Monday, April 6, 2009

Quadruple Feature: Savage Sinema from Down Under - Marauders, Sensitive New Age Killer, Defenceless, and Stained

For the past month or so, I have been reading Phantom of Pulp, the blog of a writer/filmmaker. Not only does Phantom write about all sorts of diverse subjects [ranging anywhere from art, books, and film to poetry and porn] he is also in "the business". I recently found out that he contributed to the screenplay of the upcoming film adaptation of Live Girls, based upon the novel written by Ray Garton [which, coincidentally, I just discussed in my previous post] Anyway, I decided to check out Phantom's earlier foray into making his own films, and I must say that I was impressed, so without further ado, onto the reviews. . .

Genre - Crime/Drama
Year Released - 1986
Running Time - 74 minutes
Directed by Mark Savage
Written by Mark Savage
Cast Includes: Colin Savage (the director's brother) as Emilio, Zero Montana as J. D., Paul Harrington as David, and Megan Napier as Becky

Rating: 4 Skulls

Plot Summary:
While tracking a young couple who are making their to a remote cabin, two psychotic maniacs go on a relentless killing spree, leaving behind a wake of destruction.

When I first added this film to my Netflix Queue, every single rating on the film was 1 star [which is bad!] As you can see from my own rating, I completely disagree with everyone who rated this film on Netflix. They obviously didn't appreciate the writing or the direction of the film - they must have only looked at its extreme low budget. . .

At the beginning of Marauders, we first meet J. D. - a young guy who brings people to his home in order to torture & kill them. After his mother threatens to turn him into the police, he kills her, telling her that she should have been grateful [as he gave her the money from his victims]

Next we meet Emilio [who has quite the hair-do, even for the 80's!] who is getting ready to head out for the day. When his mom/significant other [I forget which] tries to stop him, he beats her up - then, after he can't find his car keys, he goes back inside and shoots her in the head - afterwards realizing that he had the keys all along. Nice guys, huh?

Emilio than leaves to pick up his pal, J. D., just in time to witness him getting struck by a car [which keeps on going] After realizing that J. D. isn't seriously injured, they then pursue the vehicle.

Inside the vehicle are David & Becky - David is taking Becky to his father's cabin in the woods [which just so happens to be the last house on the right] in hopes of 'getting lucky' with Becky. [I enjoyed the character of Becky - she is strong-willed, and I liked her!]

While David & Becky are eating lunch, Emilio & J. D. catch up to them - they then trash David's car. . . When David & Becky return to the car, David makes Becky push it while he tries to get it started. With no luck, David decides to just steal a car. . .

While all of this was going on, Emilio & J. D. were driving around, when they came across a young woman walking along the highway. After harassing her, she runs off, and they end up chasing her through the woods where they catch her and then rape her. Afterwards, they realize that they are lost and they start blaming one another, their argument soon escalates into an excellent slugfest!

Meanwhile, a group of people [consisting of folks that Emilio & J. D. have ticked off along their journey] have formed a mob and have decided to hunt Emilio & J. D. down. All of this ends up culminating into a bloody finale with quite a shocking ending!

For Savage's directorial debut, I thought that this film was well done and very well written!

Sensitive New Age Killer [also known as S.N.A.K.]
Genre - Action
Year Released - 2000
Running Time - 84 minutes
Directed by Mark Savage
Written by Mark Savage & David Richardson
Cast Includes: Paul Moder as Paul, Helen Hopkins as Helen, Kevin Hopkins as George, Carolyn Bock as Matty, and Frank Bren as Colin "the snake" Adder

Rating: 4 Skulls

Plot Summary:
After he witnessed a mob hit by a local strong arm called The Snake, Paul Morris pledged his life to contract killing. Now, he's suddenly pitted against the same man who once inspired his profession.

S.N.A.K. starts back in the mid-70's where we first see Paul - a young boy who wants to grow up and become a photographer. After Paul witnesses a mob hit, he decides that he wants to become a hit man - we then witness his training to become an assassin throughout the opening credits.

