Reviews by Movie Maniac

A couple of best friends are drawn into the midst of an international spy plot and soon find themselves in the cross-hairs of covert agencies, terrorist organizations, and assassins. "The Spy Who Dumped Me" retreads the familiar concepts that the Melissa McCarthy starring vehicle "SPY" took on not three years previous. However, it manages to differentiate itself by focusing on the chemistry of it's two leads and making the film more about their character's friendship than a subversive take on the spy genre.

This production, unlike its predecessor "SPY", opted to make the surrounding plot and action less inane providing us with a amalgamate product that somehow comes off without a hitch. The action is tight and effective even when mixed with the humor. The setup comes off as a dead serious Eastern-European spy thriller only serving to starkly highlight the hi-jinks of our protagonists even more by contrast. Shoot outs and convoluted spy intrigue typical of the genre abound and prove exciting and effective as a means to move the characters from one comic set piece to another.

As aforementioned, the film wisely chooses to focus on their chemistry as friends which comes off palpably onscreen. In-jokes, familiarity, and undeniable comfort between the two characters truly makes them feel like the closest of compatriots. Mila Kunis plays the likable "straight man" (Audrey) to Kate McKinnon's free-spirited and exuberant foil (Morgan) which, for the most part, gives McKinnon free rein to be as charmingly left-field as possible with maximum effect. That is not to say that Kunis doesn't incite a good number of chuckles on her own with reactions alone. Kudos for making one of Morgan's character quirks a humorously subtle way to impart a feeling of pro-femininity without ever having it become cloying.

The cast plays exceptionally well off of each other too, duplicating the dynamic of the leads on a mass scale by playing straight to their frazzled and comic descent into the world of the clandestine. Even the now mandatory cameos in comedy movies are pulled off with nary an eye-rolling moment. On the contrary, Paul Reiser and Jane Curtin as Morgan's parents actually leave you wanting more of them in all the best ways.

As much praise as can be heaped on the cast, it really comes down to McKinnon's role carrying the bulk of the comedic weight. Everyone around her works because they are playing off of her prodigious comic talent. She's effortlessly funny without ever resorting to the crass or overtly physical brands of humor. In short, she's the star of the show.

Ultimately, "The Spy Who Dumped Me" proved to be much more enjoyable than I expected it to be. While it breaks no new ground it certainly knows how to entertain. I don't suspect there will be any moments that many would brand "knee-slappers" but sometimes comedies don't need them to be effectively fun. You could do much worse, for sure. 7/10

An embittered and cruel witch-queen plunges the land into darkness and near hopelessness save for the existence of a beautiful princess that holds the key to the future in "Snow White and the Huntsman". The film marked yet another entry into the slew of grim reimaginings of fairy tales that had, in the public eye, long been associated with children's fare but, ironically, came from much darker roots.

The film is a curious one in the sense that it seems dead set on lulling you into a lethargic stupor despite its wide array of gorgeous visuals, sets, and a cast with some impressive names. In fact, it never seems like it ever properly takes off, always building up to something that never quite feels like it arrives with proper pomp and circumstance. Most confounding, is that when things do finally take on an air of urgent relevancy the film is a frog's hair from it's conclusion.

It's also a story that seemed to bite off more than it could chew, constantly developing the world the characters live in and the rules and circumstances that define everything going on while, simultaneously, feeling like it's always missed some important detail that would rightfully make you feel invested or make the world seem real. One wonders what could have been done with the characters if the filmmaker's hadn't been overtly concerned with the unnecessary glut of world-building.

The film also sports a prologue that is somehow both uncharacteristically long and manages to fail to delineate the bulk of important details that are pivotal to engagement in the film's core narrative. This despite there being a narration on top of dialogue and visual action. When details do come, they feel a little late to the party. Then there's the facets that are outright disregarded or left to assumption. There is always room for the implied and audience inference but maybe less so in a fantasy landscape that seems so concerned with details that make or break the whole affair.

With the level of unnecessary attention to cursory details you'd think they'd put in double the effort with casting characters but quite the opposite is true. The most alluring element in this story is the villain (played with overwrought menace by Charlize Theron) but they keep her so much on the sidelines that at times you almost feel you'll forget she's part of the plot. The usually charming and dexterous Chris Hemsworth is the titular Huntsman who is portrayed as everything the opposite of what his strengths as an actor would call for, leaving one to wonder why they didn't just cast any other schmoe. It feels wasteful for the most part, although Theron does entice despite the shortcomings of the character.

