide horror and survival?

MB:  For me, the story was at once epic, but also intimate.  There’s a universal nature to a horrific thing that’s going on.  There’s also the very personal nature of this guy, Brad Pitt’s character, trying to save his family.  The interesting thing is where these (plots) intersect, because thematically, I think the same themes can play for both, because every man’s journey is the journey of mankind.  Sometimes it became a question of instrumentation and orchestration.  There’s a thematic continuity between the epicness and the intimacy.

Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his wife (Mireille Enos) struggle to protect their family in WORLD WAR Z.

Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) and his wife (Mireille Enos) struggle to protect their family in WORLD WAR Z.

BLD: Did you incorporate, or even create, any unusual instruments for the score?

MB:  The original thought of the score was that it would (follow) the first scene in Philadelphia, when all hell breaks loose and things are going bad (and it) cuts to this  emergency tone.  It always did, from the first time I saw the picture.  When Buck (Sanders, composer) and I first looked at it, we thought it’d be really cool to use that emergency broadcast signal as a musical start, or like a motive, from which everything else could be derived.  So we began to research what was involved in that, and it turns out that the pitches were something that can be used melodically as well, so that became a basis for much of the music.

The other thing that we thought would be neat, rhythmically, was the nature of zombies using their teeth, so we needed something that related to that.  It turns out that there’s a… (laughs) Actually, Tommy Lee Jones told me about this; I remember I was talking to him, and he told me that in Texas they have these wild pigs called javalinas which actually communicate with their teeth.  So I did a little bit of research, and so that became a pretty important part.  I figured it might be neat to have all the rhythmic parts derived from these jawbones, or these teeth gnashing together; so when we recorded in London, that was something I focused on.

The skulls used in the score.

The skulls used in the score.

BLD: Sometimes a film falls into one particular genre, but the composer approaches it with a different angle.  (For instance, Christopher Young scored the original HELLRAISER as a twisted romance).  How did you approach WORLD WAR Z?

MB:  From these melodic and rhythmic approaches, everything else could be derived.  At heart it’s very simple.  One of the challenges on it was that there was this idea of the intimate versus the epic.  There was the thought that, on one hand, the score should be a biblical, sweeping score, and on the other hand, it’s something much smaller, where you hear the rosin on the bow kind of thing, to give it that urgency and immediacy, and aggressiveness.

So this was the first time I had ever done this, but I actually recorded the score two different ways, in two different studios, one at Abbey Road, which was a bigger group, and simultaneously we also recorded at a smaller place called British Grove, and there we were able to experiment a little bit more with the sounds, and the more aggressive sound of the orchestra.  The sound engineer, John Kurlander, was then able to mix all the elements together, and take advantage of both the smaller and the bigger scores and mix them together in a neat way.  So that was, at least for me, a greater approach, this idea for the score.

WORLD WAR Z is in theaters everywhere now.

(END OF PART 1)

© Copyright 2013 by Barry Lee Dejasu

Advertisements

The Distracted Critic: EXIT HUMANITY (2011)

Posted in 2013, Distracted Critic, Historical Horror, Horror, Paul McMahon Columns, Zombies with tags , , , , , on June 26, 2013 by knifefighter

EXIT HUMANITY (2011)
Review by Paul McMahon – The Distracted Critic

eh - drawnShow of hands—who’s sick and tired of zombie movies? I know, I know… most of you. I keep trying them, though, searching for that one that will re-energize and re-vitalize the genre and get them on a creative and exciting basis again. EXIT HUMANITY showed more promise than most, being tied in with the Civil War. Choosing that setting seemed like a bold decision, and the trailer’s clips of Confederate- and Union-attired zombies caught my interest. But like most trailers these days, those clips were misleading.

The movie opens with the voiceover of Malcom Young (Brian Cox, TRICK ‘R TREAT 2007, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, 2011) who possesses “a sacred journal passed down through generations of my family, dating back to the American Civil War.” It’s a grim story, filled with drawings and writings that “recount a fateful tale of the living dead.” He’ll read it to us now. “As a warning.” Drawings appear on a blank page, a Confederate flag and an armed soldier, along with the words: Prologue The War. The whole thing is meant to demonstrate that they’re creating a literary-style movie, which makes it “important.”

The story opens with armed Confederates resting and somehow surprised by a contingent of Union soldiers tromping through brushy woods. During their battle, a bloodied Union soldier with a vacuous expression stumbles through the brush and falls on our hero, who screams and screams and wakes in a cabin covered with blood. The body of his wife is sprawled on the floor in front of him, a hole blasted in her head.

We learn that it is now six years after the war, and Edward Young has returned from a two-day hunting trip to find his wife a zombie and his son, Adam, missing. After mourning and burying his wife, he takes his aptly named horse Shiloh and goes off in search of Adam. As he heads out, you cannot help but think of his cabin as if it’s sitting at the center of a clock face. Edward leaves in a random direction in search of a boy who also presumably left in a random direction and has at least a two-day head start. With the help of Movie Magic, though, Edward comes across the boy in no time.

'"I have become a fury of death killing death," Edward Young says.

‘”I have become a fury of death killing death,” Edward Young says.

After burning his son’s body, he remembers a time when Adam watched him draw a waterfall. Adam asks where it is.  “It’s many miles from here,” Edward says. Adam makes him promise that someday they will travel together so he can see the waterfall firsthand. Now, Edward decides that this waterfall is where he’ll bring his son’s ashes before taking his own life.

Before long, Edward’s wanderings take him to town decorated with the spiked heads of zombies. As other zombies start to close in on him, he takes refuge in a church, where he meets another traveler. They are wary of each other, but soon the shared peril of encroaching zombies melds them in a grudging trust. That is, until the new traveler sucker-punches Edward, knocking him out. When Edward awakens, he is alone with this man, Isaac, who immediately gives Edward his stuff back and apologizes, replacing the tension created by his betrayal with confusion about what the hell the point was. Did Isaac get off on lugging his own stuff, Edward’s unconscious body, and all of Edward’s stuff to another room in the church? Why not just ask Edward to follow him? This was nothing more than a poor writing decision, which was then ignored in favor of Isaac asking Edward for help.

 '"I kill lots of men who are already dead," Isaac says.

‘”I kill lots of men who are already dead,” Isaac says.

“They” have taken his sister, Emma. With a little prodding, Edward learns that “They” is headed up by General Williams (Bill Moseley, THE DEVIL’S REJECTS, 2005 and DEAD AIR, 2009), who believes that someone in the area is immune to the bite of the undead. There is no explanation of why he thinks this (nor, as we learn later on, is there any way he could have even suspected it), but he believes that if he can find this immune person, then a cure to the plague can be fashioned by his good friend, Medic Johnson (Stephen McHattie, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, 2005, PONTYPOOL, 2008). Edward hears all this information from Isaac, but still refuses to help. He’s got to bring his son to his final resting place and keep his date with a pistol, after all. It takes only a few schoolyard-level insults to his manhood before Edward screws up his face in an “I’ll-show-you-I’m-not-a-namby-pamby!” look and agrees to help.Right away, Edward is captured by General Williams’ regiment and thrown into a prison cell underground. Williams was a Confederate, which means he fought for the South, which means he lost– and yet here he is, six years later, still wandering the countryside with his men. The soldiers under Williams are taking one healthy prisoner a week and letting zombies bite them. If the victim turns into a zombie, he or she is thrown into the cage of zombies to bite the next victim. Isaac infiltrates this bunker and rescues Edward and Emma, thereby achieving alone what he insisted he had to have help to accomplish. As the three make their escape, Edward is shot. With no shelter and no place to hide, Emma leads them into the woods, reminding Isaac of the cabin deep in the darkest forest-—the cabin of the old lady they teased as children.