The film then jumps to the present, where Paul has just finished killing a dirty cop [Paul has chosen to only kill bad people] However, it turns out that the dirty cop's girlfriend [who is also a cop] has caught Paul in the act. In a strange turn of events, she forces Paul to strip and then handcuffs him to the bed [and goes to town] This ends up evolving into somewhat of a relationship, even though Paul is married and has a daughter. Or does he?

You see, Paul's best friend George [who saved Paul from drowning, when they were wee lads] has a bizarre obsession with Paul's wife, who bears a startling resemblance with his dead mother [there's a whole other story there, which also reminds me of the fact that George also snorts his dead mother's ashes...]

Anyhow, Paul's cop girlfriend informs him of a big time drug dealer that is going to be in town, with a $100,000.00 contract on his head. [While Paul is attempting to find out where exactly the dealer is going to be, we are treated to one of the film's more humorous moments which takes place in the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant]

After scoping out the locale, Paul discovers that "The Snake" is also in town. Being a professional, Paul decides to talk with "The Snake" man-to-man [a great scene!] about him needing this job. . .

As for this film - it has its John Woo moments - you know, the "gun ballets" with endless ammo, close range misses, etc. The film also features a clip from another of Savage's films titled Masked Avenger vs. Ultra Villain in the Lair of the Naked Bikini [a film that I will have to look into]
Also, in order to break up the monotony of these reviews, let me leave you with the song "A Gringo Like Me" which is also featured in S.N.A.K. [you can listen to it while you read the next review] :-)

Defenceless: A Blood Symphony
Genre - Drama/Silent Film
Year Released - 2004
Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed by Mark Savage
Written by Mark Savage
Cast Includes Susanne Hausschnid as Elizabeth Peace

Rating: 3 Skulls

Plot Summary:
In this unique silent film, Elizabeth Peace, an environmentalist mother, is brutally murdered by a group of real estate developers and returns from the grave to seek bloody revenge on her attackers.

In this film, some real estate developers want to build some condos, right on the beach, however Elizabeth will not sign off on the paperwork. [I'm not sure exactly what she had to do with it all] This leads to Elizabeth's husband being beat to death with brass knuckles. Elizabeth is then sent a picture of her husband's bloodied corpse. . .

Elizabeth later decides to bury her husband's picture out on the beach. While on the beach, Elizabeth "befriends" another woman. Time goes by. . . one day Elizabeth receives a text message from her new 'friend' prompting her to go on a scavenger type hunt, which ends in Elizabeth finding a package - in the package is a DVD entitled Have A Nice Day with happy flowers drawn on it.

Upon placing the DVD into her player, Elizabeth is witness to the malicious attack/rape/murder of her new lover [why she continued to watch the DVD, I do not know, however I recommend skipping from the 23 minute mark to about the 25 minute 20 seconds mark, if you are at all offended by these types of scenes] The DVD ends with the message, "how many more have to die?".

If you are wondering why Elizabeth hasn't involved the police, it is because her son's life was threatened. . .

More time goes by until one day Elizabeth and her son are out playing on the beach, when Elizabeth is brutally attacked/raped/murdered. . .

Nine months later [which I felt was an appropriate amount of time, for some reason] a young girl is burying her treasure chest next to the graves that Elizabeth dug for her husband and girlfriend, when she discovers Elizabeth's body washed up on shore. Soon afterwards, in a cool sequence, Elizabeth begins to remember her past.

Around this same time, the young girl's step-father discovers his daughter's treasure chest, which includes her diary with entries talking about him grabbing/touching/hurting her. In a fit of rage, he chases down his daughter and begins to strangle her. Elizabeth witnesses this and violently reacts! This then leads to her following the inevitable path of revenge upon those who killed her and her loved ones.

First, I just have to say that Susanne Hausschnid did an outstanding job in playing the role of Elizabeth - she played sadistic, with no emotion whatsoever, very well!

I also loved how Elizabeth was 'tied to the ocean' and the film ended perfectly - I am however curious as to why Savage chose to only use music, with no dialogue - I feel that the film would have been better, with dialogue, but that's just me. . .

