Dead Genesis (Reese Eveneshen, 2011) DVD Review...

Indie filmmaker and zombie fan Reese Eveneshen (Writer/Director/Cinematographer) previously made waves on the low budget indie zombie flick scene with his 2007 remake of Night of the Living Dead, and with the follow-up film – Dead Genesis – Eveneshen seeks to tread familiar ground with a serious approach and bloody-minded ambition.

“It's not a war, it's us kickin' ass!” Beginning on Day 1 of the zombie apocalypse, we are quickly whisked through to Day 231, with the crumbling of society, and a push-back by the living, scanned-over with highlights. Families are literally torn apart (in an eye-widening first five minutes that separates the men from the boys), lawlessness takes over, and the 'War on Dead' begins with local militias becoming heroes of a resurrected New Media Corporation. Stories of hope and survival are transmitted to survivors as mankind sets about taking back what's theirs – but at what cost to their humanity?

Click “READ MORE” below to continue reading, and see more screenshots...

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.

The Crazies...

George A. Romero's original 1973 viral infection action-shocker was a low budget affair ($270,000 at the time, which when adjusted is about $1.3 million today) and is a film that seems to mostly elicit specific responses - you either dig it or you don't. Personally I've always loved Romero's The Crazies, and when re-watching it (after getting back from seeing the 2010 remake) I noticed that I'd forgotten how good it looks. The editing is perhaps the strongest example of Romero's commercials-inspired cutting style, and in all aspects it stands above the usual grindhouse fare of the time. There's a black humour to the razor sharp social commentary, a bravado and detail to the visuals not seen elsewhere at the time, and it's really quite despairing in its examination of an infected town going to the dogs as ill-equipped and ill-informed soldiers wrestle with the populace, and clumsy government bureaucrats drop the ball. Considering my hatred of the 2004 remake of Romero's seminal Dawn of the Dead, as well as the desecration of the Creepshow franchise with an unofficial Part 3, and the horrendous Day of the Dead: Contagium and Day of the Dead remake, you'll be unsurprised to read that I was bemoaning this remake as soon as it was announced. Then the initial trailers were released, and while the look and scale of the film appeared to be very impressive, it felt a tad too slick - but the bone that stuck in my throat most was the 'veiny infected'. Surely the strongest element of the original is that Trixie would leave no physical traces, so are the ones you're with acting crazy because of the situation or because of they're infected? I then heard that Romero had been involved, at least somewhat, with the project and had given it the thumbs up. Indeed the initial reviews were favourable, including in Total Film (which I often find mirrors my own out-look on new releases and film in general). By now I was starting to get interested, and so we trotted off to the cinema to check it out ... and I'm pleased to say I enjoyed it. While it's unfortunate that the remake doesn't contain the same level (nor strength) of social commentary as the original, it's far from devoid of it. The focus has been shifted to highlight a small band of survivors primarily, leaving the military occupation of Ogden Marsh by gas-masked soldiers (the most visceral and exciting part of Romero's original) as a secondary element after the initial 40 minutes or thereabouts which are, like the original, the most action-packed minutes of the whole film. Further to this, the involvement of the government is relegated to a few spook-like encounters with black SUVs and government representatives, and in the main to an unseen menace. Satelite imagery replaces Romero's bumbling bureaucrats (satire replaced by a sinister big brother), as the residents of Ogden Marsh gradually find themselves being cut-off from the outside world. This shift in approach from the original movie works well however, with the sense of small town paranoia looming large throughout, and most potently in the first act. What doesn't work quite as well is a general reliance on "boo scares" - loud noises and jumps you know are coming and dread waiting for (who likes sudden, loud noises, after all) - rather than an all-consuming sense of hopelessness. The remake is, naturally, flashier and bashier than the original, with a budget of somewhere between $12 and $20 million (the original was $1.3 million, adjusted for the present day). It looks and feels glossy, and there is perhaps a bit too much of a reliance as well on action set pieces - however for the most part these sequences should easily satisfy the majority of the action/horror audience. The characters range from cannon fodder, to the much more satisfying (if a bit underdeveloped) Sheriff played by Timothy Olyphant who successfully takes the role of small town hero and runs with it. Hopefully there'll be an extended director's cut for the DVD release to flesh out the characterisation and further enhance the small town paranoia ... and some more gore for the horror crowd would be welcome too, of course. Will it become a classic of the genre? That was never going to happen, not when Romero's original is still shining bright with a dedicated audience. However, Eisner's re-do does actually bring some new elements to the table (I found the cattle trucks especially creepy), and the bigger budget provides the premise with the sense of scale, and military might & menace, that Romero's original took a bloody good stab at. Even though the 1973 version could have never afforded a large scale military presence, helicopters, humvees, and a burning town in a pre-CGI age, it still portrayed a scale far, far beyond its budget. Finally, circling back to the issue of the 'veiny infected', it wasn't as bad as I'd initially feared. Unfortunately there are a few moments of 'raptor roars' amongst the aural chaos (a hang over from Zack Snyder's risible Dawn of the Dead re-hash), and the 'veiny' angle does skirt too close to 28 Days Later for comfort (remember, The Crazies is NOT a zombie movie, although nor was 28 Days/Weeks Later to be specific) ... but over-the-piece I was able to let it slide in favour of the surprising amount of fun I got out of this remake. The Crazies (2010) is one of the rare instances of a worthwhile remake, even though the original is still, naturally, the best.

