Top 10 Zombie Movies

I've never really understood the appeal of zombie films. All I can see is a few undead human beings wandering around and looking vaguely scary. The results rarely produce film that are any good, but as it's nearing Halloween I thought I would countdown those zombie films that have been good to watch. These are the ten best zombie films of all time.

#10 Braindead (1992) (5/10)

Also known as 'Dead Alive', this is one of Peter Jackson's earlier flicks. The results aren't exactly polished, but for a film shot in only eleven weeks 'Dead Alive' is a decent low budget film for those who like a lot of gore to go with their dark humour. The film is set in a world where a man's mother comes back to life after catching the plague from rats that rape tree monkeys, which is a bit fucked up, but then so is everything in a film that's certainly not afraid to take things to the extreme. Thanks to this love of horrific violence Jackson's film not surprisingly bombed at the box office, but still holds high ratings with fans of the genre thanks to ridiculously gruesome scenes like the one above. I suppose at the end of the day an excess of gore is more important than a good film if you're a director or fan in the horror genre. The script is alright and the acting is hard to fault, but that's overshadowed by a terrible and nonsensical plot that hinges on elements that I would describe as basic to say the least. However if you do find watching people being eaten alive is your sort of thing then this could be your new favorite film.


#9 Re-Animator (1985) (5/10)

Another cult classic that thanks to its love for gore is well liked by the fans of undead people. I suppose that's to be expected when the premise of the film is centered on a medical student reanimating dead tissue from severed heads, which doesn't really make sense from a biological perspective, but if you thought this was a logical film then you are sorely mistaken. Reanimating dead stuff is a gruesome process, and just like the work of Victor Frankenstein, this one is a doomed affair that actually starts to become a little predictable by the end. Thankfully this film is less gory than the efforts of Peter Jackson, although not very much, but in place of this is some much needed dark humour that manages to carry the film, despite still being utterly repulsive on occasion. However the acting of Jeremy Combs is not atypical of the zombie genre and is actually quite good to watch. It's a nice shield from the all that gore that the film loves to showcase, and yet despite this performance we get a film that's not for the faint of heart. But then nothing ever is in this genre.


#8 Return of the Living Dead (1985) (6/10)

Yet another black comedy, because apparently Hollywood thinks that undead human beings are something to laugh at. In this one we have dead people being reanimated for some weird reason that's never explained, but then nothing ever is in this genre; it's like the directors purposely choose storylines that are purposely illogical. That's the case in this film, and actually that leaves us with a lazy storyline with an anticlimactic ending that is only saved by the surprisingly good use of humour. I suppose it's what I've come to expect from the zombie genre, and like almost every film on this list 'Return of the Living Dead' is one full of gore and mediocrity. This film almost tries to do everything, and as a result doesn't really do anything well; almost like the director ending up being infected by the zombie's mediocrity. Still, this film has had a lasting impact on the genre thanks to the small feature of zombies wanting to eat brains. That little revelation has made this an iconic film of the genre, which in some ways makes this dud of a film into quite a forward thinking piece of averageness.


#7 World War Z (2013) (6/10)

By this point in time art that involved zombies was big business thanks to shows such as 'The Walking Dead'. This was the first zombie film on the big screen to have a huge budget, and like its television counterpart, aimed to bring undead hordes to the masses. Did this work? Well sort of; the film was certainly a commercial success, but whether it will be an important film historically is another matter entirely. The film certainly has the lasting effect to make an impact on the film industry, but under no circumstances should this ever be viewed as a masterpiece. The premise of the film certainly isn't a small scale affair, more a worldwide pandemic that for the first time puts the whole of humanity at risk in a much more realistic way than the shambles that was 'I Am Legend'. However don't think that this film doesn't have its troubles. You can easily tell that the script had to be rewritten multiple times, and that results in a jumbled plot with a storyline that has been mashed up to spoonfeed to the viewer. It's obviously a film for the lowest common denominator, and that almost makes this an abortion in the zombie genre.

For once a zombie film doesn't end up relying on an excess of gore and violence to carry the mediocrity, instead relying on a non stop pace that doesn't quite have enough momentum to turn this into a respectable film. I know it never claimed to be a masterpiece, but there are many rough edges poking out with no obvious attempt to rectify them. Brad Pitt's performance for example is not special in any way, and neither is the woeful score that just serves to underline the many problems that this film suffers from. However despite these huge flaws I still believe this is a fine example of how a zombie film should work, and I like that instead of pools of cartoonish blood we have a horde of CGI monsters that scare the shit out of you on occasion. This film is one big adrenaline burst that might not be very intelligent, but makes up for this with a powerful premise that thankfully overshadows a very generic film. 