“But she’s a witch,” Isaac says.

They find the cabin and Emma knocks on the door. As Isaac tends to Edward, the cabin door opens, Emma is pulled inside, and the door slams shut again, leaving Isaac to panic and scream outside.

In between scenes, we are treated to more chapter headings and pencil drawings of zombie kills. This gives the movie a very calculated “quirkiness,” because “quirkiness” is far easier to achieve than writing something meaningful and haunting and relevant and thought-provoking. The makers of EXIT HUMANITY have put a quick wrap-up to Edward’s stereotypical “zombie-plot” of hunting for a missing loved one, switching instead to a poorly plotted man-versus-man tale with zombies in the background. This is the most significant decision they’ve made.

Newcomer Mark Gibson plays Edward Young. His work here is very good, hopefully enough to assure him more work down the line. Adam Seybold, another newcomer, plays Isaac. The poor guy is hamstringed by a character that was not thought out sufficiently. Dee Wallace plays Eve, the ‘witch.’ Dee is recognizable from decades of horror movies, from CUJO (1983) and THE FRIGHTENERS (1966) to THE LOST (2006)  and this year’s THE LORDS OF SALEM. Stephen McHattie, a fantastic actor who gave us one of the best horror performances of 2008 in PONTYPOOL, plays Medic Johnson. Why would they cast someone of his caliber and then give him nothing to do? He’s barely in the film at all, and when he is, he’s drunk and confused and apologizing to General Williams. Speaking of which, Bill Moseley plays the loony General, turning in the best performance possible with the most poorly written character in the whole film. Williams is written as a raw nerve, screaming and hollering and throwing things in situations where it would be far more effective to have him become still and thoughtful and… threatening. The more I think about the General and his soldiers and that entire situation, the sillier the whole thing seems.

'"Watch EXIT HUMANITY only if someone is insisting upon it this intensely," I say.

‘”Watch EXIT HUMANITY only if someone is insisting upon it this intensely,” I say.

If you, too, are looking for the zombie film that will re-energize and re-vitalize the genre, you’ll have to look elsewhere. I give EXIT HUMANITY half a star and four time outs.

© Copyright 2013 by Paul McMahon

eh - dvd cover

WORLD WAR Z (2013)

Posted in 2013, Apocalyptic Films, Based on a bestselling book, Cinema Knife Fights, Disease!, Horror, Medical Experiments!, The Future, Thrillers, Zombie Movies, Zombies with tags , , , , , , on June 24, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: WORLD WAR Z (2013)
By L.L. Soares and Michael Arruda

WorldWarZ-Poster

(THE SCENE: An airplane on a transatlantic flight. L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are in their seats. A FLIGHT ATTENDANT approaches them)

FLIGHT ATTENDANT: Would you gentlemen like something to drink?

LS: A flagon of ale would do nicely.

MA: A “flagon of ale?” What is this, the Middle Ages? You’ve been watching too much GAME OF THRONES.

LS: Don’t worry about it. Just tell her what you want.

MA: Hmm.  I’ve never had a “flagon” of anything.  Make that two, please.

(FLIGHT ATTENDANT walks away)

LS: Welcome, everyone, to a new installment of Cinema Knife Fight. This time, we’re reviewing the new Brad Pitt movie, WORLD WAR Z. It’s based on the bestselling novel by Max Brooks and is yet another movie about a zombie apocalypse.

MA:  I detect an edge in your voice.  Tired of zombie apocalypses?

LS: Hell, yeah. Aren’t you?

MA:  Not really.  I’ve been enjoying the recent explosion of zombiemania.

LS:  Well, I haven’t, and when I first heard about this one, I immediately thought, not more end-of-the-world-with-zombies nonsense. There was a time when I used to say that George Romero’s first three “Dead” films were my favorite movie trilogy, but there have been so many zombie movies in the last decade—and most of them have been pretty bad—that I’m just tired . I’m really getting sick of this subgenre.

MA: I’m not as sick of it as you are.

LS: Good for you.

In WORLD WAR Z, Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former United Nations envoy, who spent time in several war-torn regions before retiring to spend more time with his family, which includes his wife Karin (Mereille Enos, best known as Sarah Linden on the AMC series THE KILLING) and their daughters Constance (Sterling Jerins) and Rachel (Abigail Hargrove). As the movie begins, they wake up to begin a typical day, but something goes wrong when they’re in the family car later that morning, caught in traffic outside of Philadelphia. Something strange is happening.

There is a sudden rash of attacks as seemingly normal people become violently aggressive and begin to bite other people. This is first suspected to be a rabies epidemic, but it’s clearly something even worse. When someone is bit, it takes only 12 seconds for them to start flopping around on the ground, having convulsions, and then turning into an undead zombie. And the disease, whatever it is, is spreading fast.

MA:  I enjoyed this plot point.  I liked the idea of the dead people turning into zombies so quickly.  That being said, I don’t think the movie used this to any great effect. 

LS:  The Lane family finds themselves in the middle of it all, and try to stay alive, eventually getting helicoptered off of the roof of an apartment complex and taken to an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic. There, Gerry’s former boss, Theirry Umutoni (Fana Mokoena) tries to convince him to help them find out what is happening and why. Gerry is reluctant and doesn’t want to leave his family, but then it’s made clear to him that if he doesn’t help them, he and his family will not be given shelter on the ship.

Gerry goes with a group of Navy Seals and a gifted young doctor to South Korea to follow a lead pointing to a possible “patient zero.” Meanwhile, the zombie population continues to multiply at an alarming rate, threatening to overtake the earth.

Gerry’s travels will take him to Korea, Jerusalem and Cardiff, Wales before he can get any answers and even begin to confront the vile disease that is running rampant.

I have to admit, I wasn’t looking forward to this one. As I said, I’m really sick of zombie movies, and the last one we saw this year, WARM BODIES, wasn’t much of a treat.

MA:  No, that one wasn’t.

(The seat in front of them shakes violently).

MA:  Hey, take it easy up there, will you? 

LS:  What’s his problem?

MA:  No idea.  (Strange grunting is heard)  Maybe he didn’t like his peanuts.  Anyway, you were saying?

LS:  WORLD WAR Z also was getting the reputation of being troubled project, from hiring several writers to polish the script, to going over budget. But I know from experience that this kind of “trouble” does not mean a movie is going to be bad. Both APOCALYPSE NOW (1979) and JOHN CARTER (2012) had bad publicity before they were released, with people complaining about “troubles” during their makings, and both are great flicks.

MA:  Well, APOCALYPSE NOW is, anyway.

LS:  But still, watching this one, it was much better than I was expecting.

MA:  Yeah, I had a lot of fun watching this one.  It actually sold out right after I bought my ticket.  I hadn’t been in a packed sold out theater in a long time.  Of course, the reason it sold out was because unlike the recent blockbuster releases like IRON MAN 3 and MAN OF STEEL, it wasn’t playing on a zillion screens in the multiplex!  It was only one two screens, one in 2D and one in 3D.  I saw it in 2D.  I bet the 3D version didn’t sell out.

Still, a sold-out show is impressive, and the audience was buzzing with lots of energy.

LS:  I actually saw it the first night it came out, which was Thursday for some odd reason. Summer movies have been coming out at odd times this year—THIS IS THE END had a similar early release—and I had just come out of seeing MAN OF STEEL when I realized WORLD WAR Z was playing that night as well, so I bought a ticket. It wasn’t sold-out, mostly because I don’t think a lot of people knew it was opening early, but there were plenty of people there. And I didn’t even know there was a 3D version of this one!

