Movie Review: 28 Weeks Tenser...

Okay, so this wasn't tenser than the original, but I would deem it a worthy sequel to 28 Days Later. While the script certainly has it's share of holes - you can find those listed on other Web sites - there was only one issue that I would deem a glaring error, otherwise the group involved in bringing this sequel to life did an admirable job explaining how the virus returns almost seven months after the initial infection.

A few brief complaints - the character development in this was weaker than in 28 D'sL, but not a significant issue. There were one or two important plot points that were not well thought out (particularly in regards to certain military actions that seemed a bit far-fetched) and do require greater suspension of disbelief, but on a whole, this does what a good horror film should do - it gets the adrenaline pumping.

On the plus side, the movie largely follows two children through the re-birth of infection and the actors playing the two children were both very watchable. Fortunately, the director and writers also managed to stay away from using the children as an obvious crutch to garner the audience's sympathy.

28 Hours later...

Just a quick reminder to you zombie-philes, tomorrow marks the release of 28 Weeks Later, the sequel to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later (not to be confused with 28 Days). Early returns are looking good, but you might want to avoid the reviews if you don't want to have to deal with any spoilers (always a pet peeve of mine in regards to movie reviews).

For those of you who are fans of zombie flicks (and yes, I know that technically 28 Days Later was not technically a zombie film, but it's as close a classification as you can get), rent the film tonight and watch it. This is what paved the way for the recent remake of Dawn of the Dead.

I have to admit, though, given the 28DsL's ending, I really had trouble figuring out how they were going to come up with a sequel, but it's sounding like the brain trust behind this was successful.

For those of you already on board with this - enjoy. Check the papers and the Internet tomorrow for local showings.

Welcome to my nightmare....

Grindhouse effective homage appeals to limited tastes

I am, admittedly, a big fan of horror films. I have a thing for zombie and vampire films in particular, but have never been a big fan of the films like Saw, The Last House on the Left, and Hostel. I understand the point of the whole man-doing-horrible-things-to-man horror thing, but never saw the need for it...it's why I have the world news. That's not to say I won't watch them, I just don't see them as being on par with the greats of the genre - The Shining, Alien, The Exorcist, Psycho...(yes, I am a film snob).

I like the films that build up tension to a proper scare, prefer them to the ones that rely on the shock value of blood and guts to evoke a feeling of horror and revulsion - it strikes me as a lazy way of crafting a horror film. In recent years I have been impressed by the remake of Dawn of the Dead, and films like The Ring, and 28 Days Later.

This was something different though from all of the above (though it certainly had elements of much of the above), and it piqued my curiosity.

The joint production of Grindhouse, the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez double feature that pays homage to the low-budget B-horror films of the 1970's was a mixed bag. Tarantino and Rodriguez were hell-bent on re-creating the 1970's drive-in experience by emulating the low-budget horror films, complete with trailers of non-existent films (although Rodriguez has decided to create one of the films), that populated those road-side theaters.

The films are what they are - Rodriguez has created a pseudo-zombie film which goes a bit more over the top at times than it needed to, but overall Planet Terror is an entertaining piece of film-making. Tarantino, on the other hand, has given us a snoozefest in Death Proof where the most likable character is Kurt Russell's homicidal maniac.

Like the same films of the 70's, little is truly scary. Planet Terror does provide some tension as well as a few laughs, as do the previews for Machete, and Werewolf Women of the SS. Death Proof offers a lot of dialog that is intended to allow the viewer to bond with the film's victims but only succeeds in making the viewer wonder how long it's going to take for the women to die.

Death Proof regularly improves when Kurt Russell is on the screen (when's the last time you heard that about a Kurt Russell movie?), and devolves into a borefest when he's off of it.

While they did an effective job of creating the experience, complete with "lost reels," footage that "melts in the heat of the projector," and scratches on the film, they have also created films that have an inherent flaw.

With a large cast that includes Bruce Willis, Kurt Russell, Rose MaGowan, and Rosario Dawson, Grindhouse lists a $50 million production budget (not including marketing). This is fairly steep for a sub-genre where a movie that does well makes between $20 million and $40 million. In spite of a history of that, producer Harvey Weinstein still expected (on the basis of the names involved, I assume) to see a first weekend return in the mid 20's rather than the $12 million Easter weekend opening realized by the movie.

Yes, I did enjoy the first of the two films - but I think the appeal here is limited and I'm surprised that a movie exec like Weinstein hasn't figured that out.