Staplerfahrer Klaus (2000)

I don't know what to say... hilarious.



Klaus, now one of 37,000 qualified people in Germany who can call themselves fork-lift drivers, experiences his first day at work. It's an educational movie. For people who, you know, learn how to drive forklifts. A friend of mine actually had to watch it during his course.




Klaus is a very careless forklift driver. He is responsible for one supposed death by falling, one zombie-sort-of-thing by knife-to-brain, one loss of two hands,


one separation of torso and legs, one impaled colleague, one severed head (his own), another impaled person, one severed arm with chainsaw and one cutting in half of an injured guy. All that by virtue of fork-lift driving.

Nifty little movie if you're bored and have 9 minutes to kill.






6/10 for the sheer hilarity and the tongue-in-cheek humour

Vampire Diary (2007)

Lead Us Into Temptation

...and deliver us from the goths.

You see the characters and you hate them. That makes it hard for me to objectively review this movie adequately. But then again, every review of mine turns into me ranting subjectively on something, so there we go.

Meet the gang! Yippiiee!

Vampire Diary starts out in a special subset of the goth-scene: The vampire lifestyle scene, in this special case that of London. For some reason I cannot fathom, these people call themselves "weekend vampires" - a bunch of young adults who like to "play vampire" in their free time. They dress up as vampires, put fake fangs in their mouth (I guess that makes it hard to talk without a slight lisp, as can be heard throughout the movie, which is quite amusing) and dance to loud music and frantic, epilepsy-inducing lights when they are not cutting each other's arms in something they call "the exchange" in order to suck on the small cuts.

Within this freaky scene we find Holly, a quite normal young filmmaker who decided to shoot a documentary about this group of young people, associating with them and filming all the while.

Plothole: The "documentary" focuses around a core of 4 or 5 people (+/- some) - I can't for the life of me imagine that they'd just let themselves be filmed all the time and somehow taking it for granted. Especially not given the wider circle of friends and acquaintances and the entire subculture itself.
And especially not given the set of circumstances - I don't exactly know if cutting other people for blood at parties is the most legal or even sane thing to do. Is there a group of people like that in London? Scary thought. I find it doubtful that such a scene would accept to be filmed just like that all the time by someone who isn't a trusted friend. Yet Holly somehow seems to exist in a vacuum - it is useful for the viewer, because her view of this scene of people is as distant as ours, but it makes a few aspects of the documentary-approach just not believable.

Preparations for "The Exchange"...

Her character is constructed as an outsider to the weekend vampires, partly as a plot device, partly for the viewer and style of the "documentary" - but there's no way people like that would let an outsider film all of their secret ...indulgences (no insults intended for any of my readers who happen to be of this persuasion. More power to you, really.).

Scary fact:
Somewhere, someone is masturbating to the thought of blonde vampire nurses in short uniforms.

This approach worked in Man Bites Dog, a French movie (correct me if I'm wrong, it has been years since I've seen it on a VHS) - but the approach of the filmmakers in that mockumentary was different, and the relationship(s) between the filmer and the filmed more closely cut defined. Plus, for Raptor Jesus' sake, they filmed a serial killer. Holly (Morven Macbeth) is filming a fringe group of goths who think vampires are really cool. Not a serial killer. It just doesn't really work out the way it should.

Anyways, on with the plot. Holly films the weekend vampires, and one day, a woman named Vicky appears in London's underground scene of those living the vampire lifestyle. She is beautiful, she is mysterious, and she captures the attention of Holly's camera quickly. Especially since Vicky is also holding a camera - filming her.

Vicky soon seduces the (straight) Holly, and the two women fall in love with one another - and in the vampire scene, people start to disappear. And Vicky never eats anything, and questions quickly pile up. It turns out that she is a "real vampire" - she has to drink blood in order to survive - human blood. As the relationship between the two women spirals down the rabbit hole because of Vicky being a vampire, it takes a turn for the worse when it turns out that the vampire vixen is pregnant after she had been raped by a male "real vampire". The fetus grows quickly, and Vicky grows ever more hungry and careless in acquiring victims. The situation grows (there we go, I really hoped not to use it a third time, but apparently I can't help it) ever more desperate as the weekend vampires begin to wonder about some things.