Anyway, back to the review. First off, Brad Pitt is pretty good here. It’s not one of his best roles, like Jackie Cogan in KILLING THEM SOFTLY (2012) or Tyler Durden in FIGHT CLUB (1999)—Gerry Lane is more passive than either of those characters—but he can definitely carry a movie.

MA:  I agree.  Pitt is very good here. 

And he’d better carry this movie because he’s the only character in the film with ample screen time.  But the bottom line is he does carry the movie quite nicely, as he’s enjoyable to watch.  That being said, there are a number of other characters in this film who I also liked and wish that they had been developed more.

LS:  Yeah, you’re right, there are several underdeveloped characters here. But overall, the whole cast is pretty good. I’m starting to like Mareille Enos a lot, for example. She’s excellent in the series THE KILLING, and while the role of Karin Lane was more of your standard “significant other in peril” type of thing, I’m just happy to see her getting more opportunities to be in bigger films. I thought she was an interesting choice for Pitt’s wife, since she seems more “real” than the usual supermodel type.

MA:  Yes, I liked Enos, too.  I liked Daniella Kertesz even better.  She plays the Israeli soldier Segen who accompanies Pitt’s Gerry Lane for most of his adventure, and loses her hand in the process. 

LS: Kertesz is a standout here. Once her character gets in the thick of things with Pitt, she really shines. She might have been my favorite character in the movie. I want to see more of her.

MA: David Morse enjoys a brief bit as an ex-CIA agent who gives Lane some valuable information, and Fana Mokoena does a nice job as Pitt’s former boss Thierry Umutoni. 

I also enjoyed the entire group of scientists at the World Health Organization.  As I said, there were a number of characters that I would have enjoyed seeing developed more, but that’s not where this one goes.  It’s all about Brad Pitt and the zombies.

LS:  And director Marc Forster —whose resume includes everything from MONSTER’S BALL (2001), THE KITE RUNNER (2007) and the James Bond movie QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008)—does a good job of focusing on key scenes that build a strong sense of suspense.

MA:  I really enjoyed Forster’s work on the James Bond movie QUANTUM OF SOLACE.  It was one of the most efficient and fast-paced Bond movies ever, in a series famous for overlong over the top action scenes.  I thought he did just as good a job here with WORLD WAR Z.

There are some key scenes of suspense, especially early on in the movie.  I especially liked the sequence at the beginning on the crowded streets of Philadelphia when Pitt and his family first encounter the zombie threat.  The scenes near the end of the film at the World Health Organization were also very suspenseful.

LS: There’s also that great scene with Pitt and Kertesz trapped on a plane full of zombies! Don’t forget that one.

MA: But better than the suspense, I thought Forster made this one very cinematic.  Pitt’s character travels all over the world, and there’s great use of these locations, or at least it looks that way. I’m sure there’s a lot of CGI involved, as I don’t think they filmed in South Korea or Israel.  But the point is, the film looks good, and there’s a grand sweeping cinematic feel to it.  Most of the time, heavy CGI use looks fake, but I got the sense in this one that I was actually at these places all across the world.

LS:  But the most important question is, no doubt, what about the zombies?

MA:  I don’t think that’s the most important question.  I mean, I love THE WALKING DEAD, but it’s not just because of the zombies.  It’s because of characters.

LS: I agree. But at the same time, it’s the zombies that first grab people and pull them into the theaters. They want to see the zombies in action.

wwz_banner

(FLIGHT ATTENDANT comes over and hands them two flagons of ale, then goes to the next passenger in front of them)

FLIGHT ATTENDANT: And what would you like to drink, sir.

(PASSENGER STARTS GRUNTING LOUDLY)

FLIGHT ATTENDANT: Oh my God, he bit me! (RUNS down the length of the aisle)

MA: Uh oh, that’s not good.

LS: Excuse me a moment (drinks some ale). What were you saying?

MA: I was saying that it’s bad news when the passengers start biting.

LS: Yes, that certainly is bad.

(Seat in front of them starts shaking violently)

MA (bangs on the back of the seat in front of him):  Hey!  Want to keep it down?  We’re trying to review a movie here!

LS: Rude bastard.

(HIDEOUS ZOMBIE leaps up from seat in front of them and growls at them menacingly.  LS pulls a gun from underneath his seat and shoots the zombie in the head.)

MA:  Nice going, although you really don’t want to be shooting off a gun on a plane.

LS:  Why not?  They explode a grenade on a plane in the movie.

MA: Yeah, that wasn’t one of the more realistic moments in the film.  So what did you think of the zombies in this movie?

LS: Well, it’s a PG-13 movie, so I wasn’t expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised.

MA:  Really?   I wasn’t.  But continue.

LS:  Some of the zombies are actually kind of cool. The effects, which I am assuming are a mix of makeup and CGI, looking convincing and visually keep your interest. And these zombies are really fast and love to tackle and bite people, which is how they reproduce. At first, I thought they were just contaminated people, but it eventually is made clear that yes, these people are the reanimated dead, and they are incredibly dangerous. It seems though that only people bitten by the zombies are transformed in death. People who die in other ways don’t come back.

They also move in very fast-moving packs. In a scene in Jerusalem, for example, hundreds of angry zombies climb up on top of each other rapidly, like crazed ants, to reach the top of a high stone wall and get over it, to the people inside. These creatures move like a swarm of giant insects, which was just different enough from what we’re used to to make them interesting.

MA:  Yes, I agree about the swarming.  That was different.  But I wasn’t impressed with the zombies here at all, and I actually thought they were the weakest part of the movie.  I like the zombies in THE WALKING DEAD much better, and the zombie kills in that show are much more graphic and squirm-inducing than anything seen in WORLD WAR Z.  To me, if you’re a fan of zombies, you might be disappointed with this one.

LS: I don’t know, when the zombies slow down a bit and are more individuals, they’re kinda scary. I thought the zombies in the World Health Organization complex were pretty cool. The way they look, and their weird movements and sounds. I didn’t think they were bad at all.

Look, it’s PG-13, so they don’t show any gore. For the most part, the zombie killings are pretty bloodless. While I understand the rating is meant to attract a bigger audience (i.e., more money!), I think it was a dumb move. More explicit zombie attacks mean more scares, and more effective zombies. I’m not saying the zombies in WORLD WAR Z are perfect, but they’re better than I expected for wimpified, PG-13 zombies. Hell, if THE WALKING DEAD was a movie instead of a TV show, I bet it would get an R rating for violence. So right off the bat, WORLD WAR Z has a disadvantage. We knew it wasn’t going to be gory or scary enough. That said, the zombies are pretty good here.

WORLD WAR Z is not a home run, but it’s much better than it has any right to be. I give it three knives. And I’m sure, if I was still a zombie fan, I would rate it even higher.

MA:  I disagree.  I think zombie fans might like this one less, because the bar has been set so high recently with THE WALKING DEAD

LS: Look, anyone coming into this movie expecting something as good as THE WALKING DEAD is going to be disappointed. THE WALKING DEAD is like the gold standard for zombie stories right now.

MA: That being said, I liked WORLD WAR Z a lot, and I had a lot of fun watching it, but that’s because it told a convincing story, was helmed by a talented director, and had an enjoyable cast led by Brad Pitt.  But in terms of actual zombies, I just didn’t think they were all that memorable.  They didn’t come close to the zombies in THE WALKING DEAD or any of the Romero movies. They simply weren’t scary enough.  I don’t think I was scared once by a zombie in this movie, and that’s not a good thing.