#6 Dead Snow (2009) (6/10)

If you can learn one thing from Call of Duty it's that when undead zombie are combined with Nazi soldiers then the results will always be good. This cheerful film about undead Krauts comes from the film capital of the world, Norway, who have nicely dubbed a really bad English version for the mainstream market. Like all zombie films this one isn't pleasant to watch, and obviously because it's a zombie film there's a lot of blood with a bit of comedy thrown in for good measure. However because this comedy was written by Norwegians it's actually quite cleverly done, but you never really notice that over the disturbing visuals that greet you in every scene.

My favorite thing about this film is that it never tries to take itself seriously despite having quite a serious topic. It's almost like the director knew that the plot had let the strong premise down and so never bothered to explain anything to the viewer. That is disappointing, and the level of detail is certainly pathetic, but for a simple film with anything but an original concept this is a good laugh that mocks the genre at every available opportunity. As a satire this works relatively well, and the decent action sequences compliment this fact nicely. Watching Nazi zombies being mown down by a chainsaw has never looked so much fun, and for an average film with instantly forgettable characters this really does have the potential to be a cult classic in the future.


#5 Zombieland (2009) (6/10)

A comedy, that like most zombie films is more disturbing than funny. This one however actually has an interesting plot that allows the humour to naturally flow out of it, and as a result normal people might actually want to watch it. There's still enough blood and gore around for the serious horror fanatics, but for once all that is taken a backseat to a storyline that's actually been cleverly written. The well designed script is the star of the show in this one, garnering a lot of praise from critics, as well as the usual commentators desperately trying to find any loose connection to society. The fact is however is that this film is just a simple little road trip across a zombie filled country with the occasional celebrity popping along to make an appearance for no reason. Who cares that 'Zombieland' still has the usual flaws in horror comedies? Because at the end of the day this charming film blends horror and comedy together nicely to produce a zombie film you might want to watch.


#4 28 Weeks Later (2007) (7/10)

The original '28 Days Later' was also a very good film, but for once I actually think a horror sequel is  better than the original. Even more surprising is that this film actually has a very good, if illogical plot that contains some of the most realistic and frightening zombies cinema has ever seen. Oh, and of course there's the usual blood and gore for horror fans that really makes this standout from the relatively tame predecessor that isn't anywhere near as exhilarating as this one. This adrenaline filled plot is due to the great pacing of the storyline and excellent directing that give you the impression that this would be how a zombie apocalypse would arise in real life, which is why this film is so fucking scary. This fear accompanied with the bleakness of everything makes this British creation a standout attraction of the genre that for the record contains absolutely zero humour to accompany a lot of scares.


#3 Dawn of the Dead (1978) (7/10)

Apparently 'Dawn of the Dead' is one of horror's classics, and as such I thought I would honor that legacy by actually using an image of the 2004 remake because it looks nicer. That decision may make this film seem like any other horror film, but for 1978 the original was way ahead of its time; attempting to scare people shitless and gross them out at a time when that would be considered something unspeakable. There's certainly a lot of gore, and director George Romero is no stranger to shy away from a lot of brutality and savagery at the expense of many people with weak stomachs. Even many horror fans will end up wincing during many scenes, and this obsession over gore takes over from the characters and storyline, which out of curiosity are actually well worked. In essence it's a traditional Romero horror film made for a modern audience.

The film contains all the hallmarks of a good director. Instead of having apocalyptic and over the top events happening for no reason, Romero sets his film in a single shopping mall. This simple decision means Romero can create a much tenser and claustrophobic atmosphere than in any large budget blockbuster, and these simple yet effective decisions add up to make this film an all time classic. It's a film that not only provides big scares, but a deep insight into Romero's view on modern contemporary society. It might not be the most polished film of all time, but weak acting and a script that needs some work are overshadowed by a solid horror formula being complemented by a veteran director. The 2004 remake was also moderately successful, proving that this age old formula still stands the test of time, inspiring many films filled with gore that unfortunately never have the strong plot that this one did to succeed.