Plothole: It is highly unlikely that a "real vampire" would film all it does. Who in their right mind would want to capture on camera how one kills people and drinks their blood? For what purpose? The Saturday Night Romantic Movie Evening With Blankets? "Oh, look honey, that was when I killed that bum. Doesn't the blood look stunning on my face?"*

It's not so much a real horror film than a relationship drama that centers around the problems of the age-old adage how the love between a vampire and a human can unfold (as witnessed by the Twilight craze)... and where to get new victims.

The movie really isn't bad. If you take it as a "vampire-love-story"-kind of movie, it certainly works good. As a horror movie... not so much. However, the vampire lore is something a little more unusual here; as you might have gathered from me mentioning Vicky's pregnancy, "real vampires" can procreate - but only with others of their kind, which would make them another species entirely. "Real vampires are born with two sets of fangs and really really need to drink blood - and only human blood will do. I honestly don't remember whether they mention that "real vampires" are immortal or whether they age normally, or slower, or whatever, but it makes for some nicely played situations.

And the goths are so freaking annoying.

The camera is as could be expected from a fake documentary, but it sometimes offers really pretty shots. And the subtle use of very, very, very slow zoom can be applauded. I liked the zoom.

Another thing... once again, it's Rippy the Razor time;

We get some erotic scenes (as evidenced below), some vaguely gory scenes... they're more tools than anything else. The main character of the story is doubtlessly Vicky, with a great performance from ex-model Anna Walton. She puts in a very strong performance as the "real vampire", and frankly, without her, the movie would be crap. I haven't seen Hellboy II, and I can remember Mutant Chronicles only dimly (too boring), so I can't really comment on her overall acting skills in different roles, but she really carried the movie.

Yes, this is an accidentally shot view of a woman's body. No, no naughty parts.

Useless Trivia of the Day: The song you hear at 0:44:40 is "Lesbian Vampires from Outer Space" by the Scary Bitches.

You really have to accept and like that sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised... if only more goths had been killed. On the other hand, the movie as a whole concept, taking aside Walton's performance for a moment, it's... not that great. *sighs*

I'm being generous. To encourage a bit more violence and less goths.
7/10 difficulties getting coagulated blood out from between the teeth.


*Yes. Yes it does.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Man is omnipotent; nothing is impossible for him. What seemed unthinkable undertakings yesterday are history today. The conquest of the moon for example: who talks about it anymore? Today we are already on the threshold of conquering our galaxy, and in a not too distant tomorrow, we'll be considering the conquest of the universe - and yet man seems to ignore the fact that on this very planet there are still people living in the stone age and practicing cannibalism.

There is so much baggage and back story that goes with the movie that it is entirely impossible to simply write a review of Cannibal Holocaust without delving a bit into the reasons why this movie is as infamous as it is.

But first, I'll try to give you a short synopsis of what passes for a plot in this flick: Professor of anthropology Harold Monroe (Robert Kerman) travels to the Amazonas - the "Green Inferno" - in search for a team of four young people, who travelled there to film a documentary about cannibalism as practised by certain tribes living in that area. Together with Chaco Losojos, a man who knows the jungle like his, errr, pockets and what I can only surmise to be a half-native guide (and a native tribesman who is used like a dog) he embarks on a search that makes him experience for himself how cruel reality can be - and when he discovers the remains of the film the four missing (and dead) people left behind as their legacy to the world, he discovers that the cruelty of reality isn't just confined to "primitive" people, and leads him to wonder who the true cannibals are...

I have a few issues with this movie, to be honest. Let's start with the most obvious one:

Lack of cannibalism.

Yes, you read that correctly. Maybe my appetite for gore (no pun intended) is a bit too high for a movie from 1980, but considering that this movie is named Cannibal Holocaust and deals with, well, cannibalism, I was definitely expecting more. What we get are a few scenes of implied cannibalism, and the few shots of "actual" cannibalism just look fake. And not gross and disgusting at all. Or, you know, bloody and violent.