The Dark Half & new Futurama!

The Dark Half:

I'd seen this once, many years ago, when it was shown on ITV ... needless to say I'd basically forgotten all of it. I'll be quick on this one, it's standard King story telling, but it's not standard Romero filmmaking. Needless to say, it's not one of Romero's best and indeed preceded a long stint in movie development hell for the zombie genre legend.

That said, it's still worthwhile seeing for King and/or Romero fans. It's just a shame it feels under-done, if I dare use the cooking analogy again so soon. It could have been more, most certainly, but it could have been a total cock up which it most certainly wasn't.

...

Futurama: The Beast With A Billion Backs:

Not quite as good as Bender's Big Score, but still consistently entertaining and of great interest while viewing. The same Futurama humour and charm remains, even if the B-Movie riffing plot doesn't quite blast off into outer space, but it gets pretty damn close.

The Simpson's nineteenth season this most certainly is not ... the consistent belly laughs and clever, inventive writing keep it fresh.

That's pretty much it though, I can't think of much more to really say. The DVD's decent, with a similarly chucklesome cast & crew commentary. Bring on the next installment - Bender's Game.

Diary of the Dead...

What's it about?

A bunch of film students - people who actually know how to hold a camera steady for a change - are out and about in the woods shooting a mummy movie. Cue Romero having a bit of fast & free fun with dialogue regarding fast monsters sucking copiously. Soon enough though, over the radio, fecal matter starts getting flung at cooling devices, as a genuinely palpable sense of tension descends upon our protagonists.

After a literally wonky start, the director of the in-movie documentary The Death of Death goes into disaster coverage mode - something any filmmaker can relate to, the overpowering need to document chaos for future dissection. We begin to see the cracks in society take hold as the lack of concrete information causes our film students to panic while their blackly-comic arse-kicking professor tags along, hip-flask at the ready.

As the film progresses, society begins to fall apart. Some immediately fall victim to the undead, some come-a-cropper against human foes as the government attempts to cover the whole thing up.

Any good?

The central theme of a media-saturated society are present and central in Diary of the Dead. One man's ham-fisted is another man's up-front & honest. Fellow filmmakers amongst the audience should especially find depth in the subject matter, I know I did. The constant, swirling media circus is a beast of both good and evil. Some use their cameras and the internet for sick kicks (e.g. the rednecks), and some use it to provide the truth (our protagonists) as the government attempt to hide it from the people.

The gore - oh the gore - while the frequency is much lower than Land of the Dead, the "ho-ho-ho-YES!" factor (as I like to call it) is nothing but strong. Each major gore scene is a memorable one (and at times immensely entertaining for the genre fans).