#2 Shaun of the Dead (2004) (8/10)

More proof that when comedy and zombies come together the results can in some cases be quite good. This is the ultimate horror comedy, merging zombies, comedy, drama and pubs in a well written flick that was always destined to be a classic British film. As it's written by the English this film is a great satirical look at the horror genre for a very small budget. It never tries to take itself seriously, and despite some mature themes scattered around, the results are more hilarious than scary. I would definitely describe this film as one for the masses, never becoming silly but then never overdoing it with gore to alienate the general public. This is a hard mix to pull off, but Simon Pegg and company get the mixture just right, and the results are a great, entertaining laugh.

The thing I like most about this 'zombie' film is that the actual zombie apocalypse seems to take a backseat to the social lives in the storyline. That shouldn't work on paper, but here it just does. The result is a film that contains both serious thrills and seriously good characters which is a rarity indeed for a horror comedy. For once there is another purpose to a zombie film that is something other than watching people avoid being eaten alive, and actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are at their usual best to carry this seriously funny film into great places. Everything this film does perfectly compliments each thing, and its no surprise that this small film became a global triumph, with even the master George Romero allegedly offering the duo a role in one of his upcoming films. You know you've made a pretty impressive zombie film when George Romero tries to hire you for his.


#1 Night of the Living Dead (1968) (9/10)

Number one couldn't really go to anything else. George Romero's classic is just miles ahead of its time, and even managed to define the whole genre in the process. With a budget of just 114,000 dollars George Romero singlehandedly managed to create a simple film that generated over 18 million in profit thanks to one good idea. It's just such an impressive accomplishment that just one poorly budgeted film managed to turn out into such a classic, and then in turn changing cinema forever in the process. All Romero needed was a simple premise to pull this off, and thankfully for him people were scared shitless at the time by slowly moving zombies trying to eat people alive in an isolated barn. To this day the plot still chills people to the bone, and that's all thanks to some unbelievably good directing and some fine acting despite having almost nothing to work with.

The worst part however is that despite all the scares this film was released at a time before age restrictions were introduced to films, and so children were actually allowed to watch one of the most grizzly films in history at the cinema. Imagine being a child and seeing something as frightening as the picture above; that would scar me for life. As a result of this fact the reception to the film at the time of release wasn't exactly promising, but now it's a film in the public domain that everyone enjoys watching to some extent. Thanks to the production company never bothering with copyright laws you can watch this classic for absolutely nothing and it's completely legal. I would recommend preparing yourself before watching; even by today's standards this film is grim.

Morons of the Internet: PETA (04/10/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a ridiculous lawsuit from those resident morons over at PETA. Instead of targeting huge problems that face animals they have decided to sue a single photographer over a 'monkey selfie'. This idiocy, ladies and gentleman, is what your donations are funding.
___________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/22/monkey-selfies-copyright-lawsuit-peta
http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/Complaint.pdf
http://www.copyrightcompendium.com/#202.02%28b%29
___________________________________________________________________________________

Below is genuinely the reason PETA give for suing a seemingly innocent wildlife photographer over an image taken on his own merit. Naruto by the way is the name of the monkey in question.

Yeah that's right, under PETA's logic a monkey that takes a photo out of curiosity should automatically have ownership of those photos despite not even knowing what copyright laws are. It's all very well saying that if a human were to have taken the pictures then they would be protected by copyright laws, but the fact is that Naruto is not a human; he's quite clearly a monkey. In that case PETA might as well have turned up to court and said 'well he would have murdered the person if the bullet had actually hit him'. You know this is going to be a pathetic argument when the whole thing hinges on a point that is entirely hypothetical and irrelevant considering that monkey's don't comprehend what copyright is. This bollocks is even before you get to the mountain of shit that PETA just pluck out of thin air. At no point do they ever mention that the camera was intentionally left in that location by the photographer in the hope that a 'monkey selfie' might be taken, and so as far as anyone is concerned surely the rights of the photo must go to the photographer as he's the one who deserves the credit.

