The Omen (2006) - Horror Film Review

It is complete. Around twelve years ago my girlfriend at the time brought me The Omen: Pentology box set from HMV. This five film collection included the four original films (The Omen, Damien: Omen II, Omen 3: The Final Conflict, Omen IV: The Awakening) as well as the 2006 remake, and at three o'clock this morning (at the time of writing) I finally got around to watching that remake. I reckon that if I had seen this back then I would not have appreciated it as much, but watching The Omen remake now, I got a real nostalgic hit from a film that is extremely early 2000's in feel. I will try and keep spoilers to a minimum, but part of this review will be comparing it to the classic original.

Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber - X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Scream), an American ambassador is devastated when he learns that his child has died after complications with its birth at a Catholic hospital in Italy. A priest there has a proposal for him however, he says that a woman also at the hospital recently died after the birth of her healthy son, and that to save Robert's wife, Katherine (Julia Stiles - Orphan: First Kill, Save the Last Dance) the heartache of learning her child has died, should claim this child for his own. The man decides to go along with this, but little does he know that the baby is actually the Antichrist, the son of Satan who is prophesied to bring doom to the world of man. It is on the child's fifth birthday that events begin to be put in motion, and it isn't long before Robert has reluctantly teamed up with press photographer Keith (David Thewlis - The Sandman TV series, the Harry Potter series of films) in order to investigate for sure if his son really is a creation of Hell, after being warned by Father Brennan (Pete Postlethwaite - Inception, The Usual Suspects) about the deception.

This John Moore (A Good Day to Die Hard, Max Payne) directed horror remake plays it very safe with the story and how particular events play out, so much so that the poor screenwriter wasn't even credited, due to his screenplay being so similar to David Seltzer's (who wrote the screenplay for the 1976 original). Part of the reason I had left this so long to watch is that I didn't want vivid memories of the original clouding my opinion of this. That worked to a degree, I knew all the story beats, but I couldn't really recall how the original looked. Some things are done better, some less so, and unifying this is the peak 2000's feel. Firstly, some of the death sequences look fantastic, better than the original.
Bizarrely, the most memorable death scene for the original film (a character getting pinned to the ground from a falling piece of church masonry) looks quite bad here, due to the obvious replacement of the actor with a fake body that the camera lingers on for too long. Thankfully other death scenes are better replicated, a person compelled to commit suicide has an identical scene but it looks more visceral, and the iconic decapitation scene delighted by occuring in a slightly different way than in the original.

The 2000's seemed a bit of a dark time for me in regards to horror films, it felt like every classic movie was getting a subpar and needless remake, and I'm sure I would have felt scorn for this back then (I do recall seeing the trailer at the cinema). In modern day however I am at the stage in my life where I feel quite intense nostalgia for bygone decades, and seeing Schreiber and Stiles (someone I've always had a crush on) in a movie together was delightful, it took me back to the feeling of that decade. Being set in that time period there has been some alterations to make this more current, such as 9/11 and the Columbia space shuttle disaster of 2003 perhaps tastelessly being injected into some of the portents for the rise of the Antichrist. My biggest issue came with some of the actors chosen to play the roles. Now, I think David Lewlis was simply stunning in The Sandman, his acting there was very impressive, but here...not so much. Whether it was the actor or his direction, his portrayal of a press photographer is extremely generic and stereotypical, with the man distractingly always chewing gum and forever squinting his eyes. I struggled to take this character seriously, which is a problem when he becomes an essential side character. As for the previously mentioned Schreiber and Stiles, I could watch both of those in anything, even if here they aren't particularly memorable characters. Other notable actors includes Mia Farrow (Rosemary's Baby) as the evil nanny, and Michael Gambon (the Harry Potter series) in a very brief appearance, and of course you have Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick as the five year old Damien, someone who at the very least has a decent ability to give a malice filled stare. The ending shot may be identical, but it is just as effective here.