Stained: A True Crime Drama
Genre - Television
Year Released - 2006
Running Time - 35 minutes
Directed by Mark Savage

Plot Summary:
This disc, available from Netflix, gives a look at Savage's cable TV drama (based on actual events involving pedophiles) as well as 13 of his earlier short films - all of which were shot on Super 8 film with an instrumental score.

As for this final film, well it's not really a film [you will notice it isn't even listed on the cover at the top] however being that I enjoyed the other three, I figured that I would give this one a shot as well.

The feature, Stained, is 35 minutes in length and basically shows a father in search of his two missing daughters [who have been missing for about 18 months] The antagonists in the film are two brothers [one of whom has a wife and kids] who are involved in the abduction and selling of young children.

The beginning of the film tells us that what we are about to see is non-fiction. Savage hails from Australia, so this must have been a local case there. . .

The Stained disc also includes the Super 8's, [the early films] from Savage's childhood [he has been making short films since around the age of 15] The 13 shorts are broken down into The Melbourne Years and The Detroit Years - they were made with Savage's brother and best friend as well as some other friends, from when Savage was 15 to about 19 years of age. Most of the shorts were edited in-camera and they were all shot silent and music was added later. The shorts included on this disc are around 3 minutes each and include: [those with an asterisk I liked best]

Methusarla, Guardian of Hell
The Gardener
The Walker
*The Annihilator [the best of the bunch, in my opinion]
The Roadkill Ghosts
*Black Rock
Rogues [in this one, Colin Savage is starting to grow out the crazy hair-do he had in Marauders] :-)
Hitchhiker Horror
*Cemetery Spectres
*The Family

Savage definitely has a photographer's eye, and I enjoyed each of the above feature films, though I would definitely like to see what Savage could accomplish, given a larger budget.

Here are the trailers for Marauders, S.N.A.K., and Defenceless, respectively:
[the Marauders trailer does include language]



Wings said...

Wow. Never heard of these movies (I seem to start a lot of my comments on your reviews this way!), but the first two definitely seem interesting... to say the least!

Might have to give these a once over. ;)

Johnny 666 said...

I have this boxset at home, but have yet to delve into it. Probably best to have a marathon, the way you did it:-)

Rev. Fred Phantom said...

This sounds right up my alley. I must seek it out. Thanx for the heads up!

Phantom of Pulp said...

Jason, thanks for the fair shake on my movies.

Re: DEFENCELESS, it was an experiment to do it dialog-free. In retrospect, I'd do some things in it differently. My favorite part of it (that I wouldn't change) is the middle section with the little girl on the beach discovering the "reborn" Elizabeth.

I think the first third could have been much tighter.

I'd just come out of doing two erotic thrillers, so I was kinda interested in doing something a lot less structured and familiar. Some of it works. Some of it doesn't.

Should there have been dialog? Possibly. But it would have been a very different movie.

Jean Rollin was an influence, as was FORBIDDEN GAMES.

STAINED is based on an Italian news story with international tentacles. I shifted it to Australia.

You might be interested to know that the guy getting hit by a car in MARAUDERS really got hit. I was "lucky" enough to get the whole accident in frame. Fortunately, after 10 minutes of shocked paralysis, he was OK.

It's nice when someone "gets" the films.

But folks will either love 'em or hate 'em. That's the nature of anything you put out there.

Bearded Weirdo Reviews said...

Great reviews. I have this same DVD. I love it. Cool stuff.

I'm really, really, really glad you enjoyed my Watchmen review. Yeah, I did notice the thing with the Waynes during the opening montage. I also noticed the big Batman comic book posters on the wall, too. I'm a Batman fanatic, so these actually tended to be the first thing I noticed when I watched the flick. I almost forgot there was plot going on at times. Like I said, easter eggs out the wazoo.

Yeah, I disliked The Dark Knight, strongly. In my opinion, it's the lowest ranking Batman film since Batman & Robin. Really, my scores for the Batman films go like this...

