Survival of the Dead...

Over the last five years, we Romero fans have had not one, not two, but three zombie movies from the Godfather of the horror sub-genre. Night, Dawn and Day are iconic moments in horror history, each in their own right, and have long since been held in high regard by millions upon millions across the globe.

After the French got wind of Night and applauded it, the film became a horror milestone. Dawn of the Dead, a seminal moment in horror (even cinema) full stop, was an immediate success ... and then there was Day of the Dead. Initially it was derided for not living up to the yuck-it-up disco-era mini-epic that was, and is, Dawn, but then the fans (and even some critics) began to notice what it had going for it, and it has since become one of Romero's most adored films.

Those three zombie fests were back in Romero's Pittsburgh days, where the indie spirit of filmmaking in a family atmosphere was alive and well for Romero and Company. Then the 1990s happened ... people moved on, some died, and others had their own successes. The Pittsburgh era for Romero (and we the fans) was over, and it has been for some time - but it lives on because of the fans pouring obsessively over these films and holding them so dear to their hearts. Perhaps this goes at least some way to explain the split reactions to Romero's recent cinematic offerings.

Now we are presented with Romero - the Toronto era - it began with the little-seen, not-too-shabby Bruiser, and has been thriving of late with Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, and now Survival of the Dead. However, Land and Diary have split the fanbase somewhat violently with some digging one but hating the other, hating both, or loving both. What is certain however, is that Land through Survival is not Pittsburgh era Romero. That time has come and gone and left behind a glorious back catalogue of titles. As such, Survival (nor Land or Diary) were ever going to live up to the closely guarded objects of affection that is "the original trilogy" (but lets avoid any and all Star Wars "original vs new trilogy" rants). I dig Land of the Dead and always have, and while my opinion of Diary of the Dead has gone up and down like a rollercoaster, I've always been in favour of it.

Land had some problems, but it also had a lot going for it (scale, action, the furthest into an outbreak any zombie film has been, etc), meanwhile Diary was a return to Romero's indie roots and was something of an experimentation (to which I've had a complex and ever-shifting reaction to since its release in 2007). You could tell he was relieved to be back to his low budget territory where he was free to do as he pleased, and this has continued with Survival of the Dead - indie roots and indie freedom.

Survival is nowhere near as "silly" as I was beginning to suspect/fear/feel from the handful of videos us GAR fans had devoured online. We had seen shots of fire extinguisher eye-popping, fish-hooking, and that rather ropey-looking up-close comedy headshot ... fortunately, that's about as far as the real silliness goes (a few other moments would be debatable to the extent of their silliness), and in the context of the entire film it plays far better than in dismembered clips cobbled together for an online trailer.

As I'm on the subject, the CGI effects aren't as bad as I'd feared either. Sure there are some which stick out like a sore thumb (but none as obvious as Land's fun, but utterly obvious, CGI priest zombie), but you have to let this slide to an extent for being an indie flick. On the other hand though, there are moments in Survival where the CGI stands out a bit too much - mostly because of poor matching of contrast between the 'real' and 'fake' portions of the composed shot. The shadows don't match, so it feels - at times - too fake. However, these cases are few in number and mostly briefly glimpsed at (except for the creepy/funny/low-contrast-issue 'headshot gallery' as I shall call it).

Then again, some of the other CGI moments - particularly the added blood (understandble considering an indie budget and schedule) - work surprisingly well, as the increased budget over Diary and the extra experience that Spin FX have gained since, boasts its muscles.

The classical western feel of the film is a nice change of pace for Romero (but it's not at all overcooked), and it presents a satisfyingly old school vibe that is often lost from other recent zombie flicks (including the ones that aren't actually zed flicks). Indeed, the tried-and-true two-family stand-off between the O'Flynn and Muldoon clans on Plum Island, is one that - to me at least - mirrors the spiteful acrimony of recent American politics. Two sides proclaiming they are wholly right while the other is wholly wrong, all the while failing to deal properly with the problem at hand.

Land, and particularly Diary, featured heavy handed social commentary - Romero's most famous trait second only to the zombies themselves. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't, and indeed Diary of the Dead was perhaps the most blunt of all of Romero's commentaries upon society.

Survival of the Dead however, doesn't hammer the message home at all. It presents it to us on a classy platter and leaves it there for us to feast upon as much as we want. In fact, this should be ideal zombie internet forum fodder, presenting a wealth of ideas for in-depth discussion topics. It's far from devoid of thought, but it's likewise removed from driving the point so far home you've gone around in a circle three times.

