Masters of Horror is back and (apparently) better than ever!

Unless you've been living in a horror-cave, you know about Showtime's "Masters of Horror" series. One of the only, yet undoubtedly the best, horror shows on television today, "Masters of Horror" features a different one-hour horror film for each episode. The real kick comes from the directors that make the films. Masters of Horror draws in the biggest names in the horror industry – names like Don Coscarelli, Dario Argento, John Landis, John Carpenter, Stuart Gordon and Takashi Miike. Most of these directors are returning for a second film for season two. The second season kicked off with Tobe Hooper's "The Damned Thing."

Tobe Hooper. His name is nearly synonymous with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and his second "Masters of Horror" entry strongly deviates from that flick and his other previous works. Although, it does incorporate several things that Tobe Hooper does extremely well: the small, rural town; close-ups of running through fields; and brutal, graphic violence and gore. "The Damned Thing" stars Sean Patrick Flannery of Boondock Saints fame, and features other well-known faces like Marisa Coughlan (Super Troopers) and Ted Raimi.

The story revolves around Kevin Reddle (Sean Patrick Flannery), whose early family history is documented in the opening of the film. After a one-might-say traumatic childhood, Reddle becomes sheriff of the nearly crimeless town, and just happens to be a little obsessed with personal home security. The plot unravels with a number of twists and developments that slowly start to explain what's going on. Saying too much would ruin the story, but it's safe to say that a violent, evil force is on the verge of sweeping through the town and bringing murder, suicide and general violence along with it. In the end, "The Damned Thing" still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it keeps you in the dark for so long that semi-explanation feels satisfactory. Really though, the plot becomes secondary to Hooper's stylistic horror filmmaking.

As I said before, Hooper stays cinematically close to what he knows best. The direction is quite suspenseful and alternates between feelings of claustrophobia and isolation. Then there is the gore; oh, the gore. "The Damned Thing" features some truly jaw-dropping (and pretty disturbing) gore-effects. If you’ve been wanting to know what someone beating his own face in with a hammer looks like, you're going to find out in complete bloody splendor, and it sure as hell doesn't end there.

Also, unlike some of last season's films, "The Damned Thing" features some superb acting. Sean Patrick Flannery and the rest of the cast do a great job at trying to get a handle on the hell that is breaking loose in their town, even if there are the occasional poorly written B-movie lines. Tobe Hooper's "The Damned Thing" is a pretty good start to the second season of "Masters of Horror." It's nowhere near as good as some of the entries from last year, but it's much better than the worst from season one. All in all, "The Damned Thing" features some of the best acting and gore yet in "Masters of Horror." With this, Tobe Hooper has given us another piece of decisively "American" horror, which is becoming harder and harder to find these days. Hopefully, "The Damned Thing" is indicative of the good things to come in the next 12 episodes of this season.

An entertaining bloodbath that's just in time for Halloween!

Feast (right), the latest from "Project Greenlight”, is one of the best tongue-in-cheek horror films in recent years. In case you don't know, "Project Greenlight" is a show where amateur directors and screenwriters enter a contest in which the winners get to make their film with a major studio. The entire production becomes a reality TV show, showing the struggles of making a motion picture for the first time.

Moving back to Feast, John Gulager, the director, was pretty much made to look incompetent on "Project Greenlight," but delivers on all fronts in what is essentially his directorial debut. Feast is fast-paced, gore-filled and definitely self-aware which are almost all prerequisites for a horror film these days, but Feast is what Slither hoped to be - a ridiculously fun romp that manages to get even more laughs than scares.

Feast opens in a remote desert bar where a group of misfits drink away their dissatisfaction with the world. Their typical evening is ruined when a blood-covered man busts through the front doors with some monster's decapitated skull in hand, announcing that more hungry creatures were on the way. The disbelief and skepticism quickly leaves the room when they are brutally assaulted, leaving half the cast in a state of dismemberment. The survivors (in the usual horror cliché) must band together to fight the beasts and live through the night.

What sounds like a tired horror plot, essentially is. Don't come into Feast expecting a revolutionary film that advances the genre – it's definitely not that. Feast is just an old-fashioned, bloody good time.