My favourite scene - a meouwser, only in big!

Which brings me to my second point: The blood and the gore effects. For Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, can it be that hard to at least produce artificial blood that doesn't have that faint touch of pink? Considering that Ruggero Deodato had enough money to film on location in Colombia and New York, only filming the interior scenes in his native Italy, it sure as hell couldn't have been a question of money.

To all you ambitious film makers out there who want to avoid someone like me ranting about how the lack of quality-blood makes your movie terrible: Add a little bit of green to it. Make sure it has the right consistency. Make sure it's not too bright, or, gods forbid, pink. Trust me - a little effort with the blood makes up for a lot. Deodato or whoever was responsible for the creation/acquisition of the fake gore sure as hell didn't go for quality with the blood. Or quantity, if I might add that with a slightly nagging voice.

Third point: The portrayal of the Yanomamo and Shamatari tribes... I don't care that the film is presumably misogynistic, but damn, if that isn't exploitation at its core, I don't know what is. I seriously don't know how they got the natives to cooperate and play their assigned roles in Cannibal Holocaust, because man... demeaning. I was constantly reminded of animals - only that, in my experience and in this movie, animals actually are treated better. As long as they're inedible. Ehm.

Plus... careful with the word "primitive" and the use of the term "stone age" to indicate that something is "primitive". At least try to be careful with that around me, movie, because that happens to just include my archaeological field of study, and I'm easily offended when it comes to calling my chosen cultures "primitive". Or any other culture that is remotely linked to mine by the derogatery use of the term "stone age". Let me add that "stone age" is a bit of a vague term, because it encompasses quite a long time.

Then there's the sex scenes... or should I make that "rape scenes"? I have no problem with rape scenes in general, but watching one in particular, in which the documentarists are gang-raping a young native female, made me feel ashamed of being a member of the species homo sapiens.

Pwetty. Me like.

On to the strong points of Cannibal Holocaust.

The first thing that I noticed was the incredible soundtrack, created flawlessly by Riz Ortolani. It is atmospheric and incredibly well made - it adds a special quality to what may otherwise remain a more or less unspectacular exploitation flick from the very beginning of the eighties.

The gore and violence, whilst not exactly on a level which sits well with the gorehound in me (as the three people who read this blog of mine know, the more blood and guts and pointless violence I get to witness in a horror movie, the more happy I am), is at times beautifully executed, as with the skull in the screenshot above.

What I could have done without was the animal cruelty. 'Nuff said about that topic.

Stone peni:

I will never look at a vibrator with the same eyes after witnessing how the script of Cannibal Holocaust uses that stony, ehm, member.

The acting is actually good - not great, not wonderful, certainly not something that would win an award these days, but it is brutally realistic - partly due to the nature of the scenes the actors were forced through. If you're interested in reading more about the details of the tribulations the cast had to go through, check wikipedia - the whole story is way too long and detailed for me having the flu and still being up, freezing and hungry, at 7:15 AM on this beautiful Tuesday morning. Man... I need sleep badly. And something against the flu. Merf.

A surprisingly good movie, everything considered. Even with the amount of criticising on my part, I still find the movie to be entertaining and moving at the same time with its scenic, sweeping shots, its fast-paced and hectic certainty and bitter grimness. Truly, Cannibal Holocaust manages to do something which I noted with the French directors of The Hills Have Eyes, Inside and other recent awesome movies from that part of Europe: The merciless camera. The viewer becomes entangled in the movie, he is the voyeur for whom these scenes have been staged and created - and although we may flinch and shy away from the brutality, we still are captivated by what happens on the screen.

You certainly won't be bored with this example of cinematic voyeurism.

A moving and brutal criticism of our modern society and how it behaves when there is no law to keep the darkness of humanity in check.

7.75/10 ritualistic punishments for adultery.