Similar improvements over Land and Diary come in the shape of the characterisation - here we get a range of protagonists and supporting characters who, even if they're briefly on screen, are given enough depth for us to identify with them, to laugh with them, to grimace at them, and to simply enjoy the performances themselves. Land was over-egged a bit, and Diary suffered from young actors who just needed a bit more experience ... but here we are gifted with a spectrum of wonderful character actors who are clearly having a ball just chomping into their parts with gusto.

There's drama and comedy in equal measure, existing side-by-side in a satisfying balance, that either suffered or never materialised in Romero's previous two zombie flicks. Indeed, Survival is easily Romero's most balanced film of the Toronto era.

Despite the short length, the plot has enough room to breathe in almost all cases, although its most noticeable (along with the issue of budget) in not getting to see a really big sense of the scale of disaster at this stage in a zombie outbreak. We get snippets here and there, which are satisfying, but they do leave you wanting more. That said, we do get a much better glimpse into the feel and reality of desertion (no doubt with the majority of the living locked away in private residences or at rescue stations) than we ever did in Diary of the Dead. The characters have enough time to rope us in and involve us. They're interesting people, quirky people, and even complex people, but they're drawn with efficiency.

The dialogue is a big improvement over Diary (which I have to say featured some truly blunt lines), providing numerous moments for fans to enjoy - lines that make you root for a hero, or curse a bastard, or literally laugh out loud.

Survival is also easily Romero's funniest film since Creepshow - it has that same mentality, that sense of mischief and fun - and I'm pleased to say it almost always works. Even a moment plucked straight out of a Loony Toons cartoon after a grenade explodes didn't feel too daft or off-kilter - on the contrary - I burst out laughing and enjoyed every second ("don't look at me, start shootin' the bastards!"), while not once finding myself removed from the overall film.

There are a few clunky moments here and there, but they were never enough to stick in my mind, nor my throat, and with a swift, efficient pace you're never far away from a truly entertaining zombie moment, character moment, or simply a nice shot. Survival has left the POV stylings of Diary long behind (even though its predecessor is linked to it), and has returned to an artistic eye through a 2.35:1 frame. It's abundantly clear throughout that Romero, working well with this indie production, was afforded the freedom to shoot a nice shot if he saw it - the film is littered with such compositions, and quite simply it just looks beautiful. What's more, it is rarely obvious that it was shot on the Red One digital camera.

Bursting out of the gate with plenty of action up-front, before settling into a more thoughtful middle portion, and capping things off with an action packed finale, Survival of the Dead is a seriously enjoyable flick. Balancing a fun romp with a more serious character drama, under the umbrella of a zombie horror, it is quite simply Romero's best flick (thus far) from the Toronto era.

Indiana Jones 4...

Another week and another trip to the cinema, it's certainly become something of an addiction of mine thus far into 2008, and with at least two other must see flicks in the next couple of months or so, it's most likely not about to stop.

So here we are, pretty much two decades since the last Indy movie, and as I was predicting it's suffering the same critical fate as Land of the Dead did. A loved, revered and established trilogy gets a new sibling 20 years after the last ... well, crusade.

Some people are decrying it as garbage, others are saying it's just the same as the other movies ... as for me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I never ever expected it to best either Raiders or Last Crusade, but figured it'd either beat or at the very least tie with Temple of Doom somewhere in the back of the pack.

My assumptions on my own opinion were indeed correct and this is where I stand. While it's a little bit too far fetched at a couple of junctures, twice in one set piece even, it never strides into territory where I'm still not entertained. In fact, the first truly far fetched sequence I absolutely had a blast during (aptly enough) ... it even tied into the quintessentially 1950s vibe of the film (while the predecessors were quintessentially 1930s, in that serial adventure vein in which the Jones films were forged).

Shia LaBeouf, as in Transformers and Disturbia, can do no wrong. The lad is consistently entertaining and talented, bringing a genuine warmth and humour to his roles which sit nicely with the audience. As for Ford, he certainly doesn't look too old for this film, not a jot - if Stallone can do Rambo aged 61, then Ford can do Indy 4 ... and pull it off he most certainly does.

It makes several nods to the previous films, but it never really obstructs proceedings too much, their inclusion feeling natural and necessary.

Mind you, it does get a bit wobbly half-way in before picking up ... at which point you're either with it till the end or you're lost for good. Indeed, what with it being the 1950s it is all a bit sci-fi ... but sci-fi in a jungle with blow pipes, monkies, copious cobwebbing and vines.