But there was plenty about this movie I liked, starting with Brad Pitt.  He really is a terrific actor, and it’s rare for me not to enjoy him in a movie.  Here, as United Nations agent Gerry Lane, he comes off as a man devoted to his family, driven by the desire to keep them safe, yet he also easily makes the switch to effective envoy, as he puts his considerable talents to use to do his job and get to the bottom of the zombie pandemic.  Lane’s investigation into finding the origins of the zombie problem, which makes up the bulk of the movie, held my interest throughout.

As we already said, the supporting cast is terrific, as is the direction by Marc Forster, and the screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, and Damon Lindelof tells a compelling story from start to finish.  While I wasn’t a fan of the actual zombies in this one, I enjoyed the story a lot.

The guy behind me didn’t share my sentiments, however.   As soon as it ended, he shouted out, “That was stupid!”  I didn’t find it stupid.  I found it an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. 

Sure, I would have preferred it to have been scarier, because it’s not scary at all, which is weird when you think about it.  It’s a zombie movie, for crying out loud!  Why isn’t it scary?  But it is suspenseful and engaging. 

LS: Yes, it’s much more suspenseful than scary. But for what it is, it works.

MA: I also give it three knives.

(Things get suddenly very quiet. LS and MA stop talking and look up, to see they are surrounded by hungry zombies clacking their teeth)

LS: Uh oh.

MA: Looks like we’re suddenly on the menu.  (to zombies)  Could I interest any of you in flagon of ale? (holds out flagon)

(Zombies grunt and shake their heads).

MA: Now, what?

(LS lifts a baseball bat and hands MA a hammer)

MA:  What are these for?

LS:  To bash in some zombie brains, of course!

MA:  Things are going to get mighty messy. 

(LS & MA attack zombies, as BATMAN-like signs are superimposed on the screen with the words, SPLAT!, THWRPP!, GURGLE! CRUNCH! and RIP!)

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by L.L. Soares and Michael Arruda

Michael Arruda gives WORLD WAR Z ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives WORLD WAR Z ~three knives, as well!

 

 World-War-Z-poster

Cinema Knife Fight COMING ATTRACTIONS for JUNE 2013

Posted in 2013, Action Movies, All-Star Casts, Apocalyptic Films, Coming Attractions, Dystopian Futures, Zombies with tags , , , , , , , on June 7, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS: JUNE 2013
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene:  The Fortress of Solitude.  MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES are operating a snow cone machine.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  The Fortress of Solitude provides nearly an unlimited supply of ice! Oh boy!

L.L. SOARES:    Lucky for you it happens to be located in the Arctic.  Since when did you become so into snow cones?

MA:  When the temperature back home hit 90 degrees.  Let’s add some blueberry flavoring.

LS:  Blueberry?  What are you, ten years old?  Here, let me add the good stuff.  (Pours the contents of a bottle of Jim Beam into the ice.)

MA:  Hmm—, I’ve suddenly become very thirsty!  Anyway, we’re here in the Fortress of Solitude—Superman’s home—today because the big release this month is MAN OF STEEL (2013), the latest big budget movie to feature America’s favorite superhero, Superman

LS:  I wouldn’t call him America’s favorite superhero.

MA:  Now, while I’m looking forward to seeing MAN OF STEEL, I’m also sick and tired of Superman origin stories.  Look, we all know where Superman comes from (Krypton), who his dad is (hey there, Jor-El) and how he grows up on a farm and eventually becomes Superman.  Seriously, can’t we just skip these parts and immediately put Superman into a new adventure?

 LS: You would hope so.

MA: So, while I’m genuinely interested in MAN OF STEEL, I wouldn’t be at all disappointed if they got the origin stuff out of the way in the first five minutes.

LS:  I don’t think that’s happening, not with Russell Crowe playing Jor-El. He’s gonna want some screen time.

MA:  Anyway, we start off June with a review of THE PURGE (2013), which opens on June 7.  We already talked about this one in our last Coming Attractions column, since it was originally slated to open in May and was pushed back until June.

The-Purge-585x370

Again, THE PURGE tells the tale of a futuristic society that allows crime to run rampant for one night of the year and what happens to one family in particular on this brutal night.  It stars Ethan Hawke, and it’s produced by the same folks who produced the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies and SINISTER (2012

LS:  As I said last month, I like the trailer for this one.  I like that there are more sinister villains in masks, reminiscent of THE STRANGERS (2008), and I liked Ethan Hawke in his last movie with these producers—SINISTER, so I am eager to see this one.

On Wednesday, June 12, THE IS THE END opens— This is actually one of the movies I am looking forward to most this summer. It features a bunch of actors who are friends in real life, like James Franco, Seth Rogan and Jonah Hill, who play themselves. During a party, the world ends.

this-is-the-end-poster-banner

This one looks awesome, and the trailers have been funny as hell. And one of the major players in this one is one of the funniest dudes on the planet, Danny McBride. I’m a huge fan of McBride’s HBO series EASTBOUND AND DOWN, and frankly, after the disappointment that was YOUR HIGHNESS (2011), he’s due for some redemption. So I hope he’s funny as hell in this one.

MA:  This one looks wacky and wild, but for some reason, my gut feeling is that it’s going to be pretty bad.  The entire cast is playing themselves.  I get the feeling it might be too self-indulgent for my tastes and won’t be as funny as expected.

LS: I think the opposite is going to happen. I think the fact they’re playing themselves is going to be hilarious.

MA: We’ll see. The trailer is okay, but it certainly hasn’t blown me away.

On June 14, it’s MAN OF STEEL (2013), and for me, the biggest reason to be excited about this one is the people behind the camera.  It’s produced by Christopher Nolan, and it’s directed by Zack Snyder, who directed WATCHMEN (2009).  Yeah, I know, he directed SUCKER PUNCH (2011) too, but at least that one was stylish.

I like Superman just as much as the next guy, but as I said at the outset, I’m weary of Superman origin stories.  I’m mostly interested to see what new take Snyder gives to the tale.  I hope it’s darker.

superman-man-of-steel-poster-800x500

Henry Cavill is playing Superman, and I hope he’s better here than he was in the Bruce Willis action film THE COLD LIGHT OF DAY (2012), where he failed to impress me.

Lois Lane will be played by Amy Adams, and the cast also includes Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, and Russell Crowe as Jor-El.  It also stars Michael Shannon as General Zod, and I suppose that’s reason enough to be excited about this movie, that Lex Luthor is not the villain.  I’m psyched about that.

LS:  Yeah, enough Lex Luthor already! Just because he’s Superman’s main villain doesn’t mean he’s the only Superman villain—but you wouldn’t know it from the fact that he’s been in just about every Superman movie so far.

For me, Zack Snyder has been pretty uneven, but he is capable of doing good stuff. The trailers for this one have looked pretty good. But the main reason why I want to see this one is Michael Shannon as General Zod. I am a huge Michael Shannon fan. I’m also a big fan of the Christopher Reeve movie SUPERMAN II (1980), which featured Terence Stamp as General Zod. Zod’s a great character. Put Shannon and Zod together, and you’ve got a movie I want to see.

MA:  On June 21, we’ll be reviewing the new zombie end-of-the-world thriller, WORLD WAR Z (2013) starring Brad Pitt.

wwz_banner

I know you’ve said you’re sick of zombie movies, and although I’m not as sick of them as you are, I have mixed feelings about WORLD WAR Z.  The fact is—you’re right.  We have been inundated with zombies of late, and so I’m hoping there’s something fresh about this one to make me like it.