Demonic possession films are one of my favourite horror genres, so this is kind of in a similar ballpark. It is a film that has improved with age, if only for it being such a snapshot of the time period it was created in. On the other hand, being so extremely similar to the original it felt a bit pointless, I've never really understood remakes that try and be identical to the film they were based on, I feel if you must make a remake then at least put your own darn spin on it! Complaints aside, I did enjoy The Omen, not essential by any means, but it was entertaining enough to watch.

SCORE:

Child's Play (2019) - Horror Film Review

Due to my car being out of action for a week I almost missed out on seeing this re-boot of the classic psycho doll series. Child's Play has been a series I have always had a lot of time for, and one of the few series where they have been able to go from mostly serious horror to pure comedy horror and still remain good. With this reboot (directed by Lars Klevberg - Polaroid) they straddle the line, while it is full of funny moments it also at least tries to throw up some genuine horror.

The re-boot takes place in a world that is more technologically advanced than ours. This is a world where a company named 'Kaslan' are the prominent manufacturer, they have everything from TV's and phones to self driving cars, and a more advanced version of 'Alexa' in the form of a walking, talking 'Buddi' doll that uses A.I learning to look after and assist children. The film starts with a disgruntled employee at a Buddi factory getting fired from his job. The last thing he does before he kills himself is turn off all the safety protocols on the particular doll he had been working on.
We then go to young single mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Parks and Recreation) and her teenage son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman - Annabelle, Light's Out) who end up with this defective doll that gets named Chucky (voiced by Mark Hamill - Star Wars). With its machine learning limiters removed the doll comes to the decision that anyone who gets in the way of his and Andy's friendship deserves to die...

I had purposely avoided all trailers for this film and so I was interested to see just what changes would be made. The biggest by far is why the doll is evil. In the original it was a killer whose soul came to inhabit the Chucky doll. From the start this doll was evil as it was a killer controlling it. Here it instead all becomes a problem that is more sci-fi than paranormal, Chucky becomes evil due to the influences around it. It's A.I learning distorts its world view, so when Andy complains about his cat Chucky decides it needs to go. When Chucky sees Andy and his new friends - Pugg (Ty Consiglio - iZombie) and Falyn (Beatrice Kitsos - iZombie, The Exorcist TV series) laughing at brutal kills in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre film it decides that violence is something that would please Andy. This is far less Annabelle, and far more The Toyminator. This technological angle is integral to the new vision as the 'cloud' allows Chucky to remotely control everything, from thermostats, to cars, drones, shutters, and even other Buddi dolls. It felt more in line with a Black Mirror episode in how it takes place in a world not to far into the future from ours.

Day of the Dead: Bloodline (2018) - Zombie Horror Film Review

I knew one day I would have to get around to seeing Day of the Dead: Bloodline, and seeing as it is a lazy Sunday I thought that day might as well be now. George Romero's Day of the Dead (I really need to do an updated review of that that is actually well written) is my favourite zombie film of all time and so I was immediately immensely sceptical of this re-make. That classic has been re-imagined before (2008's Day of the Dead that I was too kind towards for what it was), but this sticks much more closely to the general outline of the original. Sadly even getting over my distaste of a stone cold classic getting recreated this is still a pretty terrible film.

This takes place in a world which has been overrun with the running dead, a pocket of civilians and soldiers have taken refuge in an underground bunker built into the side of a mountain. Zoe (Sophie Skelton) was a first year medical student who is now the army base's Dr. When a little girl gets a potentially deadly flu virus she gets permission by the bases moody and strict leader; Miguel (Jeff Gum) to head out with a group to retrieve essential medicines from the hospital she used to train at. However once there Zoe encounters Max (Johnathon Schaech - Prom Night) who in life had been her creepy stalker who had attempted to rape her, and in death has inexplicably retained some of his human intelligence. Max still obsessed with the woman sneaks back to the bunker with the group and soon all hell breaks loose...