Of course there is the lead Kristen Stewart as Snow White, a casting that convinces me all they were worried about was the eye-catching and superficial nature of the film. Yes, her alabaster skin and ruby red lips evoke the princess of lore but her acting ability (or lack thereof) betrays the script's demand for a character that literally embodies life in a landscape full of death and decay. Though leagues better than her portrayal of Bella in the dreadful Twilight series, Stewart still came across as a blank slate with only the occasional spark here and there to give you an inkling at what could of been. Its stunning that anybody would think that this casting would work given the requirements of the character on paper, so when she suddenly leaps from listless maiden in distress to a unifying and inspirational leader of an army it feels grossly out of place and unwarranted. At no point do you feel the character has grown or changed and, yet, the film tells you she has. No amount of fantasy could cover up her inadequacies as an actress.

To add insult to injury the film is the equivalent of riding a kid's tea cup ride after you've experienced a hair-raising roller coaster. Things that should excite you seem trivial or pedestrian and quickly give way to that languid, plodding pacing that consumes the bulk of the film before they can build up any adequate steam. Again, a lot of that time is spent indulging in visual world-building that ultimately serves no purpose other than to provide eye-candy. Rarely does it charm and when it does it's only a matter of minutes before we're back into glacial pace. At a gobsmacking two hours and seven minutes (longer if you see the extended cut) this takes its toll.

Not all is negative however. Somewhere in there you could see traces of potential but this feels more like a sequel to a story that we never got to see so it's missing intrinsic chunks of information that would make us invested in the events. The effects are gorgeous as is the cinematography. The cast is full of big names and some of those do the best with what they have (most notably the slew of greats playing the dwarves). Costume and set design are top notch, as well. All this just makes you wish the story was worthy of the production value, however.

I will say I never felt bored during the movie but I also never felt fulfilled. Everything just fell short of the mark. Visually lush but shallow, "Snow White and the Huntsman" is a sad waste of talent. Neither horrid nor good, it just wallows in tepid waters. It will be forgotten. 4/10

In "Jonah Hex" the eponymous character is a man driven by vengeance and thus brought back into the fold of government service to thwart the plot of one Quentin Turnbull who is determined to tear apart the newly formed United States. The two have history together and must sort it out on the eve of the country's centennial.

This movie was destined to fail. It featured a character that, outside of the most rabid of comic book fans, very few would recognize, it had a trailer that made the whole affair look horrendous, it featured the dubious acting talents of one Mrs. Megan Fox, and it was a western which has been a gamble for decades. Worse of all, the movie had a notoriously troubled production as the filmmaker's battled with the studio for what would ultimately become the final product and, make no mistake, it's pretty clear that what we get was compromised heavily. And yet, the fact that this thing existed tugged at me.

You see, I'm a Jonah Hex fan and the sheer idea that anyone even thought about bringing that ol' rugged bastard to the screen stuns me. It was a matter of eventuality with this movie and I. I bought a copy when I found one dirt cheap and, even then, it sat there on my shelf for months, pregnant with dreadful expectation. Well, it couldn't wait forever. I finally saw it and what was my take away? Honestly, I had no business enjoying it as much as I did.

That is not to say that Hex is a movie without glaring flaws. Oh, on the contrary, they are multitude but it is a movie so fast paced and entertaining that it allows you to overlook those flaws or take them in stride by sheer nature of its strong points and its lead. Josh Brolin as Hex is perfection. It makes you wish they would have pushed the boundaries into a hard R rating just to see him growl and pontificate (rare though it may be) as only he can and, of course, to give us some of that hard edge gritty violence that he's prone to involve himself in. Had Brolin not been hitched to this wagon the film would of suffered greatly but, alas, he was and so it was towed along mostly by him.

It's not a one man job, however, as other positives keep the movie from drowning. Malkovich chews scenery left and right with such conviction and unrepentant malice that he sells his characters ridiculous and nonsensical plot, the action, though tempered for a PG-13 rating, is fun to watch, costuming and effects are not the nightmare the trailers suggested, nods to Hex fans abound, and the hyper-kinetic pace keeps you going and be damned all the questions and doubts you may have.