 It’s hard to tell by the trailer, which is a good thing, because it doesn’t give much away. 

It’s directed by Marc Forster, who directed the second Daniel Craig James Bond film, QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008), a film I liked a lot, with a screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard, and Damon Lindelof, based on the novel by Max Brooks.  Goddard and Lindelof both have quite the resumes, as both these guys worked on the TV series LOST.  Goddard also wrote THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011) and CLOVERFIELD (2008), and Lindelof wrote STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (2013) and PROMETHEUS (2012).  So, I’m expecting a well-written movie.

LS:  I guess this one could be good, but it’s hard for me to get excited about a zombie movie, especially if it’s not directed by George A. Romero. Hell, even Romero has had some clunkers lately. But I’m just not enthusiastic about this one. Maybe it will surprise me…

But worst of all is that this one is rated PG-13. How can you do a decent, gory zombie movie with a PG-13 rating? If they’re able to pull that off, I’d be surprised. I don’t even know if the more gory episodes of THE WALKING DEAD would get a PG-13 rating if they were in a movie.

This one stars Brad Pitt and Mirelle Enos, one of the stars of the AMC series THE KILLING.

MA:  And there’s nothing of interest opening on June 28, so look for something special from us on the last week of June.

LS:  Yeah, that weekend is still up in the air. I’ll be curious to see what we end up reviewing.

MA:  How about that snow cone now?  I’ve worked up quite a thirst.

LS:  Here you go (hands MA a huge snow cone.)  You’re not driving home, are you?

MA:  We’re in the middle of the Arctic.  How would I be driving home?  Besides, we have a “designated driver” don’t forget.

LS:  Oh yeah.  Where did he disappear to anyway?

(SUPERMAN enters the room.)

SUPERMAN:  I was watching old videos of my parents on the DVR. Hey, those snow cones look good.  Can I have one?

MA:  Er, let me make you a blueberry one instead. 

LS:  He’s Superman, for crying out loud.  He can have as many of our special Jim Beam snow cones as he wants. He’s not a lightweight.

SUPERMAN (sarcastically):  Gee, thanks.

MA:  I hope you’re right.  I’d like to get home in time to review next weekend’s movie. 

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Quick Cuts Plays “WHAT’S MORE LIKELY?”

Posted in 2013, Based on Comic Book, Comic Book Movies, DC Comics, Quick Cuts, Sam Raimi, Twilight, Vampires, Zombies with tags , , , , , , , , on May 10, 2013 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS: WHAT’S MORE LIKELY?
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, and Jenny Orosel

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of QUICK CUTS.  Tonight we’ll be playing a little game.

IRON MAN 3 opened in theaters last Friday, May 3rd.  The Marvel superhero movies have enjoyed a nice run going back to X-MEN (2000) and Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man movie, SPIDER-MAN (2002).  Here we are in 2013 and they’re still going strong.

So, tonight we’re going to play a little game called “What’s More Likely?”

Our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters includes, in addition to L.L. Soares and myself, Nick Cato, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, and Jenny Orosel.  Thank you all for coming.

So, tonight’s game, “What’s More Likely?” works like this.  Looking ahead to the next ten years and answer the following questions. 

First question:  What’s more likely? That there will be more Marvel movies in the next ten years, or more zombie movies?

 Spider-Man-2-Movie

NICK CATO:  I think there will always be both, but superhero films seem to be more lucrative.

ARRUDA:  So, more Marvel movies then?

CATO:  Yes.

JENNY OROSEL:  Seeing as they’re now owned by Disney, we’re going to see more Marvel movies than ever.  I fully expect they’ll do two direct-to-video sequels or prequels for every one they have in the theater.

ARRUDA:  I hope not.  There’s nothing like a direct-to-video release to kill off a movie series.  Ugh!

dawn_of_the_dead(2004) L.L. SOARES:  Oh, what do you know!

Turning to the zombie genre for a moment, hopefully, oversaturation will result in a dwindling of zombie movies.

Marvel, however, has a nice variety of characters they can draw from (including many who have never been in a movie before), and should go strong for many years.

ARRUDA:  I agree.

PAUL MCMAHON:  With the success of THE AVENGERS (2012), there will definitely be more Marvel movies. I won’t be sure about zombie movies until we see how much money WORLD WAR Z (2013) makes. With all the buzz about production problems, it could either bring about a reanimation of the zombie sub-genre or put a bullet through its head.

SOARES:  I’m sick of zombies.  I wouldn’t mind putting a bullet through the head of the genre.

DANIEL KEOHANE: I’m going with Marvel movies, without a doubt.

Zombie movies are popular right now, but the superhero movies have a much wider reach and end up making more money, overall. And there are so many characters and teams to choose from, whereas zombies pretty much lumber along the same way each time.

ARRUDA:  I’m going with Marvel movies as well.

Okay, on to our second question: 

What’s more likely? That we’ll still be seeing Marvel movies in ten years, or that we’ll still be seeing movies based on books by Stephenie Meyer?

the-avengers-1235-wallmages

Dan, why don’t you start us off this time?

KEOHANE:  Marvel movies.

(The panel cheers.)

KEOHANE:  Thank you, thank you.

SOARES:  We’re not cheering you.  We’re cheering your pick.

KEOHANE:  Don’t ruin my moment.

Where was I?  Marvel movies.  Because as good a writer for her age group as Stephenie Meyer is, she can only crank out so much content.  Marvel not only has a slew of new comics coming out every month, they have half a century of classic stories already in the can ready to become movie-ized. Even the Avengers movie was loosely based on one of the first Avengers comics (I think). Not to mention DC’s Superman movies. They’ll keep making the same origin story over and over ad infinitum.

Twilight_poster_4

SOARES:  What are you bringing up DC comics for?  This question is about Marvel movies!  Pay attention, Dan!

ARRUDA:  But he makes a good point.  Not only does Marvel have more stories to choose from, but they can remake their own origin stories. Heck, they just did it with their latest SPIDER-MAN movie.

Let’s move on.  I don’t want to give Meyer any ideas.  The last thing I want is a TWILIGHT remake!

SOARES:  I predict that Stephenie Meyer will find a way to continue the Twilight series.

ARRUDA:  No!

SOARES:  You just don’t put a cash cow like that out to pasture.

However, the future for Meyer-related projects is iffy – especially if something new grabs the public’s interest. Meanwhile, I think Marvel movies will be going strong in 10 years.

CATO:  Ten years from now?  Hopefully Meyer will be retired by then.

ARRUDA:  I’m with you.  I hope she’s retired.  I’ll be happy if I never have to see another movie based on a Stephenie Meyer book ever again.

KEOHANE:  I think Meyer is a very talented writer, and you’re not giving her enough credit.

ARRUDA:  Maybe so, but the TWILIGHT movies were awful, and they killed any interest I might have had in seeing THE HOST (2013).

SOARES:  I think you secretly like the TWILIGHT movies.  You talk about them so much.

ARRUDA:  Yeah, right!

MCMAHON:  Marvel movies, no question. They have new ideas and maybe some new-to-the-screen heroes as well.

And sorry, Michael, but it’s entirely possible, though, that in ten years they’ll be remaking the TWILIGHT movies. We can hope not.

ARRUDA:  That’s a horrible thought, though I agree with you.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that it’s bound to happen.  If film history has taught us anything, it’s that remakes are always with us.

What about you, Jenny?  In ten years, Marvel movies or Stephenie Meyer movies?