I say you're either with it by the end or not, and I stand by this. It does all get quite far fetched ... but then again Last Crusade featured a knight in a cave guarded by an invisible 'faith bridge' who'd been there for centuries guarding Jesus' dad's coffee cup. Raiders has the Ark of the Covenant, look at it and your face melts off ... and then there was Temple of Doom ... well, nuff said beyond monkey brains and that nutter tearing hearts out.

Needless to say Indy 4 will be the awkward sibling of the other three, tight-knit brothers. The new kid on the block will have to work to fit in with the rest of the franchise, but that was always going to be the case, so ignore that as much as possible - indeed, I purposefully didn't re-watch the first three prior to seeing the latest installment so that I could judge it purely on it's own.

I think one of the problems many of the film's detractors will have with it, is that they grew up watching Raiders, Temple and Crusade. There's a special place for them in their hearts and they don't look kindly upon shedding any negative light upon them. They don't like to seek out their flaws in order to cut the new kid on the block some slack ... indeed I can understand such a mindset.

Having re-watched many of my childhood favourites on DVD, I've rekindled my love for them and gone back in time to when I first viewed them. I recaptured that magic and wonder, but equally - perhaps this is exclusively down to my film school background though - I've also spotted the flaws, the audience-acknowledging smug bits, the lesser quality sequels and so forth ... but I still love them just as much, certainly not less.

With this in mind, I've cut Indy 4 some slack, but I do wonder if Lucas, Spielberg and Co's venture to recapture the magic and fun they had on set didn't fully translate to the film ... or at least the script, which is where any of the film's flaws originate.

Regardless, it's a fun romp and good to see Ford back in the Fedora. Certainly not the best - but it never was going to be - so it's at least as good as Temple of Doom, and frankly that's as much as could ever have been realistically expected ... so just enjoy it.

At least they didn't do a Die Hard 4.0 and water it all down and mutate the formula.

Diary of the Dead! Woo!

I'll post my thoughts on the film later, but put simply I dig it. I think I liked Land of the Dead more, but Diary was still great fun - and definitely had the more entertaining gore gags ... and the jabs at running zombies throughout were supoib.

I figured I'd post about the experience first though. After months of waiting to see the film, and counting down the days to it's release - today, March 7th 2008 - I finally got to see it. I nipped over to my nearest Cineworld for the 2:40 showing and was somewhat surprised to see two other people in the cinema. A fourth came in just after me, and then the film started.

Half way through, the fourth person left - clearly it wasn't his cup-o-tea - but while that was somewhat entertaining in itself (3 people fled Land of the Dead when I saw that on the opening day, September 23rd 2005), it didn't detract from the fun of the film.

What did, for a short while anyway, was when something wiggy happened with the project and the image dropped a third of the way down the screen, so that the bottom third was cut off. So some certain text written on a chalk board couldn't really be seen properly.

I was thoroughly British about it all and figured a reel change would be coming shortly, but a few minutes later I yelled towards the projection booth to "SORT THE PICTURE OUT!" - but nothing was fixed.

Oddly enough, when I saw Land of the Dead the opening credit sequence was shown in the wrong aspect ratio, a 2.35:1 image stretched vertically to fill a 1.85:1 space *sigh*. But while that didn't disturb things at all, this dropped image was a bit of a nuisance.

A minute or so later, one of the other viewers asked me if the image was supposed to be like that - no, not it was not - he tapped on the projection window, but nothing. He went outside and fetched someone and finally, the picture was fixed. The projectionist obviously fucked off elsewhere during the reel, but remained there throughout the rest of the film - precisely - do your fucking job! *sigh*

It wasn't a major disaster at all, kind of a funny story. You could see all the important stuff, and Pan & Scan is a worse experience by far...and I've seen tons of those, so I can deal with it, ha.

Anyway, then I was able to relax fully into the film and rather enjoyed it. At the end, the bloke who'd fetched someone to fix the problem, said he wasn't too keen on the film, but I said I dug it - and I do. On the way out I even had a brief conversation with a young woman who was working there and told her what the film was like when she asked...I was quite surprised, and pleased, to see other Romero fans in the flesh in the form of complete strangers. I recommended the flick, weighing it up fairly. I hope she enjoys the movie when she gets to see it.

While the other two viewers tried to get their money back, I just left for the car. Despite the projectionist fucking up, I wanted my money to go to those behind the film, because it was rather spiffing...and here I am, back at home a couple of hours later blogging up some thoughts on the experience.

Roll on the DVD - I do hope it gets the proper treatment, Land unfortunately got a bit of a bum deal DVD wise. Double disc presentation please!