Indeed, the fact that I like Hex in the comics may have buoyed the experience for me because this movie's approach rests comfortably between Joe R. Landsdale's take on the character and the subsequent Gray and Palmiotti series. It is neither one or the other but has elements of both that make it very recognizably Hex. Honestly, i find it hard to believer that a Hex fan wouldn't find something to like in this movie, flaws or not.

Ah yes, the flaws. They had to come up some time. Hex is a remarkably short film and it's very evident that it was not intended to be. Cuts were definitely the soup of the day. Truncated characters and a cop out introduction really rob you of the fuller experience you could of had. Most pressing is the animated/narrated intro which wedges tons of backstory into a few minutes. If they'd just actually filmed a full fledged version of the events alluded to the characters would of had a lot more heft and credibility and the events in the film wouldn't feel like they were coming at you at a ridiculous speed (though that ultimately helps you digest the product you get). The film ultimately does address these topics but a more linear approach would of been far better. Being a fan of the character allows you to fill in details that someone else might not be privy to guess at.

Then there's Megan Fox...she's something, ain't she? Boy, she's so pretty but so much a charisma wasteland. It's like washing wood float on a river. The real shame is that she's a very unnecessary character. She's rarely onscreen (a positive) but she is there (a big negative). I understand that they ultimately put her there to throw an assisting hand and, more importantly, to soften Hex's too gruff demeanor and character but that changes nothing about her utter uselessness.

The film could of also benefited from looking a bit less polished. Despite great costumes and set design, everything does look a bit too spotless for a western. As aforementioned, a hard R rating would of also done wonders for it. The score is give or take. At times the anachronistic rock bombast comes off as cool and at others it sticks out like a sore thumb. Additionally, though the effects are mostly good there are some very notable uses of bad green screen that are quite puzzling, to say the least.

All that aside, it's most glaring fault remains that it was not allowed to breath by being longer. Yes, the breakneck pace does help what ends up being a fun b-movie but one wonders where a more methodically paced and dark affair would of led. However, I still enjoyed Hex, warts and all. It certainly doesn't deserve the bad reputation it got. It almost seems destined to become a cult favorite if people ever give it a shot instead of avoiding it. Surprisingly fun despite it's faults, I give "Jonah Hex" a 6/10

Two priests are sent to investigate a possible miracle in a home for women of ill repute run by nuns only to find that the goings-on point to something much more ominous. Things soon escalate and the truth becomes unraveled. The film is formatted as a document of the priest's investigation.

I'm at odds with "The Devil's Doorway", then again that is usually the case when I come across a horror movie centered around wayward nuns. Maybe I should learn my lesson. More often than not I'm left feeling unfulfilled or exposed to a bit too much. There never seems to be a middle ground with this niche sub-genre. In the case of this particular film, the audience is kind of left high and dry. Don't get me wrong, there is much to be said about "less is more" but there is also such a thing as "not enough". Devil's Doorway, falls square in this arena.

The film does a number of things right, if I'm being completely honest. The cast is quite good, the effects subtle and thankfully not dependent on digital wizardry, the costume design is fantastic, there is the occasional eerie atmosphere conjured up here and there, and the approach of a video document definitely gives it a unique flavor. Despite this the film seems stuck in a mire of familiarity.

Yes, ultimately "The Devil's Doorway" borrows way too much from superior sources to avoid comparison. If I were to give you a description of the film using those it clearly was inspired by, I'd say that it is The Exorcist meets Rosemary's Baby by way of The Last Exorcism. While the conceit of what essentially amounts to the found footage approach helps for a while to give it a spark of life, eventually you just find yourself spotting the similarities and how they were more aptly employed elsewhere. In short, the movie is not as good as any of the others.

That's not to say that the film is awful. No, it's relatively engaging and competently made but it never delivers on anything especially new or interesting to justify its use of familiar tropes and ideas. It also makes the gross mistake of leaving way too much to be deciphered by the viewer as previously mentioned. At the end, though you've pretty much have it all figured out, you're still left wondering if you missed something or if there was more they could of done. Again, this is not because of any sort of confusion but more because of the film's inherent deficiency to deliver something impacting at the end.

Really, a culmination to this movie that made it stand out could of done wonders to the otherwise overly familiar concepts. Alas, it does very little toward that goal and thus renders itself quite forgettable and that's a real shame. 5/10

A construction site becomes the center of speculation as a mysterious object is uncovered not long after some pre-human remains. Legendary Professor Quatermass is called into assist in the find which he posits might have otherworldy roots with disturbing links to our own past. The mystery unfurls and the unsettling truth is revealed, a truth that bears a chilling parallel to our present.