OROSEL:  Ooh, that’s a tough one, since I fully expect Disney to eventually buy Stephenie Meyer, and turn Bella into a Disney Princess. 

ARRUDA:  This panel is getting more painful by the minute.

OROSEL:  I call it a tie.

ARRUDA:  Okay, it’s time for the third and final question of the night.

What’s more likely? Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark/Iron Man again, or Christian Bale plays Batman again?

Robert Downey Jr. in IRON MAN 3, and still going strong.

Robert Downey Jr. in IRON MAN 3, and still going strong.

MCMAHON:  Downey is already going to play Tony Stark in THE AVENGERS 2. There will probably be an IRON MAN 4. I can’t see him ditching that cash cow while the iron is hot. Ahem.

(Someone in the audience groans.)

MCMAHON:  I don’t think Christopher Nolan intends to do another Batman movie, and I can’t see Christian Bale playing that character under another director

ARRUDA:  Good point.  And I agree with you.

I say Robert Downey Jr. plays Iron Man again.  Between THE AVENGERS movies and the IRON MAN series, you’d think that he’d at least be back one more time as Iron Man if not more.

From what I’ve read, Bale is done as Batman.  You never know about these things, but I don’t expect him to play Batman again.

 

Christian Bale is Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

Christian Bale is Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

OROSEL:  It’s going to be hard for Bale to keep it going as Batman as he ages, while even if Downey looks ragged and worn, it fits the Stark character.  Unless he ends up in rehab again.  Then all bets are off.

KEOHANE:  Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man without a doubt. This is just a guess–.

SOARES:  Really, Dan, it’s a guess?  You mean you don’t know? 

KEOHANE:  Sorry.  I left my crystal ball at home.

So, this is just a guess, but Downey seems to be enjoying himself immensely up there on the screen, whereas Christian Bale puts so much angst into his characters, his doctors will probably have him committed if he even thinks about doing another one of those.

CATO:  It may be too early to tell, but hopefully Downey will continue to play Stark…he’s perfect in the role, whereas we have yet to find a Batman everyone seems to agree on.

SOARES:  That’s for sure.  It’s all about the mask anyway.  Anyone can play Batman.

Both Downey and Bale probably want to focus on more artistic movies. That said, I think Batman is replaceable, as we’ve seen several people play him over the years, while Downey remains the definitive Tony Stark. I think it’s more likely Downey will be convinced to play Stark again.

ARRUDA:  Okay, there you have it.  It seems the general consensus is that Marvel movies will be around for a while.

That’s all the time we have for tonight.  Thanks for joining us everybody, and we’ll see you next time on QUICK CUTS.

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Daniel G. Keohane, Paul McMahon and Jenny Orosel

Friday Night Knife Fights Presents: SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND – Part 3 (of 3)

Posted in 2013, Friday Night Knife Fights, Horror-Comedies, Zombie Movies, Zombies with tags , , on April 26, 2013 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) vs. ZOMBIELAND (2009)
PART 3 (of 3)
With Michael Arruda, L. L. Soares, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund

2013-03-13-shaun_of_the_dead_ver2

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back to Friday Night Knife Fights.  Tonight it’s Part 3 of our battle of the zombie comedies, SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND.

So far, SHAUN OF THE DEAD has opened up a very wide lead, as it’s ahead of ZOMBIELAND by a score of 4 rounds to 1.

PAUL MCMAHON:  As it should be.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a much better movie than ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  Says you.  But that’s what we’re here to decide.

Once again, L.L. Soares and I are joined by Dan Keohane, ZOMBIELAND hater Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund.  Thank you all for joining us tonight.  We’ve got a great panel, and tonight’s the night that we conclude the debate.  Even though SHAUN OF THE DEAD has a comfortable lead, there’s still time for ZOMBIELAND to make a comeback.

Okay, it’s on to Round 6.  

Which movie has the better screenplay?  Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick for ZOMBIELAND, or Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright for SHAUN OF THE DEAD?

SHERI SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL: ZOMBIELAND has a better screenplay, I would say.

The plot is less predictable than that of SHAUN OF THE DEAD. As I mentioned, I like SHAUN, but ZOMBIELAND is written better and executed more effectively.

The ending of SHAUN seemed a little odd. Life kind of goes back to normal. It doesn’t really ring true. At the end of ZOMBIELAND, the characters are changed, but there’s no illusion that things go back to “normal.”

MCMAHON:  This is so obviously SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

If you take the zombies away, Shaun was the story of a man whose life was crumbling under his own complacency. He embarked on a journey to win back his girl, distance himself from his mooch of a best friend, make amends with his mom and stepdad and generally “sort his life out.” The zombies made the film awesome, but they weren’t the main focus.

ARRUDA:  Come on!  Do you really think without zombies SHAUN OF THE DEAD would stand as having a decent story?  I don’t think so.  Take away the zombies and you’re left with a bunch of losers fighting over pub food.

MCMAHON:  It’s a better story than ZOMBIELAND.

In ZOMBIELAND, you had one putz following the standard zombie movie plot by searching for his family, you had two brainless putzettes who believed zombies wouldn’t enter amusement parks, and then you had the biggest putz of all on a nationwide hunt for Twinkies snack cakes. Take the zombies out and you’ve got squat.

ARRUDA:  I wouldn’t want to take the zombies out of either movie, actually.  But I think the characters in ZOMBIELAND are just as satisfying as the characters in SHAUN, perhaps more so since they’re so over the top.

MCMAHON:  Nah.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD by a landslide.

ARRUDA:  Well, I think both screenplays work.  Both are hilariously funny, and both manage to be excellent zombie movies to boot. 

How to choose?  While this one may seem too close to call at first, after thinking about it— now don’t fall out of your chair, Paul— but I give the edge to Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright for SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  Their screenplay works from beginning to end. 

MCMAHON:  I told you.

ARRUDA:  While I enjoy Reese and Wernick’s ZOMBIELAND screenplay, their story runs out of steam somewhat as the movie approaches its final act at the amusement park.  And the Bill Murray scenes, while funny the first time, didn’t hold up as well upon further viewing.

L.L. SOARES:  I think both scripts are good. But I think SHAUN is a little smarter.

ARRUDA:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD wins Round 6.  Our updated score is SHAUN 5, ZOMBIELAND 1.

It’s time now for the seventh and final round.

And since ZOMBIELAND is so far behind, the only way now that it could win this contest would be by a knockout.  A knockout occurs when one movie sweeps the round, meaning all the panel members vote for the same movie.  Something tells me, though (looks at Paul McMahon) that that’s not going to happen today.

Bienvenidos_a_Zombieland-565000159-large-e1339351714563

Anyway, on to Round 7.  Which one is the better movie?

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  They may both be horror comedies, but the movies are very different from one another. 

I did like ZOMBIELAND, overall, enjoying immensely the title sequence using Metallica’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls.”

I thoroughly enjoyed both movies and would watch either one again.  The acting and directing were superb in both.  I will give SHAUN OF THE DEAD a slight edge here, however because the characters just feel more real to me.  I do appreciate the fact that it doesn’t go full-on apocalypse, so it’s a bit different than most zombie films. 

So my pick for which one of the two is the better film goes to SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

DAN KEOHANESHAUN OF THE DEAD is a quieter, more subtle film that builds the laugh, and tension, as it goes along, and breaks as many of the zombie “rules” as it celebrates. It’s a British film, so the humor and social references are, well, British. If you’ve never been able to get into their sense of humor, you’d probably say ZOMBIELAND was better, especially as an American film – jumps right into the action, with in your face jokes and humor (and American cultural references – “Twinkies” versus “crisps” for example).