Ok, I do like that this isn't a straight remake and tries to forge its own identity. Replacing Bub with the sinister Max, having the main female's boyfriend actually also being the brother of the base commander, these were fine enough changes. The very best character in the whole film in fact was Max, Schaech plays a villain character that has no redeeming features, but he plays it with relish. Making the zombies runners rather than shamblers is also fine enough these days, they have a weird, vaguely unsettling, vaguely comedic walking run that I could never decide if I thought it worked or not. The make-up effects were also quite cool, there was one zombie who had its jaw almost missing, a ghoul whose head got crushed into the ground, shots of intestines getting pulled out of bodies, and a nice leg snap that saw the bone come out the leg.

Carrie (2013) - Horror Film Review

I hate to be one of those people who complain about remakes, but often they seem to be made purely as a way to try and squeeze cash out of the public, bringing nothing new to the table. I figured that is the route the latest version of Carrie would go, especially when the original is held (rightly so) in such high regard. While the film states it is based on the story by Stephen King it would be more truthful to say it is based on the film that was based on the story by Stephen King.

The story is already very well known so is pointless to warn about spoilers. Carrie; a shy, awkward teen comes late onto the onset of womanhood and with it comes the emergence of physic powers. Bullied by her classmates and her domineering, religion obsessed mother she nonetheless finds joy in being invited to the end of year prom by popular Tommy (as a means for his girlfriend Sue to make amends for her part in the bullying). However as everyone knows a prank involving a bucket of pig's' blood triggers the breakdown of Carries sanity and the unleashing of her terrible powers.

Carrie does not do anything offensive, it is not badly made and has some solid acting at times yet it is scared to stand on its own two feet, forever aping Brian De Palma's 1976 effort. Sissy Spacek worked as Carrie as she was not particularly beautiful, Chloe Grace Moretz in no way looks average though and all the badly combed hair and self consciousness in the world cannot mask that, so makes her status as a weird loner a bit harder to believe.

The characters are for the most part are such stereotypes that they don't come across as real people. Tommy, Sue, and especially gym teacher Ms.Desjardin are far too nice, bad girl Chris, and her boyfriend on the other hand are just too bad, they have no polarity to them, so one dimensional, so film like, and really remind you that you are just watching a movie. A big problem with it was that all these characters have been given their roles but when they are introduced it feels like it is all their first days of existence, it is hard to picture any past for these characters.

The relationship between Carrie and her mother (played by Julianne Moore) is given greater importance here, Moore's character given more time to develop, these two really are the only ones to get any time to show as anything other than bland cookie cutter fillers, at least they stood out.

So as is always the case watching Carrie it is the prom sequence I was really interested in, when Carrie gets her misguided revenge on everyone. In the book half the town is destroyed, the 1976 version could never manage to imitate that, here more happens that does in the book and is all well done but again just feels so pointless. Moretz in her soaked in blood guise looks amazing, that and the actually really good film score for that segment create something that is the highlight of the film, the way the blood drips down over one side of her face and gets in her eyeball is a great style. The main school bullies all get their brutal comeuppance including some fun slow motion smashes. All too soon though it is back to the drudgery of the film with no surprise after no surprise not so much boring me as disappointing me.

To be perfectly honest this remake of Carrie did everything I expected it to do, but a part of me still held out a sliver of hope that it might make itself it's own film, maybe even follow the twist ending of King's book rather than what it does here in being a less exciting version of the iconic hand coming out the ground. In no ways is this a terrible film, but nor is it a good one, just so...average.

SCORE:

Evil Dead (2013) - Horror Film Review

When news first reached me of a remake of The Evil Dead I was horrified, that movie is one of my all time favourite horrors, the idea of someone destroying its legacy with yet another terrible remake (ie: A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Fog, Friday the 13th, The Wicker Man etc) was just too much to take. With not only Sam Raimi, but also legend Bruce Campbell as producers, and with a strong trailer my mind was changed.

