Cockneys Vs. Zombies (2013) Review

AKA a very stupid, yet perversely enjoyable celebration of zombies and Britishness. Although it is basically a shitter version of ‘Shaun of the Dead’.
2.5/5 screams.

SPOILERS AND MATURE CONTENT AHEAD:

Here we are, the last horror comedy I’ll be reviewing for, hopefully, a while. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve enjoyed changing the sort of horrors that I instinctively punt for; but I have predominantly been reminded about why I never had much time for this sub-genre. In my experience, they seem to try to hard yet somehow, paradoxically, be underdeveloped and steer more towards yawn-fests than straight up, shaken not stirred, horrors or comedies.

But that’s by the by. This Matthias Hoene, boisterous zombie flick basically does what it says on the tin and never seems to extend any higher than the material used in the trailer. The laughs certainly don’t seem to surpass then scene involving Richard Briars’ character – oh, how the mighty have fallen – utilising only a slow moving zimmerframe to evade the bloodthirsty undead. Granted, this scene was comedy gold but lost all the magic and spontaneity necessary for such a sketch to really hit the high notes because it was such a focal hook in the trailer. That, an aged Pussy Galore and a spirited Michelle Ryan are the main titbits that grab you from the trailer. That may be one of the best sentences that has ever left my noggin’. Also, Pussy Galore in a zombie movie? Is this something I, unknowingly, desperately needed in my life?

A few tangents later, we’ll get into some tangible points that I actually made notes on. Eventually. I was, ignoring my better instincts, quite excited about this film (I know I say that a lot, for a cynic). Despite the fact that it has been staring at me from the abyss that is Netflix for several years. But I was excited for a gritty, exuberant and unflinchingly British, zombie horror that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Granted, this is exactly what I got – I suppose some points should be handed to it for living up to expectations. The sad thing is that it could have been so much more if it hadn’t been lazy about it, It could easily have ranked up there with ‘Zombieland’ and ‘Shaun of the Dead’. yet it does fall short, primarily because, well, it’s not that funny.

She is pretty badass, you have to admit.

The premise is simple. A group of Cockney runarounds attempt a pretty amateur bank robbery which happens to coincide with the collapse of the East End as it fills up with animated corpses. Corpses that still seem to maintain gang mentalities and football hooliganry… why not? I did appreciate that some of the zombies were little more than disintegrating skeletons. It’s a big pet peeve of mine that so many zombie blockbusters have these plump, human-looking cadavers despite the natural processes that would disrupt their physicality such as starvation, muscle deterioration, lack of blood supply etc. (Although – these are new zombies so i’m unsure how much dystrophy would actually have taken place. Frankly, if we’re going super scientific – if rigor mortis were setting in…how are they moving? And, now my head explodes). Moving swiftly on before I have an aneurysm, these sorts of zombies are less intimidating than the fleshy, quick boys and gals but there is more of a hint of realism about the decomposition which I appreciate. This decaying subgroup hark back to the sort of 80’s cult walkers like in ‘Return of the Living Dead’.

I did really enjoy the gore in this film, it was effective without being corny, overtly grotesque nor laughable. My only problem with it is that, I think, there should have been more focus on the gore. Seeing as the film itself is self-awarely pretty low budget and low quality therefore I think it could have benefited from being more visceral, more intuitive and grittier. One aspect I think that nailed the plucky and mettlesome tone is the dialogue. The writers did a bang up job making the dialogue humorously hyperbolic yet still maintain an interesting cultural integrity that I liked. Screw the idea of swish Brits with RP accents, sipping tea out of bone china cups with extended pinkies! You want to know what England is really like? This! Intense swearing, twats in backwards caps, drunken shouting in pubs that always seem to have at least one old ‘geezer’ sat at the bar, sounding like an incoherent farmer. Oh and an awful lot of ripping the living shit out of each other (pun very much intended). Really, take a few lines for example: ‘You yuppy twat’, ‘let’s fuck up some fuckers’. Welcome to London, ‘fuckers’.

I found a lot of the nuances funnier than the outright mayhem, like how rapidly and calmly they accept that it’s a friggin’ zombie apocalypse. I think it’s take me a few more minutes to adjust. One other stand out scene that was pretty entertaining is how the jaw of the zombie just locks onto the man’s arm like a decapitated pitbull. Strangely, details like this are biologically fairly realistic but then there are bits and bobs that are so far away from any sense of realism that they may as well be the love children of Tinkerbell and Freddie Kruger. For example, unless you’ve somehow slipped into a Kronenberg creature feature, it would never be possible to decapitate somebody with your bare hands.

Final notes: Moral of the story = Guns are great, kids!
also…can we just mentioned the fact that the guy drop kicks a baby. You…ugh, don’t see that everyday?