Cloverfield (2008)

Here I am, with a fresh start into the year 2009, and a fresh review to, erm, celebrate the new year on this later day. That's how much I love to celebrate.

I apologise for my lack of reviews in the past months; but problems with my health are keeping me from doing this more regularly (you may or may not believe it, but my movie-watching-quota has sunk drastically... *sighs*). I'll try to write more often this year...

Some Thing Has Found Us

Today's movie of choice is Cloverfield, as directed by Matt Reeves and written by Drew Goddard (who is also responsible for some episodes of Buffy, Angel, Alias and Lost, besides for being known as co-executive producer of aforementioned Lost) - and, ladies and gentlemen, ghouls and ghosts, I am pleasantly surprised.

Living on teh intarwebz, so to speak, I had of course read a lot of differing opinions on the long-awaited monster-movie of 2008, not all of them positive. When TF, who had eagerly awaited this movie since the marketing campaign had started way back, finally got his fingers onto the movie (I gave him my copy before watching it myself), was disappointed, my expectations were lowered even more. But alas - this movie is actually awesome.

Disclaimer: I'm under the influence of a soothing herbal mix.

Cloverfield starts out weird:

A group of friends (and acquaintances) is throwing an unexpected surprise farewell party for their mate Rob Hawkins, a young man living in Lower Manhatten, New York, because he's going to leave the city - and the country, even! - in order to work in Japan. This, of course, warrants alcohol and fun for everyone. One of those friends responsible for the surprise is Hub, who is more or less forced to record the testimonials of the people hanging out and chilling, so that Rob can watch the tape when he's far away from home.

That was the only part of the movie that I really could have done without and that bored me. But the hand-held camera is very realistic (something that, luckily, carries on throughout the whole movie, but more on that later) - I've had the misfortune to see such things a few times before, and it is very ...authentic. We get to know the people at the party, the gossip, the relationships between them - who is together with whom, who is sleeping with whom, who had an affair with whom and who might break up with whom... just a typical party with all the human drama that those things entail, after enough alcohol has flown and emotions started making complicated things even more complicated. Actually, I started to get curious... and suddenly, a big crash shakes the building, and outside, some parts of the city lose electricity.

Soon, the TV reports a possible earthquake in Lower Manhattan, with an oil tanker capsizing near the statue of liberty. The people decide to go there and see what is happening... and the camera follows.
Then - an explosion - panic. Sirens and alarms ring, people flee wildly through the streets - and no one knows what's happening. But in the background, there's a sound... like the roaring of a giant monster.
... and SOMETHING is moving. Something eery. Something big.

Gigantic, thunderous steps shake the buildings, the roaring fills the air with primeval, animalistic sounds. And all around, there are sirens, people screaming, police cars... and dazed survivors of the monster's wake. Manhattan is burning - a wasteland. Cars crashed, people crying, buildings shattered... and the severed head of the statue of liberty, like a blind reminder of what is being destroyed.

No one knows what happened and what it was that caused this destruction - but they figure that it would be best to get out of there...

Unlike Romero's Diary of the Dead, Cloverfield's camera doesn't exploit what is happening, doesn't want to bring some Truth - it just happens to be there, and records what is happening in a very subjective way. It's much less clean-cut and professional, but much more engaging for the viewer. It's like being in the middle of what happens, and it works for me. Then again, I'm stoned right now.

The monster is awesome. You can't really make it out, you only get glimpses of limbs, partial glimpses of body parts, and the sight is always partly covered, the cam shaking, and the frantic authenticity of the camera instills a sense of expectation and adrenaline rushing. Even a bit of terror at times.

Our group of survivors decide to walk through the tunnels of the subway line out of Manhattan - which is what I, personally, would consider to be a bad idea. Because, you know, it's dark in there...

Something that I found very good is that people in this movie actually get injured and attacked by critters and survive, without shrugging it off as if it were nothing (alternatively, dying...). The scenes in the makeshift sick bay are pretty good (though short), and the presence of the military and its stressed, aggressive but yet disciplined behaviour adds a good deal to the hectic feeling of the movie.