Mia (Jane Levy) and her brother David (Shiloh Fernandez) have travelled to their remote childhood home along with three friends in order for Mia to kick her drug habit somewhere where there will be no temptations. In the basement of the old log cabin the group discover signs of witchcraft along with a strange book. One of the friends Eric takes a particular interest in the tome and while looking through it he speaks aloud an incantation and unwittingly summons a great evil. The evil possesses Mia, and one by one the friends fall victim to the demonic presence. Those left alive must find a way to stop the Evil Dead.

This film was advertised as being horror and horror it certainly is. There are no usual trappings of cliched teens making out with each other, cheesy jokes, or a 'hip' soundtrack this is grim, dark and intense. The original Evil Dead was thick with black humour, this less so, though some does appear here such as when David at one point says to a character who has just self mutilated herself (to paraphrase as always) "we're going to get through this, everything is going to be fine" to which Eric replies "She just cut her f**king arm off. Does that sound fine?", laugh out loud in context.

This is one of the most squirmy films I have ever seen, throughout I was wringing my hands at the grimness of it all, nearly looking away from the screen at points! Arms, hands and feet are severed, nails are fired into characters bodies, blistering bodies from scalding hot water, a needle jabbed repeatedly into a characters face, every kind of torture is used here, all looking realistic thanks to the wonderful decision to not use CGI unless necessary. It is like the torture porn of films like Saw and Hostel but with actual reason for it to exist. No characters emerges unscathed. Wince inducing horror at it's finest. There is also keeping with tradition a huge amount of blood and gore, characters get covered head to toe in the stuff, it even rains blood at one point! Dashings of vomit and even urine too keep this film disgusting.

Do not mistake the over abundance of horrific mutilation as scary though, this film was not scary, and that was a damn shame. The original Evil Dead I found to be terror inducing at times but here it is never so, there is more order to how the group become under demonic possession, the victims are easier to dispatch, not seeming to have the superhuman strength the Deadites in the original had.

The plot is more complex this time around, the subplot of Mia trying to get over her drug addiction is well implemented in that the strange goings on Mia frantically tells the others about is put down to her having hallucinations, and the fact that her and David's mother went insane gives rise to an alternate theory that maybe nothing bad is happening, that it is all shown from the twisted perspective of insane, or hallucinating siblings. The book of the dead is more straightforward, giving a goal I guess for the Evil Dead. Must say the book here looks totally fantastic, scribbled over the pages someone has scratched in urgent warnings and clues such as 'LEAVE THIS BOOK ALONE', and 'HE'LL SUCK YOUR SOUL DRY'. Looks cool believe me!

The basic plot is the same as the original and it is nice to see quite a few subtle references to it (including a cool after credits bit). The biggest problem I had other than the lack of scares is that it does get a little bit boring at times, the location and lack of real plot advances led to a slight staleness which I at first put down to being so familiar with Evil Dead, but speaking to others who had not seen the eighties one they too admitted to being a bit bored at times. Also the ending I just plain did not like that much, kinda silly and one liners are never a good idea...unless your Ash!

Evil Dead was a very bloody, disgusting, wince inducing film, not a bad remake at all, just not that creepy and seems to run out of ideas about halfway through. I would still recommend it though just for it being a straight up no nonsense horror that doesn't try to pander to a casual audience.

SCORE:

Evil Dead (2013) - Horror Film Trailer

The Evil Dead trilogy is an amazing thing, The Evil Dead is one of my top ten favourite horrors of all time. I had heard there was a remake in the process (as they seem to be remaking every single horror film ever nowadays) and today saw the trailer for it. Technically this is the second remake as Evil Dead 2 was a reinvention of one. The film looks to be ultra gory with far more realistic effects used. The original had zero budget and it really showed but the film still managed to be genuinely creepy, making it a classic horror film.