"Quatermass and the Pit" was a six-part serial for the BBC and the third installment following the beloved Professor Bernard Quatermass. It's also arguably the best of the lot. Certainly the one that had most influence on the works of others and for good reason. Even now, about six decades later, the series manages to evoke an ominous atmosphere and a prevalent sense of the mystifying. Given the severe limitations of budget this is quite the impressive feat.

Yes, indeed, "Quatermass and the Pit", like most of it's BBC brethren is marked by its economical production but rather than push those limits to breaking point this serial makes the most out of the viewer's imagination. Therein lies its true lasting power and its remarkable hold on the psyche of those who watch it. Coupled with its memorable lead and its palpable sense of inevitability, the series has remained one of the most lauded achievements of its time.

It truly is a sight to behold how much can be achieved with mere suggestion, dialogue, and clever exposition. That six 34 minute episode fly by at such a steady clip with the scantest of visual cues to whet the hearty appetite it stirs up is absolutely remarkable. At a run time of about three hours and half, however, it becomes a gargantuan feat.

For this we have to thank Nigel Kneale's bountiful imagination. As a writer he managed to walk a tightrope between the feasible and the inane, always expertly managing to make the most outrageous suggestions absolutely credible or, at least, pregnant with the insinuation of some form of calamitous dread. Such is the case here as the serial presents us with a narrative rooted in our past but with ties to the stars. Instead of inspiring unintentional guffaws (as would, say, a Doctor Who episode) we are driven to the edge of wonder and possiblity.

It was Kneale's calling card to bridge the chasm between science and mysticism and here he is in top form. "Quatermass and the Pit" begs the question: What if the Devil was real but he wasn't what we thought he was at all? Worse yet: where do we fit into the picture? The answers are chilling and surprisingly prescient to date. Hell, as the serial makes clear, the matters it tackles have always been relevant to the human race.

With a fantastic Andre Morell playing Quatermass, a fine supporting cast, an excellent script, and production that never feels overstretched, "Quatermass and the Pit" achieves a lot with so little. More importantly, it isn't a product of its time doomed to stay there perpetually. No, in fact, it is timeless and worthy of all the praise heaped upon it.

It might not be in the taste of most modern audiences concerned with huge effects bonanzas but for those seeking something ambitious that stirs up the imagination while dragging you along frightful corridors "Quatermass and the Pit" is a MUST SEE. It was later remade into a very well received movie by Hammer Films in the 60's and, notably, was the inspiration for John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness, both of which are excellent in their own right. 9/10

Admittedly, I'm a bit biased when it comes to Emma Stone. I think she's a downright marvelous actress. She's proven she can handle just about any material that is thrown at her and do so seemingly effortlessly. That being said, I was a bit wary and going backward in her filmography and checking out "Easy A". How could I fairly judge what seemed to be a teenage dramedy (Stone bias notwithstanding) in light of the material she'd taken on since her stellar rise to fame? Despite these misgivings, I took on the task because, hell, at least it wasn't her voiceover turn in Marmaduke, right?

The plot seems simple on the surface: A young girl's lie spirals out of control and she is labeled as more than promiscuous by her peers. In spite of this, she ardently (and selflessly) embraces the rumor and soon finds herself in a maelstrom of criticism and gossip that reveals more about those around her than herself in.

Lo and behold, I ended up pleasantly surprised at how utterly enjoyable and amusing "Easy A" actually turned out to be. My fears of it being shallow teen fodder were instantly cast away and I quickly found myself settling into the witty dialogue and, more so, its clever update of one of literature's classics "The Scarlet Letter".

Although the latter element was one of the film's selling points, it takes something special to make something as audacious as an update of a classic set of ideas and themes and have it work, much less prove relevant to the original work AND modern times. To top it all off, it does all this while never losing its own particular identity as a comedic film. It also admirably manages to delve deeply into many of aforementioned themes without being slavishly bound to them, a sin that would of the made the film woefully dreary.