The style which is employed in Cloverfield leaves much to the imagination of the viewer. An individual with a certain sense of phantasy can fill in a lot during those scenes which leave the mind time to think, or to combine parts of a picture into a warped hole.

And I want to add yet again that the monster is awesome - full of win and awesome, in fact.


I heartily recommend watching this movie whilst being under the influence of your favourite herbal blend (perfectly legal, of course - I'd never condone the use of natural, healthy substances like the products of the cannabis-plant, because it's illegal and bad). Good stuff (both).


8/10 viciously cool limbs which move in a really cool way.

August Underground (2001)

Okay, so this review doesn't have a nifty picture of the DVD cover at the beginning... because I can't find any. Blame it on the internet. 

Hm... August Underground. Tagline: "The sickest film ever made."

...can I agree? I don't know. Sort of. Sort of... no. I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. 

First of all, because I just got alerted to it: Fred Vogel, the guy who directed this flick and wrote the script (together with Allen Peters) taught at Tom Savini's special FX school - which probably explains why some of the gore and effects in this flick look quite realistic (I just say "sliced off nipple"). Note the wording "some of the gore", with an emphasis on SOME. 

For example, the blood doesn't really look realistic. It's... too pink. Far too pink. And even the blood that has been smeared all over the bodies of the hapless victims was... pink. Dried blood is not pink. Fresh blood is not pink. So, please, Mr. Vogel: Check out how blood actually looks like. It will help you with your other efforts at movie making. Trust me on that. Because, seriously, the pink shine really doesn't help with making a movie that's supposed to be gritty and realistic to the max. 

Other than that... August Underground starts out nicely - I dare say even promising. We get treated to a naked young woman, tied to a chair in a filthy basement, with aforementioned cut off nipple, apparently a wound under the right breast (Right? Me and The Friend* are both not sure whether it's the right or the left boob that is supposed to having been cut...), but there isn't any cut there. However, the blood still appears to come from a cut somewhere there, so merf. Not good. If you make a trail of blood running "out of" a wound, at least have the decency to actually show us the wound - especially if you're not trying to make a tame PG-13 movie. And I severely doubt that August Underground was supposed to get a PG-13 rating.

I really don't know what to actually say about this movie, though. It was, I admit it, a little bit disappointing. I had expected more from it - more gore, more violence. More blood and intestines, and all that wonderful stuff. 

Then again, this shouldn't be taken as me complaining. I liked some of the footage. Whilst I am not a big fan of... *trying to think about the Greek term, ANY Greek term for it*...  scatology (sorry, coprophilia doesn't really work in terms of this movie, I apologise for any inconvenience this has caused any coprophiliacs out there) in any way or form (and I mean NOT AT ALL), I have to admit that I liked the idea of torturing the tied-up young woman that way. Or should that be "humiliating"? I take it the latter would be more appropriate. Plus, it is... very non-humane.  I dare say it's inhumane. And I like stuff like that. However, I could have done with a little less intimate footage of shit. Literally shit. 

(However, I had to giggle when they threw the bucket full of urine at her...) 

Ahem. 

The so-called "rape"-scene... well, suffice it to say that scenes like that will always get different sorts of reactions from viewers, let alone reviewers. I wasn't entirely convinced (granted, the shaky camera might have had something to do with that), but still. The movie made an effort. 

One thing that completely turned me off was the... the... FATNESS of everyone involved. No single aesthetically pleasing individual in the whole movie. Not a single one. Whilst I got used to seeing the flabby guy who we are told (by virtue of guessing for ourselves) is a "serial killer" (of course, I strongly disagree, but that's just me and my being picky for definitions) prance around (and I mean "prance around", it's ridiculous to watch him at several points throughout the movie), it's just disgusting when you're forced to watch ugly females dance around ...or, even worse, showing us what they have (far too much, sadly... mostly because one's eyes take irrevocable damage). Yes, I know, I am weird like that, but flabby people do not excite me. Not in the least. 

