data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/30528/30528200b3ea8026892467a289a36bb638ca6fab" alt=""
And what’s wrong with that? There’s something brilliant about one of the movie’s many credos – “enjoy the small things” – that looks at the end of the world in a surprisingly pragmatic way. Bleak, dreary visions of post-apocalyptic life abound in the zombie genre, going from not only common, to expected. Zombieland looks at the end of the world as a very bad thing that there’s no reason to get all that depressed over, yes it sucks, but why not make the best of it? Why not destroy a tawdry tourist trap, or paint a rallying tribute to Dale Earnhardt on your newly stolen car? It’s already as bad as it can possibly get – let’s go have a Twinkie, or watch Ghostbusters.
Oh, and speaking of which. Best. Cameo. Ever.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/faf02/faf02aea1c2f15291652ba4ea6281ba84441ee29" alt=""
“A wee puppet man.”
Though both the cult hits Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel relied heavily on camp [and there is a lot of that here, too], “Smile Time” has a plenty of disturbing touches, from the rictus grins left on the affected children’s faces, to how the demon puppets control their Jim Henson-esque creator in truly ironic fashion. Plus, as a kid who grew up on Sesame Street, Fraggle Rock, and the Muppets, there was just something overall disturbing about the concept that really… bugged me, and kept me slightly unsettled even during the funny bits. Maybe it’s not strictly horror, but if Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, and Freddy vs. Jason deserve praise, then “Smile Time” at least deserves a bit of attention.
But for the doubters, it doesn’t hurt to praise this particular episode’s pedigree – Ben Edlund, creator of “The Tick,” wrote and directed “Smile Time,” Whedon himself was the son of Muppet’s writer Tom Whedon, and numerous Jim Henson Company puppeteers joined the cast to bring puppet Angel to life. With the comedy, a few scares, and a couple of gross out moments, “Smile Time” showed just how good Angel could be, a real shame because just days before the episode aired, the series found itself cancelled.
Thanks, WB.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77443/77443c76ca0c30e4a7c958749b8be7226ae08efb" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5d4a/d5d4a906af62aaba3e7b4a7fdd1615549634ebec" alt=""
The first, Land of the Dead, was an excellent movie, and a proper continuation of the Romero zombie saga that started with “Night of…,” was followed by “Dawn of…,” and then finished [at the time] by “Day of…” There’s everything in this you expect from a George Romero movie – lots of scares, the obligatory gross-out feeding scene [I love those, I’ll admit], and healthy, artful social commentary, this time focusing on the haves and the have nots, and the great divide between the rich and the poor, which not surprisingly we humans have carried over into our post-Apocalyptic society. It garnered a lot of attention, grossed a higher box-office than any of Romero’s other films, and garnered overwhelmingly positive reviews. And all the modern day horror aficionados and autors came out in spades to celebrate it – from Roth, to Wright, to Del Toro.
Where the movie falls short is its standing as a sequel – it just isn’t as accessible as the other zombie films that came out in the past ten years, which keeps it from quite having the pop movies like the Dawn of the Dead remake and 28 Days Later had. It feels a bit dated, and in all fairness, it is, as there isn’t much in the movie Romero didn’t already cover in his time working on Creepshow or “Tales from the Darkside.” It’s a great movie, but its history, regrettably, drags it down, making it feel a little like Romero is constantly referencing his own work.
Diary of Dead meanwhile, has the opposite problem. Romero starts his mythos over from scratch, and attempts to view his zombie apocalypse as a POV-style docudrama, which sounds absolutely genius, but doesn’t quite come off as well as a film like [REC] did. There are still some great scares, and a lot of good laughs [and arguably some of the best characters Romero has written to date], but it doesn’t feel quite like the “A” game you’d expect from someone who more or less invented the genre.
The biggest problem is a split of focus – Romero’s work always shines brightest when he’s got a message he’s after, and at first glance Diary of the Dead seems like a sharp look, if not a criticism, at how interconnected our world has come to be. It certainly is interesting to think about how something like zombie outbreak would be viewed in a time where nearly everyone has some sort of camera at hand, and the internet allows for fast dispersal of any and all information, and in theory this should all play well with the ever pervasive question not just in Romero zombie movies, but all films in the genre – how good or bad regular people can be. But while trying to get at this, there’s also something about “Diary of…” that seems like a filmmaker’s movie, like Romero’s attempting a commentary about how far removed the man behind the camera can become, and when trying to get at so much, the end result just isn’t as grand as it ought to be.
Still, zombie movies ruled the last decade of horror, and the father of the genre deserves his due. And George Romero’s clearly back in the game.
And anyway, I thought they were both awesome.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9bfc8/9bfc89f3c529c2423761d949b3762d3d5a39d0fb" alt=""
My only complaint, and the one I hear a lot from other reviews of Splinter is that the ending falls a little flat. By the time we reach the end of the movie, a big reveal of the creature feels necessary, but we don’t really get that, we’re not rewarded with enough proper face time with the creature – which, for budgetary or special effects reasons might be good idea from the filmmakers standpoint [think Jaws], but it just isn’t quite as satisfying as we’d like it to be.
Still, a great horror film, and it deserves mention just so more people will seek it out, and see it.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/74763/747638e2fe0a01f54e801b1ac9965cbc2acc8bc1" alt="".jpg)
The Doctor is mostly absent from this episode, with the focus on one-off character Sally Sparrow [played by the beautiful and talented Carey Mulligan] and getting into the particulars of the plot would take a lot of explanation of time travel rules in “Doctor Who” that I just don’t have the time [puns!] to get into here. But what’s truly scary about the episode are the alien baddies known as “The Weeping Angels.” Essentially creatures that only exist when no one is looking at them, these monsters take the form of stone angel statues, which hide their eyes even from each other. Keep your eyes on them, and you’re fine, they stay frozen in stone – but that’s easier said than done since there are four of these things and you only have two eyes.
Just how scary this can be is near impossible to describe without actually seeing the episode, but to give you some idea, just remember you can’t run backwards, which means occasionally you have to turn around and see this.
Right on your heels. Sweet Jesus, forget Daleks. That’ll keep me behind my couch – with my back to the wall.
"Whatever you do, whatever you do no matter what – don’t blink."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d01a7/d01a79598f3760020c138b7332efffa0cf0c79fd" alt=""
That’s the bulk of my honorable mentions. Expect my full list after the last guest blog is posted. We’ve had quite the turnout, so happily there are still a couple to go.
0 comments :: Sunday Special: Randall's Honorable Mentions
Post a Comment