I’ll just leave this here…

Overall, I guess the easiest summary for me to put forward is that it’s a bit of fun. Don’t take it too seriously, don’t expect it to forever change you with some existential reason for being. It’s exactly what you should expect from it – it’s Cockneys and zombies. Bish bash bosh. Now, don’t you want to book your holidays to come see drizzly ole’ England? You don’t? Huh.

Little Evil (2017) Review

AKA a ‘Little’ bit boring. Evil? Really? He’s like a frigging puppy at the end. And…and…and this film got 92% on Rotten Tomatoes?…I just…what?
1.25/5 screams

SPOILERS AND MATURE CONTENT AHEAD:

I had somewhat high hopes for this movie. I remember it being released and the trailer looked promising, but it has sat in my ‘WatchList’ for over two years so, read into that what you will about the premise and the trailer. Honestly, anything was going to be better than the 9 minutes we gave ‘Scary Movie 3’ which was utterly, holy, yawnably (is that a word?) crap. Just pure crap. So anything, anything had to be better….right?

First impressions: the parallels in both the colour schemes and the dialogue are initially pretty interesting. For example; the mother shouting “Time out” and the husband latterly stating “I want a divorce”. Both of these statements have huge impact behind them, yet they’re stoic, to the point, blunt – short sentences with fists behind them. I thought this was clever. Moreover, the colour schemes were very well thought out – visually pleasing. Dark at the start, bright and cheerful afterwards. Everybody’s clothes are plain, unadulterated. There’s something eerie about that, to be honest. Maybe that’s just me. Lucas, throughout the film, is coloured darker than everyone around him. Whether it’s clothing, clouds behind him etc. This sort of breaks when he’s at the fair with the step-dad. Even his eyes seem brighter, thus by comparison the beginning looks far darker than you think.

Seeing Adam Scott being genuine and not saying something sarcastic and deadpan is strange, I keep expecting there to be a punchline but that expectation never really comes because this film, frankly, is not funny.

The shift in pacing every now and then is effectively jarring.

Quotes that did make me laugh:
~ “I just love the smell of an old nunnery”
~“God never gives you more than you can handle” ~ NO NO NO, I cannot stand this quote – Just, no, I’m sorry if you put this in your film with serious intentions I will hate it. -_-
~ The therapist is hilariously accurate: “I see…Hmm” ~ also the Newton’s cradle is very effective for building the tension.
~ “The way they’re paying teachers these days i’m not surprised”

There are little meta hints of connections to ‘The Omen’, ‘The Shining’, ‘Poltergeist’ and, I think (please correct me) ‘The DaVinci Code’. You get points if you can tell me the links between these films and ‘Little Evil’ are.
-The Omen: Lucas’ hair and clothing, the camera focuses sometimes, direct eye contact.
-The Shining: the two (blonde) twins in blue dresses, the puppet seems to be a variation on Tony
-Poltergeist: communication through the TV – darkness except from static, focus on clowns
-The DaVinci Code: The man lacerating himself with a whip ~ self-flagellation

The worm scene was pretty gross, I’ll give the film that. Question: Why the hell is there a fully operational bar at a children’s sixth birthday party? I know kid’s parties suck but jesus, at least hide it in a water bottle of sumthin!

Want to play?” did make me jump. But the humour throughout the film is very hit and miss, almost like it was added at the last minute – they just thought about ripping of somebody else’s story but adding a few shitty comedy scenes. Also, the wife is sooo dumb.

My overall impression: boring, so boring I was just waiting for it to end. Eek, sorry Rotten Tomatoes – we’ll have to agree to disagree!

So, i’m leaving horror-comedies alone for the time being (after I publish my review of ‘Cockney’s Vs Zombies’) phew! What binge should I do next? Let me know what you think in the comments or tweet me! I like a good twittering.

Howl (2015) Review – Re-watch

AKA me being somewhat befuddled by how much I love this movie.

3.5/5 Screams
SPOILERS AHEAD

Hello fellow ghouls. Despite this blog being more for my benefit than anyone else’s, I’ll apologise (again, oops) for neglecting this blog lately. It’s been half because of my novel and half because of the gorgeous heatwave hitting drizzly ole’ Britain at the moment – I’ve been relishing every second of it.

Funnily enough, I have actually watched and made notes on about five or six horrors over the past weeks but just haven’t got around to writing them up. So, today – ignoring the sunshine beckoning me through my window – I thought i’d choose one. I decided to do a re-watch review because sometimes watching these films multiple times, you really do both watch and internalise them all very differently each time and notice bits and pieces that otherwise go over your head.

