Perhaps it's telling that it's taken me almost two weeks to get around to saying something about Green Zone, but I really couldn't think of much to say. It's what I like to call, an "Iraq-tion" movie (combining Iraq and Action) ... although if you don't pronounce that perfectly you'll just sound like a bit of a pervert.
Anyway, it's not as thrilling and intriguing as the Bourne franchise, but the action sequences (especially a perfectly panicked, even chilling opening) are pretty good - well, you'd hope so considering it's Paul Greengrass at the helm.
Plot wise it all gets a bit confusing after a while when it gets into the nitty gritty of WMD ... or the lack thereof and what's really going on. Quite quickly you give up trying to figure out that stuff, unsure of how much is true and how much is fiction, and just wait for another well made action sequence to roll around.
Probably the best of the "Iraq-tion" genre, if you will, but nothing all that amazing either.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Monday, 15 March 2010
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.
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.
Monday, 8 March 2010
The Inevitable Decomposition of Zombie Man (2010)…
In the summer of 2006 I shot a daft, off-the-cuff zombie comedy called I Am Zombie Man. In spite of its roughness it found fans in the online zombie community due to the sardonic titular character.
A sequel followed six months later that stepped up the look of the film (as I was now armed with a DVX100B) and advanced the character into realm of the “celebrity zombie”. I re-cut IAZM2 in 2010 (taking out 7 minutes), as the original 25 minute cut is a bit indulgent.
We intended to shoot IAZM3 in December 2007, but due to career developments for both Gareth and I, we didn’t get around to it until December 28th 2009. The delay allowed me to bring an additional three years of filmmaking trial, error and experience to the project. My camerawork, editing, writing and directing had all improved a great deal, and it was about time to close the Zombie Man trilogy once and for all.
Staying close to the DeadShed “literally no budget” style, the only money spent was on a few props. Further to that the shooting window was as tight as always, shooting the entire film (except for stock footage from my archives) in four hours on the only clear day during a harsh winter. I am adept at ‘run & gun’ filmmaking (particularly useful on various Arts Council projects I’ve done), and the skill certainly came in handy.
The editing process afforded me two key creative opportunities – to try out new software skills and editing ideas, but most importantly to stick religiously to a strict 10 minute time limit. Said limit really made me focus on what was absolutely necessary (and indeed unnecessary) in order to tell the story, establish scenes, and provide the visual comedy with a constant, assured beat to the cutting. I succeeded in meeting my 10 minute running time, producing a film that I’m really quite proud of, which boasts an efficient and water-tight pace.
Gary Ugarek and Brian Wright (fellow filmmakers who were behind American indie zombie flicks Deadlands: The Rising, and Deadlands 2: Trapped) very kindly composed the vibrant musical score, which put the cherry on top – boosting the visuals, propelling the film forward, and even acting as its own character.
I’m very pleased with the final product, and we achieved more than could reasonably be expected with what we had at our disposal, and in such a tight shooting window. The quirky character established in 2006 remains, going out on a darker, but no-less sardonic note, presented with camerawork and editing that boosted it far beyond its predecessors. The idea with every new film you make is to hone your skills and try new things, and I feel I succeeded on both counts with this, the third and final film in the I Am Zombie Man mini-trilogy – something which began life as a slap-dash bit of fun in the summer of 2006.
View more images (in full size) on my Flickr photostream via the embedded player, or the links list, on the right hand side of this blog.
Watch the film on YouTube via this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45h8eDda-M
A sequel followed six months later that stepped up the look of the film (as I was now armed with a DVX100B) and advanced the character into realm of the “celebrity zombie”. I re-cut IAZM2 in 2010 (taking out 7 minutes), as the original 25 minute cut is a bit indulgent.
We intended to shoot IAZM3 in December 2007, but due to career developments for both Gareth and I, we didn’t get around to it until December 28th 2009. The delay allowed me to bring an additional three years of filmmaking trial, error and experience to the project. My camerawork, editing, writing and directing had all improved a great deal, and it was about time to close the Zombie Man trilogy once and for all.
Staying close to the DeadShed “literally no budget” style, the only money spent was on a few props. Further to that the shooting window was as tight as always, shooting the entire film (except for stock footage from my archives) in four hours on the only clear day during a harsh winter. I am adept at ‘run & gun’ filmmaking (particularly useful on various Arts Council projects I’ve done), and the skill certainly came in handy.
The editing process afforded me two key creative opportunities – to try out new software skills and editing ideas, but most importantly to stick religiously to a strict 10 minute time limit. Said limit really made me focus on what was absolutely necessary (and indeed unnecessary) in order to tell the story, establish scenes, and provide the visual comedy with a constant, assured beat to the cutting. I succeeded in meeting my 10 minute running time, producing a film that I’m really quite proud of, which boasts an efficient and water-tight pace.
Gary Ugarek and Brian Wright (fellow filmmakers who were behind American indie zombie flicks Deadlands: The Rising, and Deadlands 2: Trapped) very kindly composed the vibrant musical score, which put the cherry on top – boosting the visuals, propelling the film forward, and even acting as its own character.
I’m very pleased with the final product, and we achieved more than could reasonably be expected with what we had at our disposal, and in such a tight shooting window. The quirky character established in 2006 remains, going out on a darker, but no-less sardonic note, presented with camerawork and editing that boosted it far beyond its predecessors. The idea with every new film you make is to hone your skills and try new things, and I feel I succeeded on both counts with this, the third and final film in the I Am Zombie Man mini-trilogy – something which began life as a slap-dash bit of fun in the summer of 2006.
View more images (in full size) on my Flickr photostream via the embedded player, or the links list, on the right hand side of this blog.
Watch the film on YouTube via this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-45h8eDda-M
Friday, 5 March 2010
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.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Recent updates...
"The Inevitable Decomposition of Zombie Man" is now online!
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/inevitable-decomposition-of-zombie-man.html
A summary of our screening at the Borderlines Film Festival 2010:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/borderlines-film-festival-2010.html
Finally, a project page for short film "Doing Our Bit" is also now available:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/doing-our-bit-2009.html
N.B. Coming soon I will blog about the remake of George A. Romero's The Crazies, as well as put up a project page for the third and final Zombie Man short film.
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/inevitable-decomposition-of-zombie-man.html
A summary of our screening at the Borderlines Film Festival 2010:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/borderlines-film-festival-2010.html
Finally, a project page for short film "Doing Our Bit" is also now available:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/03/doing-our-bit-2009.html
N.B. Coming soon I will blog about the remake of George A. Romero's The Crazies, as well as put up a project page for the third and final Zombie Man short film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
%20001.jpg)
Posts