The characters aren't all that original either, but that doesn't make them any less entertaining. There isn't anyone that stands out as the "main character", and I don't really want to talk about any of the characters because it'll spoil most of the surprises. Half the fun in the movie is trying to figure out who's going to survive the next scene and who's going to “get it” next. I will say, however, that the characters actually avoid the usual stupid things that people do in horror movies and actually react, in many ways, like real people would. For instance, there is a girl who, toward the end of the film, makes one of the smartest moves ever seen in a horror film. Trust me; you'll know it when you see it.

The introduction to the characters, however, is phenomenally funny. Every time a new person is shown, the frame freezes and the person's "name" pops up on screen, along with a "fun fact" and his or her "life expectancy". The names are all nicknames like Bozo, Harley Mom, Beer Guy and Hero, and the "fun fact" and "life expectancy" are hilarious. Plus, Jason Mewes (Jay from Kevin Smith's Jersey films) plays himself, which sounds as funny as it is.

The monsters present a little more of a logical problem for the film, but the best strategy is to leave your thinking cap in the other room during this one. The creatures maul, kill and eat their victims in some extraordinary ways, and that's not even factoring in the psychological damage of seeing the beasts go at it. That's right; this movie has monster "lovemaking". That's pretty much the tone of the movie: if it's gross, disgusting and funny in a somewhat juvenile way, Feast has it – and I don't mean that in a bad way.

Overall, Feast is a blast. It's not very smart and it's not very original, but don't let that steer you away from it. Basically, if you enjoy the opera and reading Shakespeare for fun, then Feast might not be your cup 'o tea. But if you like rocking out with your buddies and a case of High Life, then grab your friends, bring the beer and pop in Feast.

Check out the trailer and see if Feast would be something you'd like.

Where do zombies come from?

Note: For the sake of time, I will not be including references or footnotes for this essay, but some basic research will confirm the information included here. Elements borrow from a variety of films and also from Max Brooks’ Zombie Survival Guide. This will not be a comprehensive listing of every type of zombie ever featured in film, nor will it be a thorough listing of all the sources of influence for the living dead in film. Instead, this will serve a basic introduction to the roots and changes of the zombie throughout film history. With that said, enjoy.
Zombies. The word brings to mind an instant image of a decaying corpse trudging across a field towards you, arms outstretched and mouth open. To be honest, this might be the closest to the truth, but before jumping to a conclusion, let’s investigate the origin of zombie mythology and the different versions of zombies that have been presented over the years.

First, it is my understanding that the zombie myth originates from voodoo culture, which is prevalent in Caribbean nations like Haiti. Voodoo “witchdoctors” believed in the power to bring back the deceased as a member of the “living dead” as a means of cursing someone. Voodoo zombies are not, however, members of the living dead, but simply poor, unfortunately people who are drugged by some sort of toxin and possibly a hallucinogen. The drugs initially simulate death, hence the belief that the person has died. The subject eventually “comes back to life” as a zombie. It is unsure how the mannerisms of a zombie into the legends, however it is likely that a person awakening from being poisoned by these drugs might have brain damage from the lack of oxygen during the paralysis. The brain damage might result in an inability to speak and reduced motor skills, which would account for the slow-moving zombie often seen in movies. There is no explanation on where the flesh-eating element of the zombie mythology would arise from this. Voodoo zombies would not have the “special abilities” seen in stereotypical cinematic zombies such as being able to survive any amount of physical trauma as long as the brain is left intact.

Now that we have established a likely origin for the zombie we know and love today, how have zombies in film changed over the decades.

While not exactly the first zombie movie, George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is considered to be the birth of the zombie that most of society knows and is arguably the best zombie film to date. After NOTLD, Romero made three sequels to the film: Dawn of the Dead (1978, not the 2004 remake), Day of the Dead and, most recently, Land of the Dead. All of Romero’s Dead series feature the same “classification” of zombie, although, Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead do deviate (or progress, depending on your personal opinion) from his previous rules in some regards, but more on that later.