PETA then go on to make another false statement; this time trying to redefine 'authorship'. Looking at article '202.02b' of the US Copyright Office's Compendium you will find that the term 'authorship' is defined as follows: "for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable." Where do we draw the line with your bullshit PETA? Does this mean the rights to a feature film should now be given to the camera crew instead? Does this mean the lion in the MGM title sequence needs to be given the same preferential treatment as fellow actors? Should those whales in those bloody whale song CD's be given royalties for what is clearly their labour? This whole argument is ridiculous as PETA are clearly in denial that copyright laws are present to protect the artists themselves, and not monkeys who happen to click a button by accident. It's quite clear to me that PETA have taken this whole issue completely out of context, and if the reply from the court was anything other than 'fuck off' then there's something drastically wrong with American law.

PETA may think they're being clever in trying to find loopholes in the law to spread their cause, but in reality they're evidently being assholes to an innocent photographer who meant no harm. The photographer's photo actually helped raise awareness for the monkey in question, which perhaps PETA should spend more time doing instead of funding pointless bullshit like this; especially when the photographer in question was quoted as saying this:

Turns out that PETA are suing an average guy who isn't made of money and will now have to go through the whole costly case because PETA refuse to get their heads out of there own asses. What a dick move for any organisation to make, yet alone a charity that prides itself on supporting ethical behaviors. All this photographer wanted to do was share his passion with the world, maybe make a living off of it, but PETA being the narcissistic assholes that they are decide to ruin this man's career with their liberal bullshit, only so they can spurt their biased agenda down everyone's throats.










However the worst part of the story for me is that the photographer was trying to raise awareness for the critically endangered Sulawesi Crested Macaque, of which there are only around 5,000 left in the wild. By suing this photographer PETA are taking the focus off of the endangered monkey in question just so they can spread more awareness of their own unsustainable campaigns. If PETA are allowed to continue with this crap and get away with it then that's going to prevent wildlife photographers from doing their job, and that will have a huge effect on the amount of funds given to genuine conservation programmes, that unlike PETA's methods might actually help wild animals. PETA claim that they will give the money from this case to the primate community, but given their record in funding stupid projects to gain awareness and various unsustainable projects, it instantly becomes apparent that this lawsuit is going to have a detrimental effect on wild animal populations globally. All this in exchange for another pathetic PR stunt from PETA that only serves to give them even more money to waste.

I don't think even PETA can be moronic enough to think that monkeys have a basic understanding of what copyright laws are, yet they still won't admit that this sham is just another way to try and give animals the same undeserved rights as humans. It's a damn shame that this event has to happen as it takes the funding away from where it's needed at a time when it's most needed, and instead being given to some hypocritical charity that are only successful in slaughtering animals in their care. On this issue though I don't care that PETA are hypocritical morons, only that here they're a bunch of assholes. This idiocy is what your donations are funding people. Your donations are not spent saving animals, but instead to damage others who have different methods of preserving nature. What a pathetic charity. It's honestly like commenting on the actions of a petulant child.

Music Review: Lana Del Rey - Honeymoon

Reviewing Lana Del Rey albums has become standard practice on this blog due to the fact that she's just about the only mainstream artist in the charts that's still producing original albums that stand out from the crowd. I last reviewed her previous album 'Ultraviolence', which I personally found lackluster, although I keep hearing from people on the internet that it was the best thing to ever happen to music. Okay maybe the praise wasn't that high, but there's no denying that Lana holds a very high popularity despite not being the most conventional artist on the scene, and so it's only fair that I find out what all the fuss is about. If this new album, 'Honeymoon', really is as good as people are making it out to be then it has a good chance of scoring highly on my rating system, and being as she's the only modern pop artist with even a hope of making it to those levels I thought I would give her another chance. After all, I do actually quite like her personality. She's a desirable character despite being so miserable, although I would never want to take her out to the pub.

'Honeymoon' is an album that Lana describes as being similar to her first two albums, which I'm sure means something to her fans, but I couldn't be bothered to review those albums, so this will be a new experience for me. On the surface the album doesn't sound particularly exciting; Lana is once again teaming up with producers Rick Nowles and Kieron Menzies, and the previews she's given have suggested that the content will be as grim and depressing as usual. Interestingly some of the recordings took place at the Electric Lady Studios in New York, which is famous in my mind, as it's where Jimi Hendrix recorded 'Electric Ladyland'; one of the greatest albums of all time. Not only did that album have some fucking awesome music on it, but it also had naked women on the front cover. I doubt we'll be getting the latter on this album, but as this studio has a rich history in good music we could be getting some of that instead; although I get the feeling just by looking at the cover that the album isn't going to be the most exciting thing I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.