A lack of Bruce Campbell (though he is a producer), and a lack of humour is not necessarily a bad thing for this reboot, the original film was played mostly straight anyway. The story had continued in games and comics and these continuations were for the most part not actually any good (the Marvel Zombies VS Army of Darkness graphic novel is a must read though). This trailer has gotten me interested, at the very worst I hope it draws people who have not seen the classic trilogy into doing so.

I really must get around to reviewing them on my blog, a stupid oversight on my part. 

Fright Night (2011) - Horror Film Review

I caught the very last showing of Fright Night today at the cinema, I was not that bothered about seeing it due to three things. Firstly the trailer for the film was awful, I don't know why but trailers for horrors all seem terrible lately and do more to put me off seeing the films than anything else. Secondly the film is a remake of the eighties cult classic of the same name, many remakes are unfortunately not very good. Thirdly the film has a 3D slapped on the end of the title, while I think horror makes the best use of 3D it still does tend to be used for cheap thrills.

Fright Night takes place in and around Las Vegas, mostly centered on a small suburb out in the desert.  high school student Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is told by his ex best friend geeky Ed (Kick Ass's Christopher Mintz-Plasse) that his new next door neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell) is actually a vampire who has been responsible for a number of disappearances in the area. Charley dismisses this news as rubbish convinced his ex friend is just trying to get attention after he was ditched when Charley reinvented himself to get in with the cool crowd. This changes when Ed goes missing and an encounter with Jerry convinces him that his old friend was right. With no one to help Charley must find a way to defeat the centuries old vampire while protecting his mother Jane, and girlfriend Amy (28 Week's Later's Imogen Poots) from harm.

I have seen the original Fright Night, though a long time ago so my memory of it is quite hazy. I recall a scene in a nightclub but that's about it, should re watch it some day. Fright Night is actually quite a cool film. Films like this can be swamped with obnoxious 'cool' kids but thankfully the ones in this film are soon killed off. I was worried that the film would be quite tame on the old ultra violence but luckily there is lots of blood and some fun action. For the most part the blood flies into the audience (via the dubious magic of 3D) but it looks quite ace.

The film centres on the battle of wits between Charley and Jerry, their feud take place in a variety of locations including a fast paced highway chase that starts with a motorbike being hurled through the back window of the car Charley, his girlfriend and Mum are escaping in and from that point events ramp up. Farrell is great as the vampire, coming across as more serial killer than monster with his wardrobe of disguises, and secret Hostel style torture rooms hidden in his house. His transformation makes him look really odd and disquieting as the fangs that grow in his mouth give his whole head a strange creepy shape. The usual tropes work on him such as holy water, sunlight, fire, stakes and by the end of the film all these methods have been used with good special effects on display. A memorable scene midway through the film has Jerry jerking stop motion style around the ground with a signpost jammed through him, while a later amputation is painful to see but kinda funny.

Yelchin as Charley is ok but it is the supporting cast that really help out. Slightly comedic vampire hunter/Las Vegas performer Peter Vincent (Dr Who's David Tennant) definitely upstages him though his mannerisms and look reminded me heavily of Russell Brand. The film at just over an hour and a half never gets stale and is pretty much one big action fest from the moment Jerry and Charley twig onto each other. Thankfully no sex scenes or nudity and is all the better for it. Fright Night is infused with humour which is actually not that bad, a few cultural references to Twilight but otherwise the jokes are universal. Due to the humour the film is not actually scary, apart from a few jump scares, I believe this could have worked as a serious piece of horror, Farrell is certainly unsettling enough in his calm confidence but as a comedy horror it brings excitement, set pieces, good effects and a good use of 3D to really immerse you in the experience.

SCORE:

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - Horror Film Review

Remakes used to be the stuff of true terror for me.  On the whole they were terrible, or merely rehashes of the original film pointlessly recreated. There have been some good remakes. Dawn of the Dead, and Halloween spring to mind.  There have been terrible remakes, such as the pointless shot for shot remake of Psycho, and the decidedly average 1990's Night of the Living Dead remake. I was in two minds on whether A Nightmare on Elm Street would be any good.