The Romero zombie invented what we think of today when someone says the word “zombie.” His zombies are slow, dumb and hungry for human flesh. A Romero zombie can only die from destruction of the brain; any other damage to the limbs or torso has no effect. The other unique element of Romero’s zombies is that anyone who dies or is already dead with their brain intact will rise from the grave as a member of the living dead. In this respect, a zombie bite does not necessarily transmit anything that turns you into a zombie, but simply kills you. After death, you become a zombie, not necessarily because of the bite.

Romero’s explanation for the zombie epidemic differs slightly from NOTLD to the sequels. In NOTLD, a radio announcer provides a possible reason for the dead rising from their graves as zombies when he says the reanimation may have been caused by radiation from the Venus space probe exploding in the Earth’s atmosphere. While not exactly contradicting this explanation, Dawn of the Dead presents the immortal words that will remain in most zombie fans’ minds as the best explanation for the living dead: “When there is no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the earth.” Personally, the religious/philosophical reason for the zombie apocalypse has a much greater impact than the scientific rational, which is more or else undermined (albeit without mentioning) by the work of “Dr. Frankenstein” in Day of the Dead.

As mentioned, Romero “evolves” his zombies in Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead, although it could be seen as a simple progression from the themes he began in Dawn of the Dead, where undead zombies return to the shopping mall because of memories they had from their previous lives. In Day of the Dead, a scientist is able to “train” a zombie named “Bub” to respond to music, follow basic instructions and even use tools. This progression continues in the latest entry, Land of the Dead, where the zombies consciously communicate with one another, adapt to use basic tools and weapons and work together to launch a full-scale attack on a human metropolis.

This evolving from an autonomic flesh-eating monster to something capable of a degree of intelligent thought coupled with memories of the past human life can be seen as a necessary progression in the series or a deviation from a basic set of rules Romero had already set for himself. No matter what your view is on Romero’s changes, the evolution of the zombie is unique to his series.

Modern zombie films have reinvented the definition of a zombie in many ways. In many ways, 28 Days Later rejuvenated the zombie genre in 2002. Before then, zombie films were few and far between, but include such classics as Peter Jackson’s horror-comedy Braindead (also known as Dead Alive) and Tom Savini’s remake of Night of the Living Dead. Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later threw a relatively new wrench in the zombie formula; what if zombies could run as fast as a human at full sprint and victims turned over almost immediately after a bite. The result was a terrifying movie about monsters that had many similarities to zombies, but many differences. Besides their physical superiority to Romero’s zombies, Boyle provides a rational, scientific explanation for the outbreak: a genetically-engineered virus called “Rage.”

Boyle’s quick zombies were carried over in Zack Snyder’s 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead. Besides that change, Snyder made an intentionally noticeable change to Romero’s “rules,” only people that are bitten in change over in Snyder’s version.

This basic rundown presents some of the cinematic origins, changes and differences in the types of zombies that have graced the silver screen. As previously mentioned, there is no way to cover every zombie ever put to screen or pen. If you are interested in investigating other zombie stories or types not already mentioned, check out the following:
-Re-animator movies
-Fulci’s Zombi series
-Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead series
-Resident Evil films and games
-The Walking Dead graphic novels
-Max Brooks’ books Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z
-Shaun of the Dead

It's the end of the world as we know it... so now what do I do?

There is way too much to try and slam in this posting, so I'll try to brief on some aspects. The full theatrical trailer for 300 is online; check it out. Next, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning opens tomorrow, so I'll have a review up as soon as possible. Similarly, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2-Disc Ultimate Edition DVD hit stores this week. Like the theatrical prequel, I'll be working on getting a review of that new DVD set up quickly as I have personally never seen the original TCM before. I know, I know, but don't worry, I am ashamed.

On one last TCM note, IGN has a great article about the history of Ed Gein, the inspiration for Leatherface and several other horror movie icons including some current pictures of where the Gein farm used to be and Ed's cemetary plot.

Moving on, I have some great books to tell you about. Return your jaws to the previous position, yes, I did say books. Apparently, hell has frozen over, because I have just finished reading not one, but two books for fun. Both books are by Max Brooks (the son of legendary filmmaker and comedian Mel Brooks) and feature zombie in the title, so it is relevant for this blog.