I love British humor as much as American. So my pick would probably depend on my mood at the time.  Yes, this is a long-winded, borderline pompous way of saying, “Neither, they’re just as funny in their own way.”

My final pick:  I call it a draw.  It’s a tie.

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I think ZOMBIELAND is an overall better film. The plot works better for me.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD suffers, I think, because the first half of the film is largely expositional. Sure, in ZOMBIELAND, we have “the Rules,” which are expositional, but it’s done in such a funny way that we hardly notice.

SOARES: Yeah, “the Rules” were clever.

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL: In ZOMBIELAND, we don’t know much about the characters, and we learn about them as they learn about each other. The problem with SHAUN OF THE DEAD is that by the end we can kind of figure out what’s going to happen because it’s all been set up for us.

My choice for the better film is ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  This one is a very difficult question to answer.  I tend to prefer ZOMBIELAND because I prefer its in-your-face zombie style to the more reserved British humor of SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but does that make it a better movie?

I’m not sure.

I think the acting in both movies is equally as good, although I prefer the cast in ZOMBIELAND, so I give a slight acting edge to ZOMBIELAND.  Both directors do phenomenal jobs, but I think Ruben Fleischer is a bit more creative with his style, so again I give the edge to ZOMBIELAND.  I give a slight writing edge to SHAUN, but again the scripts are both terrific.

Based on this model, ZOMBIELAND wins two of the three rounds, so heck, I’m going with ZOMBIELAND.  I choose ZOMBIELAND as the better movie.

MCMAHON (to Michael and Sheri):  Poor misguided souls, the both of you.

Do I have to say this yet again?

SHAUN OF THE DEAD. I’ve seen it twelve times at least.

ARRUDA:  I’m so very happy for you.  What do you want? A medal?

SOARES:  Hey, don’t be rude to our guests!  That’s my department! 

MCMAHON:  In all the time since I watched ZOMBIELAND, I have not once wanted to go back and see it again. The only reason I did was to refresh my memory of it for these answers. I’m still underwhelmed. Without George A. Romero, SHAUN OF THE DEAD wouldn’t exist. Without SHAUN OF THE DEAD, ZOMBIELAND wouldn’t exist. Winner: SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

Can you tell I hated ZOMBIELAND?

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I’m beginning to see that, yes.

WANGLUND:  You’ve made it loud and clear.

KEOHANE:  And yet there’s still a modicum of obscurity, a morsel of doubt.  I’m not sure.

MCMAHON:  Very funny.

SOARES:  So it’s my turn, huh? What’s the best movie? Well, that’s very subjective, isn’t it? I would say, from a quality standpoint, SHAUN OF THE DEAD has the edge. But as to “What movie did I enjoy more?” Which movie do I personally like better, that’s more neck and neck.

I guess a good yardstick is which one would you watch again, and my answer this time around is neither. I like both of these movies, but I don’t love them. If I was channel surfing and found one of them, I might watch it, but I wouldn’t consciously sit down and watch one of them from start to finish again. I’m just not that big a fan of most zombie movies.

If I was going to rewatch any zombie flick, it would be either one of Romero’s classics or an especially good episode of THE WALKING DEAD. That’s about it.

So that means I’m the tie-breaker here. Colleen and Paul went with SHAUN. While Michael and Sheri went with ZOMBIELAND. And while I am sort on the fence, I refuse to take the easy way out like Keohane did and call it a tie.

I would say that, as far as pure enjoyment, and both of these films are meant to be entertaining above all else, I would have to go with ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA: Oh my God, I think it’s an upset! That means three votes ZOMBIELAND,  two votes SHAUN OF THE DEAD and one tie for Round 7 – which is the Knockout Round.

MCMAHON (to SOARES): I don’t believe you just did that, you bastard.

SOARES: Blame Keohane. He couldn’t make up his mind.

****

ARRUDA (reads the rule book): Errr.. not so fast. I just read the rules. The final knock-out round has to be unanimous. So ZOMBIELAND didn’t win after all.

SOARES: Dammit! I thought it was just whatever won the final round wins by TKO. That’s a stupid rule! If one movie is ahead all the way through, the chances of everyone unanimously agreeing to the other movie in the final round is pretty much impossible.

(Takes rule book from ARRUDA and rips out that page)

ARRUDA: Actually, you’re right, that probably is never going to happen. I guess it is a stupid rule. But, we can’t just change the rules at the last minute.

So here’s the solution. From this point on, the Knockout Round does not have to be unanimous. If a movie is ahead, but the other one wins the final round, then it wins by TKO, unanimous or not. That will make things more interesting.

But for this contest, we really should stick with the original rules.

MCMAHON (jumping up and down): So that means….SHAUN OF THE DEAD WINS!

ARRUDA: It sure looks that way.

MCMAHON: Yay! Now I don’t have to hang myself.

ARRUDA: Which movie is the zombie comedy champion of the world?  Well, tonight, it’s SHAUN OF THE DEAD!

On behalf of L.L. Soares, Dan Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, Colleen Wanglund, I’m Michael Arruda saying so long and thanks for joining us on Friday Night Knife Fights.  We’ll see you again next time.

(In the background, PAUL MCMAHON is chasing L.L. SOARES around with an axe)

MCMAHON: How dare you scare the bejeesus out of me like that!

ARRUDA: Good night everybody!

-END-

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Daniel G. Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri-Sebastian-Gabriel and Colleen Wanglund

Friday Night Knife Fights: SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND – PART 1 (of 3)

Posted in 2013, Friday Night Knife Fights, Zombies with tags , , , , , on April 12, 2013 by knifefighter

FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) vs. ZOMBIELAND (2009).  – PART 1
With Michael Arruda, L. L. Soares, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund

zombieland

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

We have a great panel for you tonight, and the debate is:  SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND.

Will this shape up to be a contest between British humor (SHAUN) and American humor (ZOMBIELAND)?  A battle between fast and slow zombies?  In your face laughter vs. subtle snickers?  Let’s find out.

Joining L.L. Soares and I on our panel tonight are fellow Cinema Knife Fighters Dan Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri Sebastian-Gabriel, and Colleen Wanglund.  Thank you all for taking part in today’s panel.  Let’s get started.

L.L. SOARES: It’s your yacking that’s holding us up.  Let’s go!

ARRUDA:  Hey, I’m trying to do an intro. here!

Tonight’s contest consists of seven rounds of questions.  Whichever movie wins the most rounds wins the match, and by our special “knock-out” rule, if one movie wins the final round by a unanimous vote, that movie scores a knockout and wins the match regardless of the previous score.

Okay, let’s get this mêlée started.

The first question tonight is which movie is flat out funnier?  Which film did a better job making you laugh, where you laughed so hard you split a gut?

Colleen, we’ll start with you.  Which movie do you find funnier, SHAUN OF THE DEAD or ZOMBIELAND?

COLLEEN WANGLUNDZOMBIELAND (2009) and SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) are both very funny films.

SOARES:  Did you bust a gut watching them?

WANGLUND:  No.  I can’t say that I did.  But they’re both very funny, both fun to watch.

ARRUDA:  So you think both are equally as funny?

WANGLUND:  Yes.

SOARES:  You’re not supposed to pick both.  You’re supposed to pick one, but I’ll blame Michael for this, since once again, he’s picked two movies that are simply too close to call.  This is going to be tough.

ARRUDA:  It wouldn’t be fun if it were easy.

PAUL MCMAHON:  It’s not tough for me.  I hated ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  You hated ZOMBIELAND?