Batman- 4
Batman Returns- 4.5
Batman Forever- 3.5
Batman & Robin- 2.5
Batman Begins- 3
The Dark Knight- 2.5

I guess it's pretty obvious that I'm not too fond of Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale's version of the Batman mythos. Seriously, Batman Forever might've been bad on most levels, but I think it was better than these new movies. It was dumb as hell, Batman Forever, but at least it tried to be entertaining. Of course, I regularly have different opinions of movies than everybody else. I tend to champion the movies most people loathe (Return Of The Swamp Thing, ...which, by the way, I'll have a review up sometime soon, probably sometime near the beginning of March... I already have plans on what reviews will be going up in the interim, so the first opening I have for Swampy isn't until March), and I usually don't care for the big movies most people love. Eh, I'm used to. I respect your opinions though. Even if they are just plain wrong.

I kid, I kid.

I didn't like the Dawn Of The Dead remake either. It had its moments like the first 7 minutes (especially the overhead shot of the car speeding down the road as the world around it goes to hell), the scenes with the celebrity lookalike zombies, the scenes the group communicating with the gun store owner across the parking lot, the scenes of the group trying to fight off boredom after being locked in the mall. But other than that, I really thought it was bland, boring, and dumb. Too many cliche's, like the ol' "one of us has been bitten by a zombie, now we have to wait for him to turn and then shoot him, oooooh tension, oooooh sadness" thing. It worked in the original Dawn, but there have been so many zombie films that have used that same thing a gazillion times since that to do it nowadays it would be laughable. They did it. It was laughable. It was handled quite well for what it was, actually, but I still thought it ended up being mostly just stupid and hackneyed. I also thought the zombie baby scene (and everything leading up to it, with the guy chaining his wife to a bed, and NO ONE QUESTIONING ANY OF IT, because every character in this movie was borderline retarded) was ridiculous, as was the sudden transformation of every friggin' character into an over-the-top post-Rambo action hero at the end, not to mention the whole post-apocalyptic war-bus with chainsaw holes thing they build near the finale'. Ugh. As a director, Snyder didn't too bad actually, although I think his use of colors and framing, at times, could use some work (obviously he's improved HUGELY since then, since Watchmen shows his use of color and framing to be PERFECT and BRILLIANT), and it's a little jumpy/MTV-y with all the trendy quick-cutting and shaky cam stuff that just so fuckin' overdone and hack-y these days. Mostly though, I blame not so much Snyder, but James Gunn, the writer. Y'know, I liked Slither a lot. And I love Tromeo & Juliet. And I even dug the Scooby Doo movies. But Dawn Of The Dead, I think, was just no the right movie to give to a guy like James Gunn, and I think he bungled the script, terribly.

Also, fast zombies. I fucking hate fast zombies.

Moving on...

Yeah, I heard about Sucker Punch. I'm really, really looking forward to that actually. The description I read about it ("Alice In Wonderland... with machine guns") got me really, really excited. Let's hope it turns out well. Like I said, I think how he does with original material will ultimately determine his future as a filmmaker.

I've also got my fingers crossed for that Heavy Metal movie. Not so much 'cause of the people involved, but just 'cause I desperately want another Heavy Metal movie (I loooooooove Heavy Metal magazine, and I loooove the first Heavy Metal movie, and... the second one? ...most people hate it, but I think it's okay... not great, but not terrible... it can't live up to the original film, not at all, but the way I see it is... you can't judge a movie by your expectations or by the movies that came before it... each movie is its own unique movie, that needs to be judged and treated as its own, individual film, period).

Nah, you shouldn't be embarrassed by not knowing about Twilight Of The Superheroes. It's a little obscure. It's obscure, of course, because it was never actually made. It was just an idea Alan Moore had that never saw the light of day, but if you google it, I'm sure you could find his loooooong-ass, heavily detailed, pretty much completely thought out proposal for it, floating somewhere in the internet.

Squadron Supreme, also, is (nowadays) kind of obscure. It's very, very old, and it came wayyy before Watchmen, Marvels, Kingdom Come, etc. Though Watchmen is considered to be the first comic to "deconstruct" the superhero paradigm and to try to inject humanism and political repercussions into a superhero title, the truth, which mostly only comic historians and people who spend wayyyy too much of their personal lives reading comics (like me) know, is that Squadron Supreme actually came first. In fact, the whole "radioactive superhero causing cancer" idea was actually in Squadron Supreme a few years before Watchmen was ever even an idea in Alan Moore's head. I highly recommend it as a must-read title, but I will do so with a warning. That warning is this...