For today’s post, I chose a film that I discovered about eight months or so ago. I was bored one evening and was scrolling through Amazon prime, I found this movie – watched the trailer, realised it looked fairly low budget and perhaps a bit trashy but it was evidently very – aesthetically and tonally – British and sometimes I love me a good movie with OTT Britishness involved. The first time I watched it, I fell in love with it. I’m unsure why exactly, the make-up isn’t very good, the acting is varied, the storyline is basic and patchy and the ending is pretty annoying. For all intents and purposes this film should not work, yet it so indulgent, so claustrophobic and so stupidly enjoyable. No surprise that it has this oppressive and cramped atmosphere exists in this movie, seeing as it comes from the creator of ‘The Descent’ which is a fantastic movie. Knowing this, you can see the parallels between the two films – both playing on the natural, human survival instincts and fears of being trapped in confined spaces with no escape. It actually reminds me of ‘Train to Busan’ in some ways, although that is one of my all time favourite zombie movies and it starkly better than this film in many ways.

Let me take on the ride through the narrative – i’m very sorry for that pun, I can do better. We follow a train conductor in England on a night train with a handful of passengers, most of whom aren’t particularly likeable or explored much before they’re picked off one by one by a horde of werewolves. That’s it. A thirteen year old could write that synopsis. So why does this film work so well? Because it’s very self-aware, it knows that it’s corny and a guilty pleasure and runs with it. If it was trying to be something it very clearly isn’t then it almost definitely would not work as well as it does.

For some reason, don’t judge me, I have a crush on most of the characters (besides the old couple, obviously) and I have no idea why. One is actually, oddly, the spitting image of my favourite university lecturer. Maybe that’s why I fancy him – no shame. Anyway, I digress. In the beginning there seems to be a strange reliance of casual workplace sexism and harassment just to move the plot forwards and i’m unsure how I feel about that. Also early on, there’s a comical foreshadowing with the dog under the seat and, admittedly, even after having seen it before, it still made me jump. I’m losing my touch. The tone and dialogue is very heavy on the realism and I appreciate this, it makes it both more relatable – who doesn’t know the frustration of being stuck on a late night train? – and easier to get lost in. The full moon at the beginning makes me smirk, got to love a nicely implanted cliche, am I right? I also think it’s pretty clever to make the driver seem kind and likeable in only one line of dialogue before killing him off to grab the best effect.

BUT, and here comes the fun bit – ripping a film I love to shreds, there are a fair few plot holes in this film. First of all, surely the conductors have radio connections back to traffic controllers and security? Would they not somehow figure out how to call for help? The make-up really is s**t, the werewolf on the poster is better than the actual design. Granted the gore is pretty decent but you just can’t look at the werewolves without a little giggle. Even their claws are stupid looking. Thirdly, what on earth was that toilet cubicle made from? Cardboard? The dialogue was also much cheesier on the second watch than I remembered it being first time round. Moreover, I watched this again with my Dad, and it says little for the writing that he guessed everything before it happened – I suppose it’s objectively more predictable than I thought. A couple of last things: Matt’s death is fundamentally stupid, Jenny’s movements when she transitions are hilarious, the female conductor barely even jogs away from the forest at the end despite Joe having just offed himself for her survival. And, I saved the biggest for last, how on any level of horror existence, folklore or mythical tales are these werewolves STILL werewolves when the full moon disappears and morning comes around. Is this some new strain of werewolfism (is that a word? It should be)?

A few last notes on this strangely entertaining and replayable film: some of the triggers to move the plot along are very obvious. Take the first death of the central characters for example, the girl with no name – side note: good decision to not give her a name, it certainly added some pathos where otherwise you wouldn’t really care that she’s dead cause she was annoying af – it’s fairly blatant that she’ll die first, as she is shown bonding with blondie shortly beforehand and, sure this could just be some final attempts at connection before they all bite the bullet (told you my puns would get better) but it’s short and when she gets dragged from the vestibule you kind of think to yourself ‘oh, that’s why’. Another side note: Wow do they love overkill in this movie. Like, Jesus – calm down you little psychopaths, it’s dead as a dodo. Most of the deaths are okay, until the ending where they all seem to be rushed and meh – except from when cheating-McDickface boots blondie from the carriage to buy himself time, I will never forgive him for that (even if I do find him very attractive, don’t even ask). She had a little daughter you absolute scumbag. Also, poor Zach or whatever his name was – he was a good cookie. Finally, Joe really doesn’t get enough credit in this film. He literally sacrifices himself for somebody he barely has more than a crush on, it also helps that Ed Speleer’s acting is pretty darn good.

Funnily enough, this film gained a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes yet really did not go down well with fans. Personally, I recommend this film if you’re bored, want a fun ride without having to concentrate or worry too much about caring for the characters. Indulge in the utter Britishness of it and don’t try to make it anything that it isn’t, is my advice. I wonder whether it would have the same appeal to other nations because the aesthetics and humour might not translate across cultures. Have you seen this flick anywhere outside of the UK? How did you respond to it?