Also, the scenes that didn't deal with direct, honest violence (the guys visiting a miniature America, the gig they are visiting, the hooker scene...) were far too long as compared to those few scenes that gave us actual violence and brutality. Granted, I had to smile during the scene at the band's gig (I'm sorry, I forgot to write down the name of the band), because it reminded me of some of the gigs I've been to... and I appreciate that. However, it still wasn't ...satisfying. Okay, yes, Vogel wanted to make a movie that actually looked like some amateur video, and he succeeded in that. But it still left me and The Friend sitting in front of the screen with a little bit of annoyance on our faces, left enough time to make silly jokes and left us a tad disappointed. 

In short: August Underground could have been better. However, I liked the giggling from the apparently slightly psychotic guy "behind the camera". 

I am torn as to what rating I should give this flick... 

Ah, heck. 

6/10 wrecking pits that made me smile with fond memories

*The Friend (aka TF as of now) is the official code-name for the guy who made it possible for me to watch Narok by forcing it upon me and occasionally helps me with the reviews by discussing movies with me after we watched them. Hello TF. I know you won't read this (he never reads the reviews...).

Diary of the Dead (2007)

I've finally come around to watch this Romero output, and I have to say: I'm pleased. I am truly and absolutely pleased. Mostly because I think that Professor Andrew Maxwell, played by Scott Wentworth, is one of the most awesome characters ever in a zombie movie. I could easily imagine a zombie movie with him as the actual protagonist (living, not dead, or undead, or some sort of death-dependent status of existence).

Awesomeness.

Anyways, on to the plot: A group of film students from the University of Pittsburgh (cunningly pronounced as "Pittsberg", as the proper pronounciation - see for example "Edinburgh" - is beyond the American public and its grasp of English) are trying to survive in a world in which zombies are everywhere... and make a documentary about it. The whole movie is set up as a documentary - "The Death of Death", by Jason Creed. I want to note here that the initials "JC" have a creepy similarity to those of another famous JC, who also wanted to bring truth (even TRUTH) to the people/mankind and sacrificed himself for his message. Makes me wonder what Christianity would be like if that other JC had had a myspace and a blog...
The students film how they survive (more or less), use other material they downloaded from the net or from surveillance cameras or from the news to show how the media is distorting the truth (no, not the capital Truth)... and living an obsession with documenting the terror and cruelty that invaded their lives.

As always when it comes to Diary of the Dead, the Professor Emeritus puts it way better than I could. Witness the following dialogue, with a bit of background:
JC is constantly filming. Pretty much everyone is a tad annoyed at this, especially since he isn't much help with his camera practically glued to his face. A friend gets attacked in an abandoned hospital (they clearly forgot one of the rules of surviving a zombie apocalypse: One of the worst places to hide in case of a zombie apocalypse is a hospital - for obvious reasons), and he just stands back and shoots what's happening whilst his friends hysterically cry for help.

After the situation is resolved, the Professor is shooting him a look of pure disgust, and the following gem of dialogue is produced.



Andrew Maxwell: "There will always be people like you, wanting to document, wanting to record some sort of ...diary."
Jason: "Me? You're the one who put the camera in my hands. You're the one who made me want to do this!"
Andrew Maxwell: "Not this. This is a diary of cruelty. And in wartime, when the enemy can be marked as this son of a bitch or that son of a bitch, then cruelty... becomes justified."

A diary of cruelty. It's exactly what this movie portrays, and damn, whilst it isn't flawless, it is a solid zombie movie in the tradition of The Master (no, not the one from Doctor Who) with the social commentary we came to expect from his works.

Another scene that demonstrates how sick we, as human beings, can become is close to the end of the movie, when JC refuses to help Tracy (the Texan girl) when she is chased by a zombie - in order to grab the perfect horror movie footage. It is actually slightly sickening - not because of any gore or terror or suspense, but just because you realise how fucked up and sick JC's reaction is.