Squadron Surpeme is nowhere near as action-packed as you'd probably expect. Not like Watchmen, and certainly not even in the same vicinity as Kingdom Come. It's a much quieter, more talkative, slow-moving story than Watchmen. It's also written in the traditional Golden/Silver Age comics style, as opposed to the more modern style of Watchmen, so the dialogue is all kind of campy and overly superhero-y, just like old comics used to be (I think you know what I'm talking about), but it's actually written like this on purpose, and there are several times when it is used for humor, or to highlight certain things about the comic book medium that are worthy of analysis or even criticism.

Squadron Supreme was published by Marvel and written by Mark Gruenwald (who, following his death, was actually cremated and his ashes were mixed in with the ink for the printing of the Squadron Supreme trade paperback that was released in the modern era, according to the wishes he stipulated in his will). The team, the "Squadron Surpeme" are essentially a thinly (VERY thinly) veiled satire of the Justice League (with a few Avengers parody characters thrown in for good measure), and the comic attempts to show what would REALLY happen if guys like Superman walked the earth. 'Cause, in real life, Superman... you know, he's pretty damn powerful, if he ever got pissed off at us and started say "HEY! BEHAVE!!! OR I'LL KICK YOUR ASS!!!!", we'd all shut the fuck up and mind our manners. In Squadron Supreme, the heroes decide to do something no superhero has ever done before. They become pro-active. Because superheroes, traditionally, are REACTIVE, in the sense that some villain does something evil, and then they REACT to it. They go out and destroy the big robot or reverse the nefarious scheme, and they try to put the bad guy in jail. By being pro-active, the heroes in Squadron Supreme decide that, hey, all we're doing is fighting the symptoms, not the disease. We're beating down muggers and rapists, but there will always be more muggers and rapists. Criminals aren't the problem, crime itself is. We have to try to cure the disease, instead of just picking up the pieces after things go to hell. We have to try to eradicate crime. So they basically decide, hey, we're the most powerful beings on the face of the planet, whose gonna stop us if we decide to FORCE people to "play nice." Nobody, that's who. So they essentially take control of the nation and work at curing crime, disease, hunger. And, yeah, they're doing good deeds, but the only way they're able to do them is to infringe on our civil rights, by basically treading all over the U.S. Constitution. How do you stop people from shooting each other? Take away their guns. But that goes against our right to bear arms.

The comic is ultimately a very murky philosophical work that basically comes down to what YOU believe. It never points fingers and says whose right or whose wrong (which, to be honest, Watchmen kinda does... even though we're forced to understand why Ozymandias does what he does, the message is clear that he's still the "bad guy"). It lets you come to your own conclusions about what you feel is right and what's wrong. How much freedom should we have in this country? What's more important, liberty or tranquility?

It's also interesting in the sense that it shows just how you would, realistically, go about solving the worlds' problems. There's no scene where some superpowered being claps his magic hands and energy comes out and suddenly cancer is cured. It actually shows the real-life difficulties of what you'd actually have to do if you said "hey, we're gonna confiscate every handgun in America."

I also like that, essentially, it boils down to a Batman Vs. Superman type conflict (I'm a sucker for the ol' Batman/Superman throwdown concept... I love Batman, and I read The Dark Knight Returns at a VERY early age, and when I saw the panel where Batman drops Superman to the pavement like a bag of shit, I was blown away... it's still one of my all-time favorite comic book images,, I hate Superman). The leader of the faux J.L.A. is basically a faux Superman named Hyperion. And the only member of the Squadron Supreme who decides to quit the Squad rather than go along with their plan, the only member who feels that this is wrong, and that human rights are more important than peace, is Nitehawk (a thinly veiled Batman archetype), who goes off on his own and decides to combat the Squad. It's interesting to note, I think, that the only superpowered beings he can then find to side with him, tend to be his own former enemies, now on the side of democracy in what is essentially a sociopolitical and philosophical conflict, and antiheroes. So you have Hyperion and his big gang of superpowered powerhouses, and you have Nitehawk and his little gaggle of misfits and outcasts, and it eventually comes down to a very brutal, very violent, very dark final battle scene between these two rival militias.

Like I said, it's a very good work, and very, very subtle. And I think it is actually better than Watchmen, not just because it came first, but because I just think it's plain ol' better. Though I'm sure there are many who'd disagree.

And if you ever wanna hear about any of my movie ideas that I'm always workin' on, just let me know. I'd be happy to share.

Phantom of Pulp said...

Bearded Weirdo -- I'm right with you on the DAWN remake. First seven minutes are good, then it's just generic crap.

I want to cut the legs off running zombies. Should we blame RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD for that.

I like the slow zombies because they're adhering to a certain logic. They're rotting. Their muscles have atrophied. Walking is hard for them. It also gives them a more tragic aspect.

thebonebreaker said...

Wings & Rev,

Just remember that the writing is what makes these films work the most - the films are well shot & directed, it's just the stories that place them at a higher rating.

Johnny, these films are short enough to have a marathon - no problem. Interestingly enough, the silent film [Defenceless] is the longest of the bunch.

Phantom, I really, truly did enjoy your films. As for Defenceless, I commend you for doing the film differently and I absolutely loved the whole "reborn" concept of Elizabeth!

Also, in due time, I will check out your erotic thrillers [Netflix does not currently have them, and I have not yet checked Best Buy]

As for the love 'em or hate 'em - I think that those who read this blog will get your films :-)

Thanks for the comment and the tidbit on Marauders!

William, William, William :-)
I will definitely be on the look-out for Squadron Supreme, as it sounds excellent! Thank you for telling me all about it!

William & Phantom, I too prefer slow zombies [for the exact same reason that you stated Phantom!] however I still enjoyed the Dawn re-make. . .

Thanks for reading gentlemen!


Bearded Weirdo Reviews said...