It bounds along at a fair pace, you neither feel cheated nor over-fed with the running time, and once you get used to Romero's change of pace (it took me a good 15 or 20 minutes to get settled) it's all solid stuff.

Any bad?

It's low budget, we all knew that from the start, and while Romero and Co are clearly having a great laugh being fast, free and loose, the acting can at times show it's indie credentials. Some moments are better than others, would be a fair description. While some characters can appear wooden, or perhaps just wet behind the ears (in terms of acting experience), others keep you drawn into the movie at hand.

As a filmmaker myself, I did notice several moments where the 'first person perspective' mode was broken. Usually moments in editing, such as a scene being cut together from apparently one camera, but if it had been for real it would have been two cameras. It's hard to explain to the uninitiated, but as one of those 'on the inside' you do spy several such moments that break the FPS framework. However, the FPS aesthetic is an incredibly hard gimmick to pull off successfully - fortunately Romero handles it well enough to keep you wrapped up in proceedings.

There are certain elements that feel a tad forced (e.g. the narrator explaining the use of (non-diagetic) music to scare the viewer), and there are times when certain characters do stupid things ... or a scene might feel somewhat forced (the, admittedly quite entertaining, woodland chase sequence near the end being one example that doesn't quite sit comfortably within the film).

Overall?

A solid effort from Romero. It's nothing exceptionally new - Blair Witch stole the FPS thunder years ago, after all - but it is interesting to see GAR take something 'old' - his zombies - and inject them into something new to him - the FPS aesthetic.

Despite some rough edges (certain characters or scenes throughout), it provides the viewer with quality entertainment. Horror with a brain - something which is sorely lacking in today's world of:
A) Slaughter movies such as Hostel or SAW IV, which go for the gut but not for the brain.
B) Action-Horror movies such as the Dawn remake, which often mash the two opposing genres together clumsily with, again, no consideration for higher thought than "that exploded, cool".

A must-see for Romero fans, without a doubt. Land Haters are more likely to 'do a 180 opinion' than Land Lovers perhaps. A solid effort, and a fair 3.5/5 score (with a 0.5 either way if you want to be particularly fussy or fawning).

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!

The post-Halloween round up - part 1...

Well, tis the season no more ... until Guy Fawke's night ... and then the inevitable shit-fit-frenzy of the run up to Xmas. What did I get up to horror wise? Well, I checked out the European Cut of "Dawn of the Dead" (original & best, obviously not the pointless remake), and I have to say that it's nowhere near as good as the Extended Cut aka Cannes Cut (my personal favourite, which is 139 minutes of sheer heaven). The Euro Cut is understandable, Argento recut to suit Euro audiences, who would subsequently be inundated with 'zeds-n-muff' naffness like "Zombie Lake" - although I actually really enjoyed "Zombie Lake" because it was so silly. However, even though it's understandable, it's still not very well done. The unseen-in-English-speaking-gaffs scene extensions are a Dawn geek's treasured treat, but the exclusions - particularly NO HELICOPTER ZOMBIE, pure madness incarnate - and the soundtrack are a real shame. Superb moments are either chopped out (sometimes in favour of more footage of roaring motorbikes), or the scenes are rendered a clunky and uncomfortable because of Argento's insistence on a purely Goblin-lent soundtrack. Romero used Goblin tracks sparingly and sensibly, they fit the scenes and provided background tension. Argento uses them in a scattergun approach, fades them out abruptly, cuts them off a beat-too-late or just plonks them in the completely wrong place where they become overpowering or just unsuitable. It is however interesting to see a movie I'm so familiar with (yes, I quote the film as it plays) in a different light, but from a technical and critical standpoint, it certainly isn't an exceptional cut of the film - now, the Extended Cut, that is the glory. All of GAR's flair and choice editing, but in greater detail. One could say that Dawn was truly Romero's epic - it's got everything plus a pie-fight after all. Also in my Halloween season line-up was the Halloween theme latest episode of the excellent show "Reaper", certainly one of the most interesting shows to come across the pond in recent times. Otherwise, I also dug myself into "SAW IV", but I'll blog about that in a new post (above).