Brooks' first book, The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead, is a classic parody of the survival guides that have become popular in the last several years. The cover, its size and paper type all mimic the survival guides perfectly. But that's just the beginning of the joke, inside is full of 272 pages of complete straight-faced, deadpan zombie comedy. The Zombie Survival Guide is broken up into sections, which include weapons, travel, defense, attacking, permanent relocation and accounts of "actual" zombie attacks throughout history. Not once does Brooks break the serious tone, he actually makes you want planning for the zombie apocalypse! Well, maybe not quite, but he does include tons of great information about surviving in a chaotic world and makes the reader question how prepared he really is if the worst was really to happen. But, personally, I'm sticking to my guns. My girlfriend tells me that zombies aren't real; that there will never be a zombie outbreak. You know what I ask her: Did anyone think man would go to the moon? Did anyone think that a mysterious disease called AIDS would come from Africa and become a fairly serious epidemic? Did anyone think that primates could be taught sign-language? The answers are no, no and no. I'm sticking to my guns and using Brooks' Zombie Survival Guide as a starter to my zombie scenario plans.

Brooks' more recent book has received quite a bit more hype than his first and the movie rights were fought over and purchased before it even hit shelves. (Brad Pitt's production company won the rights, by the way.) World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War has much of the same serious tone as Brooks' guide without as much of the humor. From the jacket to the introduction to the final chapter, Brooks never breaks out of the future world of his story. The introduction explains to the reader that the author is writing an oral history of World War Z to show the human element of what happened during the war and its effect on people. To set the universe a bit better, the entire world is overrun by zombies, humanity survives and after the war, the author is commisioned to do a report for the U.N. about what happened around the world. The U.N. makes him remove all the human aspects from their report, so he publishes a book. The books is broken up into sections, some long and some short, that are essentially interviews with people around the globe telling about their experience during the Zombie War. Some stories represent major events in the war (the first outbreak, Israel's quarantine, rebuilding government and the turning point in the war), while others are some moments with individuals sharing small events that happened to them personally. Brooks does an incredible job intertwining these two types of stories within the book to give the reader an idea of what was happening on a global scale as well as what it was like for the individuals caught in a world being overrun by the living dead.

In short, I loved World War Z. Yes, it's about zombies, but at the same time, it's not really horror. This is a story, or rather a collection of stories, that tell about humanity dealing with extraordinary situations and finding the will to survive even when almost all hope is lost. If you aren't squeamish and can stand some pretty gruesome scenes, this book will not disappoint.

Lastly, Halloween is rapidly approaching and I'm going to start putting up some recommended movies for the week to start getting into that scary spirit. For this week, I am going to go with Rob Zombie's brilliant two part horror series, House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. House is basically a TCM knock-off, but it's so much fun and done so well that it's definitely worth watching. Rejects isn't exactly a horror flick although it is chockful of sadistic violence and gore, so, again, definitely worth a watch.

Thanks for checking in!

The hits just keep coming... literally.

Back in June, the not-so-acclaimed director of the films Alone in the Dark, Bloodrayne and House of the Dead, Uwe Boll, issued a challenge to all the critics of his films: put your fist where your mouth is. No joke. He seriously challenged those who professionally or semi-professionally write about how bad his movies are to fight him in a boxing match. Wow, Uwe, you are too cool for school. Oh yeah, don't forget to tell them that you have some actual boxing experience, Uwe, because only pansies bring a knife to a knife fight. Four critics took the challenge, and one by one they were dropped to the canvas; thus proving that even the biggest hacks in Hollywood can have heavy hands. Don't believe me, check out the video for yourself.

Maybe you haven't seen any of Boll's movies so you're wondering why you should hate him so much. Well folks, again, I have the answer. Check out the following video that features audio clips from the man himself during the audio commentary for Alone in the Dark. Just stick with it, the last 30 seconds are probably the best.

I know what you're thinking right now, and yes, I would box Uwe Boll, but only if they let me bring one of those giant Q-tips from "American Gladiators."

Check back for more horror stuff later this week!

There can only be one?

George A. Romero ought be a bitter, bitter guy. His Night of the Living Dead spawned two of his own sequels (masterpieces in their own right) and a league of parodies (Shaun of the Dead), rip-offs (Return of the Living Dead), video game spin-offs (Dead Rising) and a direct remake (Tom Savini's 1991 Night of the Living Dead); but this is something completely "new."

Night of the Living Dead 3D will open on 1500 screens (including Phoenix!) on Nov. 10, 2006. As the film's site notes, "This is a new motion pictures filmed in 3D that is a reimagining of the 1968 public domain pictures Night of the Living Dead, George A. Romero is not affiliated in any way with this film." Well then, I guess it's fine by me. I mean, it is public domain, right? Anyways, the new film is directed by Jeff Broadstreet (of no particular fame) yet stars B-film veteran Sid Haig (House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects), which is promising. The trailer for NOTD3D shows a healthy amount of humor and references to the original film, especially the text message "COMING 4 U BARB." It may not be as sly (or fun) as Shaun of the Dead, but I'll definitely be catching a late night three-dimensional screening of this Romero replica.

In other not-quite-horror-but-still-gory news, iFilm has released the 300 promotional trailer online. 300 is based on a Frank Miller and Lynn Varley graphic novel and chronicles the semi-historic/semi-mythological battle at the Hot Gates of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans defeated an army of more than 100,000 invading Persians. Directed by Zack Snyder, who directed the remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300 looks like it might be the Sin City for 2007 - chockful of manly-man things like swords, hot women, blood aplenty and giant CGI battle scenes. Check out the trailer and let me what you think.

Edit: I'm embedding the trailer for everyone to save you a click.
Edit2: ifilm took down the video. I'm working to find another source to embed. Thanks.

One last thing here, Feast hits theaters tomorrow, but from what I can tell, nowhere locally is playing it (and because I'm not syndicated and famous, I don't get invited to screenings around the world). I'll keep my eyes out for a Phoenix release and get a personal review up as soon as it's possible. If you know something I don't about where to go see Feast in Phoenix, please let me know. Thanks!

"Masters of Horror" gets a big thumbs up!

I finally convinced the girlfriend to rent them. They've been sitting on that shelf at Blockbuster taunting me for months. I wasn't able to talk her into ordering Showtime for the original screening, how could I get her to rent them now? Well, it finally happened -we left without She's the Man and with the first disc from the Showtime "Masters of Horror" series.

"Masters of Horror" is a Showtime series where legendary horror filmmakers are able to direct and produce a one-hour horror story. This particular disc featured episodes from Stuart Gordon (Re-Animator) and John Carpenter (The Thing, Halloween). The result is premium cable magic!

Gordon's "Dreams in the Witch House" is based on a (if you know Gordon you would have guessed it) H.P. Lovecraft story. The simple plot revolves a graduate physics student renting a dingy room in ancient house so he can get some piece and quiet. Long story short, the student begins to have these visions of crazy things which include great creepy moments like a rat with a human face. The visions become more and more real as more of the house's legacy is revealed, and the audience is left constantly guessing at what is real and what is madness. The story, while simple, contains some great tension and "freak-out moments," not to mention more than a couple pints of blood. Be warned, it is slightly cheesy at times, but as a whole, definitely worth the watch.

Carpenter's "Cigarette Burns" is much more psychological than what you would expect from the guy who brought you the mindless slasher film Halloween and the gore-fest The Thing. "Cigarette Burns" involves a young man dealing with his inner demons while searcing for someone else's. Kirby (played by Norman Reedus of Boondock Saints) is a young cinema owner with a dark past who is sent on a quest to find the only copy of a film only screened once. The film is impossible to find because, get this, it alleged drove the audience of its only screening to a homicidal frenzy. What sounds like a dumber version of the The Ring (if such a thing is possible... oh yeah, The Grudge), turns out to be a relatively complex look into faith, redemption, greed, art, voyeurism and God. If you think it sounds a bit heavy and complex for a one-hour horror film you're right, and if it was done by anyone but the masterful John Carpenter, it would have been a disaster. As it stands, this short piece is one of the most original, bizarre and gory horror films I've seen in a long time and a must see for all fans of the genre.

In other news, two great reviews of Pan's Labyrinth are up on IGN and Ain't It Cool News. If you missed it, the trailer to this exciting dark fantasy tale is linked to in the previous post.