The plot is almost identical to the original. A bunch of kids are being killed in their dreams by a burnt man wearing a stripy jumper, fedora, and armed with a spiked glove (Jackie Earle Haley - Watchmen) . It is down to two kids - Nancy (Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), and Quintin (Kyle Gallner - The Walking Dead) to figure a way to stop the killer known as Freddy Kruger.

To be honest, I found the first hour of this film extremely boring, it was only when I accepted the fact that the film was devoid of hardly any original ideas that I settled down and began to enjoy it.
Firstly let's talk about Freddy Kruger. I couldn't imagine anyone but the legend Robert Englund playing Freddy. For the remake Jackie Earle Haley dons the burnt look. He brings something vaguely different to the table, Englund's Freddy was manic, taking great delight in his inventive killings, and full of wise cracks that got worse as the series progressed. His Freddy was able to change his appearance (such as having super long arms, and in later films turning into vehicles, and robots and the like). It was insinuated that his Freddy was a child molester and murderer who was the victim of a mob attack after he got off the charges against him due to a technicality.

Haley's Kruger is a much more mellow killer, he isn't wild and unpredictable like Englund's version. He kills his victims directly, and doesn't deviate from his realistic human look, though he still wise cracks which I hadn't expected, and admittedly some of his one liners are quite funny (such as when character Chris sees her sliced open dog, Freddy goes 'I was only trying to pet him!').  In the remake Freddy was a gardener at a children's school, he was hunted down and murdered based on the children's confessions to their parents about what he had done to them.  Haley's Kruger tries to be more edgy and dark, mainly by swearing lots and lots, and wisecracking in a deadpan serious way rather than excitedly.

What was cool was that the film kind of tricked the audience for a bit. It wasn't clear for a large chunk of the film if Freddy actually had committed any crimes during his life, or if it had just been the lies of the kids. It would have been cool if Freddy was getting revenge for his wrongful murder rather than just getting revenge for having being caught.

Kruger is quite cool, and is probably the best part of the film. The main problem is that there are no new ideas. If you have seen the original then there is nothing new to see here. Victims are killed in identical ways. There is the character who is killed in her bedroom by being flung at the walls before being sliced open (bizarrely better done in the original), there is the girl in the bathtub who has Freddy's spiked glove appear out of the water between her legs, and just general slashings.

Rooney Mara plays Nancy in this remake.  She does a good enough job at looking insanely tired, and an unlikely heroine, the actor who plays Quintin I did not like though; his eyebrows are so damn thick! seriously it was off putting! Other actors are ok, but really there were few standout performances.

If you have not seen the original then I would recommend seeing this. If you are familiar with the original then this film may be a bit boring to be honest. Also the film relies on jump scares far too much, I got sick of them all, though the shock ending was quite fun, though expected. To be totally different they should have followed Rob Zombies cue and made the film ultra dark and violent!

SCORE:

Friday the 13th (2009) - Horror Film Review

My god Friday the 13th is terrible! Not so bad it's good terrible, but just plain awful, boring, and utterly devoid of any new ideas. The Halloween remakes work as they are re-done in the messed up style of the excellent Rob Zombie. This remake though is boring, shows no style, and is utterly generic.

The plot is the same as every other Friday the 13th film. A group of young campers have gone to Crystal Lake, Jason turns up and kills them one by one, until he is stopped. In more detail though; the film starts with a black and white flashback showing Jason Vorhees' mum having her head lopped off by a camper as a young Jason watches from the trees, then it flashes forward to twenty years later. This is different as in the originals that happened not long before the rest of the Friday the 13th's. So twenty years later and Jason is running around killing campers (wearing a sack over his head like in Friday the 13th Part II). Partway through the film he finds his infamous hockey mask. That's about it.