As for the album, well there isn't anything new to analyse thanks to a conservative performance to say the least. The album still suffers from the same 'Lana drawbacks' that have prevented me from enjoying her previous work, and I do believe this stems from a simple lack of passion. A truly good album would have the artist at the creative core, but here we have Lana only co-writing the songs on her own album. If I had the luxury of having my own name on the front of an album cover then I would at least bother to make sure it was my material included, and not just collaborating with other faces that make it look like the album exists solely for money. I've never felt the need to demote Lana to the status of only a performer, but with this album I get the sense that there really isn't any artistic integrity on display, and it's actually just a singer trying to pay the bills for her hedonistic lifestyle, all whilst appeasing her fans constant demands. The result is an album that feels less powerful, less gritty, more generic than 'Ultraviolence'. The actual content is really well produced and performed as you would expect, but at the end of the day it's indistinguishable from her previous work. It's still like listening to a musical rendition of a suicidal teenage girl's diary, and that just leads to mediocre results.

The mediocrity is made worse by the fact that this album goes on for over sixty minutes, which when listening all the way through is a painful process. Maybe the lengthy time would be acceptable if the album was exciting or easy to listen to, but it just isn't. I like art that runs at a slow and methodical pace, but once you get past those first few songs the album becomes too samey, too gloomy. The first few songs on the album, 'Honeymoon', 'Music to Watch Boys to', and 'Terrence Loves You' are all fine examples of well written and produced songs that Lana is capable of when it sounds like she can actually be bothered. This opening section is great to listen to and certainly creates an almost psychedelic atmosphere before Lana's songs end up drifting into the tired old cliches that plagued her previous hits.

Another issue I found with the album is the constant namedropping and the cover song that concludes the album. The most interesting example is the use of David Bowie's lyrics in 'Terrence Loves You'. I thought the actual song was decent to listen to and so why it needed to reference an artist exploring themes that aren't even remotely related to the song in question is completely unnecessary in my opinion. Maybe that's just my personal taste, but unless Lana Del Rey is going to transform herself into a Ziggy Stardust type of character then I'm honestly just not interested; it feels like she's blatantly referencing other work to broaden her own audience whilst adding nothing to her own work. Perhaps I wouldn't be complaining if there was a rapid transition in the album, but 'Honeymoon' just ends up feeling like a slow paced film that never bothers to develop into anything significant. The fact that the conclusion of the album is a cover of a well known song is just further proof that Lana is only treading on ground that many others have been on before.

However the worst thing about the album by a mile is how disorganised it all feels. Nothing feels like it has a purpose, like it's just a random collection of songs collated in a meaningless fashion. The album is just one similar song after another, with even an interlude in the middle for god knows what reason. I would expect an interlude on a concept album, but on 'Honeymoon' it's like Lana is a fat kid at the buffet filing their plate with as much as they can despite being far more than they can ever manage. The interlude sums up the album by feeling like just an afterthought; it has no artistic merit, and just sits there to kill some time. That's the same issue with the latter stages of the album that only seem to serve in emphasising the vivid soundtrack. I do like the atmosphere the production created, but when it's repetitively contrasted with this dreary and monotone droning from Lana the products are underwhelming to say the least. You have to ask yourself what this latter portion is doing on the album, and all the clues point at Lana simply wanting to appease her fans with the same old tired formula that's become far too routine for people with more sophisticated tastes. I understand that not every song on the album is going to be a masterpiece, but I at least expect something that feels special.

The problem is that I can't work out if this nonchalant attitude is on purpose. The lack of passion is far more noticeable than in any of her previous work, and although I wasn't a huge fan of her previous albums, I still preferred the time when Lana would do something other than spurt out vague observations. Here Lana sounds like an ageing dog repetitively groaning and mumbling to be finally put out of its misery. For the first time a Lana Del Rey album seems to lack any character or drama, and whether that is purposeful is debatable, but it certainly alienates a man like me who gets tired of the same rinse and repeat formula whilst still not addressing the issues that brought down your previous work. In short 'Honeymoon' has brief glimpses of unique musical talent followed up with 45 minutes of generic and dull material. I guess you could say the album is rather like a honeymoon in that it begins with really exciting concepts and a lot of promise, only to be followed by what seem years of events that whittle away into nothing. I'm sorry Lana, we've heard it all before.


Final Score: 5/10   **1/2