Yes, "Easy A" is film that sets out to make a big statement about people's perception and the effects of social stigmas but, unlike, its inspiration, it doesn't martyrize its protagonist to do so, instead it smacks a smile on your face and gives you the two sides of the coin. Surprisingly, using teen movie tropes and archetypes end up servicing this goal exceptionally well and it was quite satisfying to see the movie turn expected circumstances on their head and do something unique with them.

Emma Stone as the defacto would-be Hester Prynn , Olive, possesses such a natural charm and timing that just oozes off the screen. She's a delight to watch as the snarky and smart lead and, really, it's hard to imagine the movie being as effective had someone with that much talent not filled that particular role. She really carries the movie on her shoulders. That's not to say that the rest of the cast are slouches. Quite the contrary, everyone is sharp and on their game here.

The filmmakers clearly had a great love of John Hughes movies and tones and tropes from those are also weaved into the film's tapestry that inform the viewer or pay homage to one of the greats of teen cinema. Though i wouldn't compare "Easy A" to a Hughes film as their ultimate intent and styles differ, I did find the references appropriate not only narratively but in the sense that much like a Hughes films there's a timeless feeling to this one. Indeed, "Easy A" has loftier goals but, more than that, it appeals to people of all ages despite its target audience. This is a movie that could easily be shown as part of a curriculum to inform students on the subtext of writing while never once boring them.

"Easy A" never sinks to comedic depths to get its laughs and expertly avoids a lot of the trappings of sub-par comedy films. Instead, it remains distinctly clever and subtle in its delivery and, for that reason, it will age fantastically. As I write this nearly a decade has passed since it's release and it remains fresh and prescient.

I'm glad to have watched and I'm glad to say that I'll be adding it to my rotation of movies that I'll watch again. It's a comfortable movie that way. I give Easy A a 8.5/10

Things in "Buried" start tense and never once relent. Paul, an American trucker doing contractor work in Iraq, is taken hostage and held for ransom in a coffin beneath the desert sands by an insurgent. A real time clock runs on us we watch panic, desperation, claustrophobia, and worse faceless terrors fall upon the antagonist.

"Buried" is quite the ambitious little film. It is also an incredibly monumental achievement given that it was made on a shoestring budget, with an onscreen cast of one, and takes place entirely in a singular location. These elements are a virtual recipe for disaster if not handled with surgical precision. Thankfully, the film does just that. Making sure to slice you open with expertise before hammering your nerves with psychological brutality.

The film constantly has you on edge, never making the mistake of revealing too much too soon. Instead we are dropped into the midst of the situation and clues to the goings-on trickle in slowly making the bigger picture and the soul-crushing implications come at you in venomous doses that never lose their bite. This always ensures that the viewer remains constantly engaged and never succumbs to the exhaustion of being stuck in such close literal and figurative quarters, a truly miraculous balancing act.

The master stroke of "Buried", however, is that visceral terror of the situation is but one facet of the multitude avenues of horror that Paul is subjected to. Here is a man faced with the faceless, voices on the phone that control, willingly or not, every last second of his life. His captor is an insurgent looking for retribution and security for his family and cares not for Paul's life when his own is on the line. His potential rescuer is a military professional that plays his role by the numbers but can't hide the fact that he has seen the cold statistical reality of rescue. His employers are bureaucrats concerned more with the bottom line than safety. In fact, every phone call feels like a flurry of blows to any semblance of hope.

"Buried" never stops coming at you like a rabid dog. It is relentless, it is nerve racking, and it also sports one hell of an ending. When all is said and done, you'll think that being stuck in a coffin isn't as bad as everything else that might come with it.

Ryan Reynolds, an actor we most regard for his comedic chops, does an amazing job at taking us on an psychological roller coaster ride and being a beacon of empathy without every traipsing into that dangerous and murky territory where the portrayal becomes "too much". Much like everything else in this film he is pitch perfect.

Truly, "Buried" is a master class in psychological terror. It also very cleverly slips in commentary on the socio-political situations that arise in war-strewn countries and all those entities involved on the ground there. Taut, suspenseful, and utterly tenacious with its grip on your frazzled nerves, I give this underappreciated gem a 10/10.

"Rawhead Rex" is the rare film with absolutely no redeeming factors. Based on the short story of the same name by legendary horror fantasist Clive Barker, it manages to be loyal to the superficial aspects of the material while completely missing the entire point of the story. There is no themes or subtext to be read into this film, it's literally a big, dumb monster movie and not even an enjoyably stupid one at that. Yes, this movie is neither a good adaptation or one that earns respect on any unique merits. It's literally just wasted time and effort.