The characters are nearly all really unlikeable, which wouldn't be so bad if there deaths were entertaining, but mostly they are not. All the characters are killed really quickly, and boringly, usually just getting a machete stabbed through them. The film is surprisingly lacking in gore, and feels quite tame, there are a few topless females in the film. The actor who plays Sam in the great Supernatural series is in this, playing pretty much the same role, still he's about the best thing about the film.

What is annoying is how bland the film is, it is almost yawn inducing. Jason teleports around in unrealistic ways. For example, he is killing some male about thirty yards away from a house, literally less than half a minute later he's somehow managed to get on the roof of the house and is standing in a 'grr look at me' way, stupid. The twist ending would have been more of a twist ending if there hadn't been one, as you could see it coming a mile away (not spoiling much, a supposedly dead Jason springs out Crystal Lake to grab the survivor).

This remake of Friday the 13th was a poor film, not worth watching.

SCORE:

Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop (2009) - Zombie Horror Videogame Review (Wii)

Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop is a vastly different kind of game to the original version of Dead Rising. What is cool is how it has changed to fit itself onto the more casual Wii system, and as a result feels like a completely different game.

The story is exactly the same as before. A zombie plague has been unleashed on a small American town. You play as Frank West a journalist who has headed to the town (more specifically Willamette Mall) to investigate and try and get the scoop. Once there you uncover a plot involving terrorists, and about a town called Santa Cabeza. So far so similar.

Obviously the graphics are no where near as good as the X-Box 360 version, and the amount of zombies on screen at any one time is far less. There is major fogging for the zombies, they can pop into existence in spaces were seconds previously there was nothing. To make up for this there are many different types than the 360 version. As well as the zombies there are also enemy poodles, and even parrots who fly overhead and drop hand grenades on you. Quite a few of the psychopaths from the 360 (psychopaths were Dead Rising's version of bosses) are now instead super zombies. These super zombies are stronger and have powerful attacks compared to the usual zombies. The butch police woman is now a giant zombie armed with powerful tasers, and the Vietnam veteran is now a zombie armed with 2 machetes who charges at you for example.

The whole original game was very time based, you had to keep to a strict time limit to progress the story, and lead fellow survivors to safety. Time is no longer an important factor, the different sections of the game are more level based. Usually you will have a story mission, then a variety of missions were the aim is to rescue a specific survivor. Breaking the structure down like this lends the game a far more arcade like feel. You get a grade for each mission you complete, and are gifted accordingly.

This game guns play a far more important role than melee weapons. You have your guns mapped to the D-pad and use the Wii-mote to aim a reticule at the screen in an over the shoulder Resident Evil 4 type of way. Ammo is plentiful, most zombies when killed leave behind either ammo, or money. Otis the owner of a gun store can be visited at any time. In his shop you can buy new guns, as well as upgrade how much ammo you can carry for each weapon, and buy books which teach you new special moves.

Levelling up still occurs. This time it is less important. You get either more item slots (all accessed via a menu screen rather than the 360's real time selection), and a bigger choice of books to buy at Otis's shop, and that's about it. Health upgrades are done via mixing won protein supplements with juice, so levelling up is not needed for that.

The game is still as violent as it was before, and includes some new weapons, as well as removing some others. The game features all the cut scenes of the original and has the 'Overtime' bonus mode incorporated to the end of the game rather than separately selected. Due to the focus on guns the boss battles are far more easy. A particular highlight was the fight with the convicts in the park. The 360 version of this fight was quite tough, this version has the whole fight take place as an extended quick time event, and as a result is quite fun.

After the game is finished there are lots of extra missions available to try (titled 'Odd Jobs') such as running down a certain amount of zombies in the underground tunnels, or killing a certain amount of zombies just using the football weapon. These are a nice bonus. I recommend Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop, even if you own the 360 original. It is different enough to warrant a purchase.