Diary of the Dead doesn't only explore the media's reaction to something like the zombie apocalypse happening, but intrinsically deals with today's society and its possible reaction. Especially with the rise of the internet and its importance in our everyday lives (hell, try living without your email for two weeks, you'll know what I mean... you practically miss EVERYTHING) and the speed with which information is travelling through the world... it is an interesting concept, and Romero surely made a lot of this very basic idea.

Something that is repeated sometimes is the phrase "if it isn't on camera, it didn't happen". It strongly reminds me of the internet meme "pics or it didn't happen" - in an age where you basically can't trust ANYTHING due to the new nature of information (or maybe it was always the nature of information to be generally untrustworthy, due to human nature, failure and our inherent... well, I'll cut the philosophical stuff short and just say that it is due to the conditio humana that we all suffer from). Read somewhere on the net that vaccinations are making people sick and are only used because companies want to suck the very lifeblood from the people? Well, either you accept it as truth, as a lot of people these days seem to do (predominantly in the US, I might add), or you try to find your own truth (usually done by thinking).

"What gets into our heads when we see something horrible? A horrible accident on the highway - something keeps us from just driving on. Something... pulls us. But we don't stop to help. We stop to look."

Thought provoking, isn't it? The essential voyeurism of the human race. We get excited by the cruelty and suffering we see. We call friends and family to inform them that we just witnessed an accident, and they are as eager to hear all the details about it as we are to elaborate on those details. What is it with our obsession with cruelty, with suffering, with violence and death and pain? Okay, this directly ties in with "why do I watch horror movies", but... seriously. Give those questions a thought and try to find out for yourself.

I want to add at this point that I totally approve of zombie destroying deaf Amish guys. Say hello to Samuel, the bravest, most courageous and most awesome deaf Amish you'll ever meet.



Samuel - officially coolest Amish ever. Could YOU impale your brain with a scythe whilst a zombie is nibbling at your brain? I don't think so.

The dialogues aren't bad; the tension in the group of survivors, especially at the beginning, when things are still new and JC's obsession with filming everything that happens is still a novelty to the others (an annoying novelty, I might add). Generally, the pacing is a bit on the slower side, but it doesn't fail to deliver its premise of the zombie apocalypse in the age of the information superhighway and media control. It's not about the zombies and the gore, it's about the social implications.

Also, myspace.com gets screentime: "72.000 hits in 8 minutes!" - one of the reasons why I wonder how that other JC would have fared with myspace. Then again, in modern times, he would be dismissed as one of those whacky Near Eastern crazies, not necessarily thought of as the messiah / Son of YHVH.

Going back to the dialogues for a second - the best lines are, of course, coming from the Professor:

(Referring to the radio transmissions talking about the rising dead, clarifying some misconceptions his students appear to have with the concept) "The problem doesn't seem to be that people are waking up dead, but that dead people are waking up."

(Referring to his flask filled with delicious alcohol) "I'm running low. I'd like to make it to a state store before they all shut their doors forever. God, there's a terrible thought. A world where a gentleman can't buy a bottle of bourbon."

I truly enjoy every single line that man utters.

The gore isn't bad, either. We get one zombie whose intestines are falling out of his stomach cavity, one whose brain is being eaten away by some sort of very cool acid, headshots, gut-munchings, scythe action, arrows to the brain sticking teenage zombies to walls (or rather, nailing them to walls)... not too much, not enough to make me salivate all over the keyboard, but still good.

My major criticism of this movie is how idiotic the students are and how idiotic they react. At least they had enough exposure to culture to know that you best exterminate dead people who don't behave dead by shooting them in the head, aka destroying the brain. Have they never watched a zombie movie? If I heard on the news that the dead are rising, I would run to the next store, stack up on canned foods and bottled water and sturdy objects to make my home into a fortress, run back home, and hide. Well, at least for a while. But definitely not try to find my relatives and hole up together. Then again, I'm not exactly known for my great zombie survival scenarios, if you catch my drift. Still, the students are idiots, at least in the beginning (they wisen up a bit).

But the Professor is awesome. VERY awesome.

7/10 Professors who appreciate books, are masters of archery , have a taste for good alcohol and fancy themselves a swashbuckler.