The story centers around a small Irish berg where a neolithic creature is accidentally unearthed and awakened after being cast into years of slumber by the growing Christian cult. Immediately his rampage begins and the town soon succumbs to its terror. Simple enough, except that the source material had much to say about religion and belief while being cleverly (and almost blasphemously) subversive, despite being a grossly explicit story.

As aforementioned, the film lacks any grasp of the material other than the most blatantly obvious things and effectively turns itself into a stagnant body count film within moments of its beginning. Worse than that, it's also ineptly directed, framed, and blocked to the point of being enraging. Somehow even worse than that, is its unenviable photography that renders everything plainly visible (warts and all) by leaving nary a corner in darkness. This does much to rob scenes and moments of tension and completely destroys any credibility the monster had which, let's be honest, it had none to begin with.

Ah yes, the monster. Quite possibly one of the worst effects in horror movie history. This hunk of junk looks like a deformed horse head was slapped onto the body of a really large 80's hair metal rocker (complete with poofy hair). There is nothing remotely realistic about it. The actor in the suit has no idea how to move in any form of fashion that evokes menace or fearsome yet brutal regality. Instead he kinda just stands or shakes around with seeming impotent rage. In short, the effect is horrible and so prominently featured (and lit) that you wonder how any suspense, mystery, or awe was supposed to be expected.

All the other actors are either depicting the characters in the most annoying possible fashion or are downright dreadful, most times both. Special tip of the hat to David Dukes as the total weiner of a protagonist. Never had I wanted to punch someone so badly for wearing a sweater and not fucking his obviously horny wife. The score is abhorrently bad, the "sets" are just repurposed homes and hotels that somehow end up looking more fake than an actual backlot set, and the horror set pieces are stale and perplexingly executed.

Something went horribly wrong with this production. It never becomes so bad it's good, it just descends deeper and deeper into a pool of ineptitude that renders the movie downright confusing because it fails to portray anything in a fashion that serves the material. That's coming from someone who's read the book!

"Rawhead Rex" is a cautionary tale for those that want debilitatingly direct adaptations of a story. It gives you that much but never with an iota of understanding of the material. I will say it wasn't boring because i spent most of the time appalled at how absolutely amateurish it was, so I guess that's one positive thing I can say about it.

Clive Barker denounces this movie and rightfully so. It's a travesty and a disservice to his work. This director should be the one entombed for centuries under a rock like Rawhead was. Uber-lame. Avoid at all costs. 1/10

"City of the Living Dead" is far from a perfect film but, even expecting that, it falls quite a bit short of good and ambles somewhat aimlessly in the fair category for me. Most of that good will falls on the soft spot I have for Italian horror and Fulci's better offerings to the genre. Don't behead me just yet Fulci loyalists. I proudly wear my Fulci Lives gear and partake of the man's work quite often but I'd be remiss if I ignored the shortcomings of his art which are, if we're being honest, many.

That being said, I have something of an unbridled appreciation for this movie despite my middling rating and it mostly falls on the fact that "City" is something of an ambitious project even as it fails to bring most of that to fruition. I, like many, believe that Fulci's magnum opus was his nightmarish vision of apocalyptic supernatural horror "The Beyond". It is a film that transcends it's trashy, gore-addled, and exploitative nature with its vibrantly imaginative scenes, stunning makeup work, eerie score, and its pervasively atmospheric apocalyptic vibe. I say all this because, in many ways, "City" plays out like Fulci trying to find his footing for what would eventually become "The Beyond". As a result, there are elements in it that are thoroughly effective despite how much the deck is stacked against the film.

And what is deterring this movie from being an all out classic? Many things. Those familiar with Italian horror cinema of the time are familiar with some of its trappings (namely bad dubbing, production values that vary wildly from scene to scene, questionable acting, derivative plots, overdependence on gore, etc.) and many of those are present here as would be expected. The worst offense the film commits is that it feels unnecessarily stretched out at times and, more worryingly, a bit all over the place.

There are quite a few scenes that would of benefited greatly from better editing when certain effects couldn't be achieved to their full potential. Instead the camera lingers and robs the scenes of their initial punch. The actors and the ADR voiceover work leave much wanting most of the time with the exception of Christopher George who makes the most of his role until, yes, he is somewhat unceremoniously dispatched. This is another issue, some characters are basically introduced to be canon fodder, even those that you might assume won't be. Well enough as the scenes of extreme gore are pretty impressive or at least fun to look at but sometimes this comes to the detriment of the story.

There is a vague nature to the supernatural goings on that I'd like to hope was intentional but most likely was not. This works both against and for the film at times. When it works for it, it adds to the thick atmosphere; when it works against it, it just makes you question the logic of far too much or, worse, the rules of the cinematic world.

Ultimately, "City of the Living Dead" feels a little slapped together, a bit unruly when it comes to its story, a bit unsure of itself, and hobbled by its technical/production shortcomings. HOWEVER, this does not mean you are left with no choice but to take this bad boy out behind the shed. In fact, there are those aforementioned elements that keep it near to the macabre heart and make me revisit every now and then.

Topmost among these, is the film's amazing omnipresent chilling vibe. There's something "otherworldly" about how this movie feels. Indeed, Fulci would perfect this tone in his follow-up "The Beyond" but that's not to say this one doesn't deserve a tip of the hat. Contributing to that eerie tone is Fabio Frizzi's awesome score. Frizzi's work in the genre is always noteworthy and this is no exception.

Of course, it would not be a Fulci flick without copious amounts of viscera and crazy effects and "City" delivers these in spades. Some of the less effective pieces even win me over with their charming ambition. Speaking of, a lot of the movie works because despite it fumbling in and out of corner cutting and ineptitude it still manages to get its intentions for scary set pieces across well enough that it becomes somewhat effective IN its amateurish nature. I could see a tighter edit of this movie being pretty close to damned good albeit sacrilegious for the mobs of fans that don't want anyone but its creators to touch it.

"City of the Living Dead" is not a good film but its a film with audacity to do things it couldn't reasonably expect to work given its limitations and that's somehow enough to make it charming. It's also surprisingly chilling in those moments you manage to succumb to its trance. It's not for everyone but fans of Italian horror, atmosphere, gore, or supernatural horror will find much to love even if they must contend with lots of pitfalls. For this reason, I'll give it a 5/10

"28 Days Later" was a game-changer when it came out. It almost single-handedly ripped the horror genre from the sludge the 90's had dragged it into with its gritty urban realism and its haunting imagery. Over a decade later, in a world full of inventive, serious horror (and riddled with genre zombie media) that it opened the floodgates to, i revisited it and found that it had lost none of its potency.

No good deed goes unpunished in this fictional world, as activists unwittingly unleash an infection that wipes out the bulk of the United Kingdom leaving death and the ravenous infected in its wake...and those that would dare survive. The premise is one frequented by many an apocalyptic film but 28 Days Later's delivery method is what truly makes it stand out.

Hauntingly atmospheric is the best way to describe the lonesome urban landscape that protagonist Jim (an excellent Cillian Murphy) wakes up to, all the moreso in a post-9/11 world then and, years later, in a charged atmosphere where the origins of the movie's plague are more common than ever. So much imagery evokes emotions in the viewers that we link to modern day chaos and catastrophe that all that is presented feels disturbingly plausible. The film's visual palette screams out like a harbinger of inevitability, with its uncompromisingly lo-fi appearance and washed out, bleak tones. It's a somber and depressing affair, made all the more disheartening with a simple but ambitiously soul-crushing score.

Any astute cinephile will note that the film bears undeniable resemblance to the narrative of George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead, to the point that you might call it an abbreviated version of the core events in those two films. Unlike Romero's classics though, "Days" doesn't seek to say much about society's ills. Instead it highlights something we most often forget in the fray of our lives. Its ultimate purpose is to espouse the power of hope in the face of utter adversity. Here is the lifeblood of the story and what keeps you trudging through madness alongside its protagonists. Here also is what makes it stand above the pack.

Appropriately enough the film is primarily shot in frenetic style on grainy digital cameras but that eventually gives way to the more refined beauty of of 35mm film stock as the film's culminating moments come into play. The allusion does not go unnoticed and it almost comes as a relief in kind with that felt by the protagonists.

"28 Days Later" is harrowing, unsettling, kinetically paced at times and nighmarishly languid at others, it feels dirty, it feels hopeless....then it makes you care, it makes you hope, it makes you yearn. In short, it is an experience.  9/10