To Phantom: My reasoning behind the slow zombies is less logical (although I do come down heavily on the side of logic in movies where they're trying to portray zombies as a real-life threat, like in both versions of Dawn Of The Dead... Return Of The Living Dead is played for yuks and is never treated as anything but mere lighthearted fantasy, and so I don't hold the fast zombie revolution against it... it's a good movie, in my opinion) and more a matter of taste. I do agree they have more tragic feel when they're slow, which I think is important. The image of a soulless, damned dead thing I think is far more terrifying than just a reanimated corpse by itself. For the record, getting back (briefly) to the subject of reality, I suppose I wouldn't mind fast zombies when they're zombies who have recently returned to life, because they'd be less effected by rot and deterioration. Still, you couldn't/shouldn't portray them with the jaguar-like speed that the recent crops of zombies are displaying, considering that, even sans rot, you have to take into consideration rigor mortis, which is pretty much an instantaneous side effect of death. Not to mention you'd have to take into account that, hey, these things are dead. And whatever killed them, in just about every single case of zombie-ism and just about every damn zombie movie ever made, effects the brain and turns them into irrational, unthinking, drones with a desire to one thing and one thing only. Eat. Preferably you. Preferably while you're still screaming. So if your brain is that fucked up (excuse my fuckin' bluntness, goddammit, and watch my motherfucking cocksucking sonofabitching language), then it probably won't run all that well, and your motor skills will probably be at least a little delayed n' rusty, even right after death. So, though I'll accept less-than-slow zombies if they're fresh out o' the bag, I refuse to accept these fast zombies that run like The Flash, fresh, old, or otherwise.
Now getting back to my preference for slow zombies as a matter of taste, whenever I hear someone say "oh man, fast zombies are so much scarier," I just roll my eyes. I think "geez, this person does NOT get it at ALL!" I understand the argument that a fast zombie is scarier than a slow one because they can chase you down and keep up with you and yada yada yada. So can a fast ANYTHING. The horror genre has a long history of killers n' creatures who are more than capable of moving at all kinds of speeds, including fast. What makes zombies unique, among the subtext they represent, IS their slowness. When you have a fast zombie, what makes that zombie any different than a fast-moving werewolf? Or a vampiric alien? Or a toxic waste mutant? Or a feral maniac? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Fast is good for cheap shocks, but for REAL fear, for REAL dread and terror and existential horror, slow is the way to go. That's why so many of the classic slasher walked everywhere instead of running. Because slower... is scarier.
The thing about zombies isn't that they're gonna get you 'cause they're so fast. I hear a lot of people talking about how zombies aren't scary at all because they're so slow and so weak you could easily outrun them or even kill them. These people simply do not "get it." You can't outrun zombies, because you can't outrun death. Zombies ARE death. Sure, zombies are slow and weak, but that's not the point. The point is... they... are... EVERYWHERE! Okay, outrun that one zombie. Good for you. Shoot those other zombies in the head. Overpower 'em. Club in their faces with your baseball bat. You know what? Bullets run out. Zombies don't. You strength and stamina will run out. Zombies will always be there. You have to sleep. Zombies don't. And if you outrun one zombie, or two zombies, or ten zombies, or twenty, or a hundred... guess what. There's still 8 billion zombies out there, and they're all closing in on you, and they all want a bite.
That's what so scary about zombies. The inevitability of your demise. Like I said, zombies ARE death. Just like you can't escape death, you can't escape zombies. You will die. That's it. There's no question about it. At the end of the original Dawn Of The Dead, when those two people get away, you're happy because, woo-hoo, the good guys one. But y'know what... they probably didn't last much longer. They got lucky, lasting as long as they did.
That's why slow is so scary. If you KNOW you're going to die, if you KNOW you can't outrun or escape it, then what's worse. Having death rush at you and be done with you in the blink of an eye or two tenths of a heartbeat. Or having death take its damn time. You're stuck in that corner, and there's nowhere to run, and those zombies are in there with you, and they're all shambling towards you, reeeeeal slow. There's too many to fight, and no weapons to fight 'em off with. This is it. It's over. You're gonna die. You know what really will kill ya? The waiting. The anticipation. The way you have to watch your own mortality approach, the way you have to look into its cold, glazed, unblinking eyes, and stare at its gaunt, expressionless, emotionless, unfeeling, unchanging face. When that firt zombie reachs for you, you'll back away, but there's nowhere to go. You're just curling into a tighter ball on the floor. And they eat you alive as you pray for the ability to implode.
Fast zombies get your adrenaline pumpin' You get a rush. You cry out. It's like a cheap "boo!" in a haunted house. It's safe, over in a second. It's fun. Slow zombies... with them, there's no adrenaline. No rush, no fun and no safety. This is real dread, chilling you right down in the core of your soul, your very bone and marrow. There's no excitement. Just time. Time enough to contemplate the dirty, cracked fingernail peeling your flesh from the muscle. Time enough to reflect on those filthy, yellow, broken, jagged teeth, gouging into your throat, hot blood gushing and bubbling out of your carotid as you scream and choke on your own gore, and finger at the viscera in your lap from the hands that scooped out the center of your gut. There's just enough time to think back to every moment that brought you here, every loved one you'll never see again, and every sin that committed that, as you plead with a god, any god, even if you're atheists ('cause there's no such thing as an atheist on a falling airplane), knowing there's no way of reversing what's already in motion, and dreading the afterlife that awaits, and the horrible agony and anguish to come.
That... is fucking scary.
To quote Dennis Hopper in Land Of The Dead, "zombies, man... they creep me out."

thebonebreaker said...

Superbly stated William! ;-)

Bearded Weirdo Reviews said...

Christ, I'm one long-winded S.O.B.

By the way, I know what you mean about Andy Hallett. I just found out about today and I was like "wtf?" He seemed like such a nice guy.

Did you watch Angel?

thebonebreaker said...


hahahahahaha :-)

I did watch Angel, though I was more of a Buffy fan!

I was sorry to hear about Hallett. . .


the jaded viewer said...

Never trust anybodys review on Netflix. They have no idea what they were rating. I'm no longer a Netflix member but when I was when it first started I reviewed everything, reviewing the very obscure films.

I figured somebody had to give those movies a decent review.

But those movies sound way crazy.

thebonebreaker said...

I hear you JV!

I never base what I am going to get via Netflix on other member's opinions [this is why I read your - and others - blogs] :-)