SOARES:  How can you hate ZOMBIELAND?  That’s un-American!

MCMAHON:   I’m as patriotic as the next guy, but I still hated ZOMBIELAND, in the way you hate a comedian who constantly repeats old material.

DAN KEOHANE:  Oh, I didn’t hate ZOMBIELAND.

MCMAHON:  I know, I know.  I’m probably the only guy in the world who he hated it.

ARRUDA:  I’m sure there are a few others.

KEOHANE:  I agree with Colleen.  They’re both funny, but in different ways.

When I first watched SHAUN OF THE DEAD I was laughing out loud—.

SOARES:  Did you split a gut laughing?

KEOHANE (counts on his fingers):  Three. Plus a few blood vessels.

But this side-splitting laughter didn’t happen until the latter half of the movie. It’s the kind of movie that creeps up on you, first making you realize things are off, then making you smile, then when you’re on board with the plot and overall feel of the film, you’re busting a gut. Or in my case, guts.

ARRUDA: Who knew laughter could be so brutal?

KEOHANE:  However, as soon as ZOMBIELAND began I was laughing, and really never stopped. Granted, slapstick – and there’s a lot more slapstick in the traditional sense (relentless physical comedy) in ZOMBIELAND – garners more laughs on average I think.

Based on the number of laughs it gets, I’d go with ZOMBIELAND as the funnier movie.

SHERI SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I agree with Dan.

SOARES:  There’s too much agreeing on this panel!

28764725_700x700min_1

MCMAHON:  I’ll change that as soon as I throw in my two cents.

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  I like both ZOMBIELAND and SHAUN OF THE DEAD, but there are more laugh-out-loud moments in ZOMBIELAND.

ARRUDA:  My turn.  I’m actually going to disagree with Dan and Sheri.

SOARES:  Finally!

ARRUDA:  I’m picking SHAUN OF THE DEAD as the funnier film.  I think the jokes work better, and there’s something outlandish about British humor that just makes this one click.

While ZOMBIELAND does have some creative bits, the bulk of its humor is based on scenes of visceral zombie kills and the like.  As Dan said, slapstick, and I love slapstick, but in ZOMBIELAND’s case, there’s really not enough of it.

Re-watching both these movies for purposes of this column, I found ZOMBIELAND less funny than I remember it being.

The laughs in SHAUN OF THE DEAD were the result of creative comic writing, while ZOMBIELAND relied on in-your-face sight gags that didn’t hold up as well on a second viewing.  I found the comic style of SHAUN OF THE DEAD held up better.

Okay.  So, Paul, you have more to say on this question?  You’ve been drooling for a while now.  Here’s your chance to answer.

SOARES:  Here, have a napkin.

MCMAHON:  I prefer to use the back of my hand.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD‘s humor came from the characters as they made efforts to better themselves. These were people who cared about real things and acted out of their own responsibilities toward their relationships with each other.

ZOMBIELAND was full of brainless asshats trying to find Twinkies and get laid. And don’t ‘But Bill Murray’ me. First off, I’ve never understood the pop-culture deification of the guy. I can’t see that he’s any funnier than any other comic actor of his time.

SOARES: Hey, I love Bill Murray!

MCMAHON:  They sent the guy, dressed like a zombie and acting like a zombie, to surprise a nervous kid with a rifle. I don’t see what’s so funny about the scene at all.

ARRUDA:  I kinda have to agree with you on that one.  I’ve never found that scene funny.

MCMAHON:  What did they think was going to happen? Dumb scene, dumb characters, dumb movie.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD is the funnier movie.

2013-03-13-shaun_of_the_dead_ver2

SOARES:  I think that both movies are pretty good, and that they both have good casts and funny moments. But I’d have to give a slight edge to SHAUN OF THE DEAD, mainly because it’s a bit smarter and more aware of the history of zombie movies. There are references to George Romero movies that I thought were clever, and the script was just a tad better written.

I think it’s a close call, but I give this one to SHAUN.

ARRUDA:  Okay, after one round, SHAUN OF THE DEAD  jumps out to the early lead  and leads ZOMBIELAND 1-0.

On to Round 2.  Next question:  Which movie has better zombies?  Sheri?

SEBASTIAN-GABRIEL:  The ZOMBIELAND zombies work best for me because they’re not the classic shuffling zombies. It makes things a little more challenging for Tallahassee and the crew.

ARRUDA:  I agree. I liked the zombies better in ZOMBIELAND, too.

I liked how they moved faster and seemed vicious and ferocious, as opposed to the more traditional, slow-moving lumbering zombies found in SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  I will add, however, that in both movies, the zombies look great.

SOARES:  I would say they’re about equal. But if I had to choose, I’d give a slight edge to SHAUN, if only because it stuck more closely to Romero’s creations.

WANGLUND:  I thought the special effects in both movies were equally well-done.  I liked the zombies in both.

ARRUDA:  You just won’t rock the boat today.

WANGLUND:  Smooth sailing so far.

SOARES:  Screw that!  I want a tsunami!

WANGLUND:  The Geisha of Gore doesn’t joke about tsunamis.

ARRUDA:  Let’s move along before we all get seasick.  Dan?  How about you?  Which movie’s zombies do you prefer?

KEOHANE:  Since both films have the more traditional, lumbering zombies, there’s not a lot of comparison.

ARRUDA:  Actually, the zombies in ZOMBIELAND move much faster than the traditional movie zombies.

SOARES:  Weren’t you paying attention, Dan?  We just said the zombies in ZOMBIELAND were quicker.  Did you even watch the movie?

KEOHANE (feigns sheepish sadness and shame):  I remember them being typical lumbering zombies.  What can I say?

SOARES:  Maybe you should look at the screen the next time you watch the movie!

ARRUDA: I’m sure in some scenes they moved like traditional zombies.  Let’s cut Dan some slack.

SOARES:  I’ll cut him a new pair of eyes.

ARRUDA:  You were saying, Dan?

(SHERI hands DAN a pair of dark sunglasses, and COLLEEN hands him a walking stick.)

KEOHANE:  Very funny.

As I was saying, SHAUN tends to poke less fun at the monsters than the human survivors, whereas it’s just the opposite in ZOMBIELAND, so in that regard, SHAUN’s zombies are a tad better.

The zombie clown from ZOMBIELAND.

The zombie clown from ZOMBIELAND.

MCMAHON:  Eh hem.  When is it my turn?  Are you relegating the ZOMBIELAND hater to the back of the line?

SOARES:  Shut your pie hole and go back to drooling!

ARRUDA:  It’s just a coincidence that you’re last. Go ahead.

MCMAHON:  Years after watching SHAUN I can remember the big zombie twins, the cashier girl, the one-armed-zombie, Tyres from Spaced, and the big black guy with the vinyl record sticking out of his head.

I remember seeing a clown crawling under a bathroom stall door in ZOMBIELAND, and I remember a generic zombie getting crushed by a piano, which struck me as stupid because that’s a one and done defense unless you’re holing up in a piano distribution warehouse.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD clearly has the better zombies.

ARRUDA:  So, Round 2 goes to SHAUN OF THE DEAD which means after two rounds, the score is 2 to 0, in favor of SHAUN OF THE DEAD.

That’s all the time we have for PART 1.  Join us next Friday night for PART 2, when the SHAUN OF THE DEAD vs. ZOMBIELAND debate continues.

Good night everybody!

—END PART 1—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Daniel G. Keohane, Paul McMahon, Sheri-Sebastian-Gabriel and Colleen Wanglund