SCORE:

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Zombie Horror Film Review

I watched the remake of Dawn of the Dead again last night, first time this year I've seen it. It is officially a classic zombie film now, I feel I have watched it enough times to warrant it that. Sure people moan about the running zombie trend, but I think there's room for both types of zombies, as well as talking zombies (like in Resident Evil 4, and the fantastic french zombie film The Grapes of Death (watch it, it is fantastic). First of all, this is not a remake. Apart from the location of a shopping mall it has virtually nothing in common with the amazing original. I guess it's good being classed as a remake after the bother Dead Rising had just for being set in a shopping mall. This is more of a homage to Dawn of the Dead, or a re-imagining.

The basic plot for this film is that after the beginnings of zombie apocalypse a group of random strangers have holed up together in a shopping mall. These include a nurse, a TV salesman, a cop, a criminal, his pregnant girlfriend, and some mall security guards. Later on these are joined by more survivors arriving in a lorry. They spend a lot of the film in the mall, then get bored and decide to try and find somewhere else to hang out.

The film is quite violent in places (such as someone accidentally being sawn in half with a chainsaw), and also has an air of humour in places, and a sense of constant dread. There are some cool touches, such as Andy the gun shop owner stranded on his own, a block away who communicates with the mall survivors via whiteboard and binoculars.

Some of the characters are really cool. Ving Rhames as the cop is really really cool, and the chief security guard starts off as a bit of a heel, but by films end has become a really great member of the group. There are weaker characters though. The criminal and his girlfriend are dreadful. Why the stupid zombie pregnancy scene needed to be in the film I don't know, it is definitely the worst part of the film (though the zombie baby is cool). Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 proved zombie pregnancy scenes just do not work well.

The film ramps up to high levels of excitement by films end, and has some cool effects. The additional footage during the films credits took away some of the mystery of the characters fates though, giving the film a bit of a downer. The music throughout is ace, from the opening music of Johnny Cash to the end credit music of Disturbed.

The directors cut has nearly 10 seconds of additional footage, wow. Regardless, Dawn of the Dead was a great film!

SCORE:

Day of the Dead (2008) - Zombie Film Review

Day of the Dead (1985) is one of my favourite films of all time. It is definitely the best zombie film in existence. The idea of a remake horrified me. The Dawn of the Dead remake was good, and that was mostly due to the fact that it had virtually no similarities to the ace original. The Night of the Living Dead remake was not very good at all. This was because it was near identical to the amazing original. Which path would this remake follow? Would it be a pale imitation, or would it run with the themes of the original and be a totally different film?

As the film started I watched in horror, the film seemed to be a complete joke, ruining my fond memories. But then I started to realise - sure it was an insult to have the same title, but as its own film it was entertaining, and also quite original.

The film is a stand alone one, not related to Dawn of the Dead (2004). In this film a small town has been put under quarantine by the American government. The Army have set up roadblocks around the town. No one is allowed in, no one is allowed out as there is an airborne virus in the town. It starts off with flu type symptoms (swine flu?) this is then followed by death, and zombie resurrection. A small group of young survivors who find themselves immune must find a way to escape the horror.

Now for the weird bits. The zombies are runners, as is the vogue nowadays. They also have some intelligence. zombies play dead, set ambushes, and are able to use guns. They also have super powers. zombies crawl along ceilings, have immense strength, and can jump really damn high, which reminded me of the old Fulci Italian zombies. This looked quite ridiculous at first. When the infected turn into zombies they literally do with no gradual change; when infected the victim rots in super quick time, as in a few seconds they go from healthy looking, to green and rotting.

The film has plenty of gore, and has nice nods to the original without being an awful parody of it. There is an underground bunker involved, as well as a similar character to the almighty Bub (the character in this film is called Bud). So yes, Day of the Dead is recommended, it also helps the main female character (played by Mena Suvari) is hot!

SCORE: