The new trailer has a lot of the same stuff, but a few new scenes (including a brief glimpse of Michale Rooker as Yondu) and features The Runaways 'Cherry Bomb'. It's worth watching the trailer for that alone. Well, that and learning what Groot snacks on. Check it out below.
Or, skip that and watch the video below. Because, really, who cares about information when you have boobs?
Synopsis
The story follows Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a former United Nations investigator. It's never exactly clear what kind of "investigator" he is; based on dialogue, I assumed war crimes or human rights abuses. What matters is that he was the best at his job. Retired and living with his wife (Mireille Enos) and children (Abigail Hargrove, Sterling Jerins) in Philadelphia, the film wastes no time dropping them into the middle of the zombie holocaust as the city rapidly descends into chaos. After escaping with his family, he is recruited by what's left of the UN to find the source of the zombie plague. Leaving his family behind on a US Navy vessel, he travels to South Korea, Israel and Wales. While never finding the source of the plague, he does find a way to give mankind a fighting chance at defeating the undead.
Anaylsis
Told in that form - a one paragraph synopsis - the movie doesn't sound too bad. Unfortunately, the story is full of holes, the dialogue is boring, and the actors - when they are given anything to do - seem disinterested in actually performing.
Before going into those issues, the first thing look at is the much touted "epic scope" of the film. The pre-release buzz - and the trailers - implied a zombie movie on a huge scale (it is called World War Z, after all). What is actually on screen, however, is not much of an epic. Looking at the settings for the scenes gives a good idea of the limited nature of the film. From the beginning, we see:
The film was originally conceived around three escalating spectacles. The first, the attack in Philadelphia. The second, the siege of Jerusalem. And, the finale, a massive battle in the heart of Moscow. The problem: with the scenes in Philadelphia (and Newark) not being very impressive and with the final part of the film becoming much smaller in scope (a fight within a building instead of retaking a city), this escalation does not happen.
Even without the visual thrills, the movie still could have been worthwhile if the story had been coherent or the actors more engaged. However, this is not the case. Things just happen to push the story forward, whether they make sense or not. For example, Elyes Gabel is introduced at the end of the first act as Andrew Fassbach, a virologist who goes to South Korea with Gerry. He exists solely to deliver a little exposition and then accidentally shoots himself in the head. Unless this was supposed to be a bit of slapstick humor, then the audience reaction that I experienced - laughter - was probably not what the film-makers intended. But, he had served his story purpose. There is nothing wrong with having supporting characters who are there to provide plot points; but this was so perfunctory and the method of removing him from the story was so ludicrous, it brought the viewers out of the story.
The film might still have worked if it had memorable character moments, rather than epic visuals. These character moments do not exist. Other than Gerry, none of the characters are developed. The main supporting character, an Israeli soldier named Segen (Daniella Kertesz) has no personality, is given no background and has few lines of dialogue. It is unclear what her purpose in the film is. It appears that her character was given more to do (and was better developed) in the original third act; as it is, she serves no purpose.
A major sub-plot is Gerry's attachment to his family, who have been left in military care while he heads off on his mission. Since none of them are developed, there is no emotional resonance when he expresses reluctance at leaving them or when he is afraid for them, after they are relocated from the ship to Nova Scotia. Gerry could just as easily have been single and the general plot of the film wouldn't have changed at all. Except, of course, for losing a pointless subplot involving getting asthma medication for one of the the daughters that pads out the first act, as well as the plot-point that he will only help the UN if they keep his family on-board one of the ships. Even this threat is hollow. When the family is eventually sent off the ship to a refugee camp in Nova Scotia we don't see them again until the end of the file. They're fine and there's no indication that they were ever in danger.
Could this story, even with these flaws, still have been engaging? Perhaps; but, that would have required a more engaged cast and developed characters. No one seems to be particularly involved in the movie. Brad Pitt seems to have spent all of his emotional energy on getting the film made. He turns in a bland performance, one with little energy. While he can turn in intense performances (12 Monkeys, Fight Club) here he slips into a generic "reluctant hero" mode. It's not a bad performance; but, like the rest of the film, it has a distinct "going through the motions" feel to it. For some of the actors - like Kertesz - it may be a function of having little to do or say. Others appear to have had their roles significantly cut (Matthew Fox's role, for example, was almost completely removed once the third act changed). And some are just oddly written. The most obvious is that of Thomas, a young boy rescued from the apartment building in Newark and adopted into Gerry's family. The problem; he has just witnessed his entire family being killed by zombies, but seems to suffer no trauma from this. Not that it matters much; after the first act, he is forgotten about until briefly reappearing at the end of the film.
Notes
Being a glutton for punishment, when I saw that Netflix is running the unrated version, I decided to check it out. Aside from a little more blood and a handful of character moments that mostly go nowhere - with the exception of a brief expansion of David Morse's role as a CIA agent who explains how North Korea has survived and tells Gerry where to go next - this is more of the same. If you haven't seen the movie, want to and have Netflix (or Amazon Prime; I think they are running the unrated version as well) you might as well check this version out. It's marginally better.
Of course, marginally better than terrible is still...terrible.
Verdict
A film can be carried by stunning visuals. It can also be carried by a gripping story or great acting. When a film has none of these, when it comes across as flaccid studio product, thrown out like chum into the summer film-going waters, then it it not worth seeing. And World War Z has to rate as an overall failure, as both story and spectacle.
Synopsis
Rose (Marilyn Chambers) and her boyfriend Hart (Frank Moore) are motorcycling around the Canadian countryside. After an accident, Rose is severely injured and laid up in the Keloid Clinic - a private plastic surgery center - recovering from an experimental tissue regeneration procedure. This new technology repairs her injuries; it also leaves her with a taste for human blood, a new organ for draining her victims and the carrier of a rabies-like virus that infects survivors of her feeding. When she escapes to Montreal, the infection spreads, the city's population becoming violent, foaming-at-the-mouth killers. Will the plague - and Rose - be stopped?
Analysis
Like all of writer-director David Cronenberg's more personal work - in contrast to later films such as Eastern Promises - Rabid displays a mix of fascination and distrust of technology, a fixation on the corruption of the body through, to borrow a phrase from his film Videodrome,the "new flesh," and the interplay of sex and horror. These constant themes - and the arresting images they are conveyed by - set Cronenberg apart from most other science fiction/horror filmmakers and make even his low budget efforts worth watching and analyzing.
Cronenberg's "new flesh" - the personalization and characterization of the impact of technology on the individual and society - never results in a positive advancement for mankind. At best, the incorporation of the "new flesh" leads to ambiguity, with the affected character changing in ways that sever his connection with humanity. In Rabid, however, there is no ambiguity. After being subjected to experimental surgery, Rose is physically perfect; however, the incorporation of the "new flesh" into her body leads to horrific results. Rose's "new flesh" can only survive on human blood. To feed on her victims, Rose grows a new, blood draining organ, the human body changing to accommodate the pressures of technological advancement. Further, while we don't know Rose before the accident, it is clear from the reactions of other characters that her personality has changed. As we see her, she is little more than a vampiric junkie, doing whatever is needed to get the next "fix" of human blood. The "new flesh" - the way we react to technology and how it changes us - is a violent, destructive force.
While not dealt with as explicitly as in his previous film (Shivers), the link between sex and horror that is the third major theme of Cronenberg's body of work is present in Rabid as well. Rose's method of feeding requires a tight embrace, which a number of her victims misinterpret as a sexual advance. She gains access to some of her victims by taking advantage of their sexual desire for her. The nature of her new blood-siphoning organ - a phallic proboscis emerging from a vaginal hole in her armpit - doesn't leave much to the imagination. The uneasy tension between sexual desire and the unwanted possibilities associated with it - disease, violence, finding out the person you went to bed with is not the person you thought they were - are all present here.
Is Rabid a good movie? Beyond being a formative work of one of the most interesting film-makers of the last 35 years, has merits that help it overcome its low-budget limitations. Marilyn Chambers turns out to be a decent actor. While an example of "stunt casting" - Chambers was at the height of her porn career during the late-70s - she does a credible job as the alternately confused, terrified, desperate and predatory Rose. The special effects - mostly fake blood, some mildly graphic surgery scenes and Rose's blood draining organ - are competently handled. The cinematography makes the most out of a bleak, early winter landscape and numerous night scenes. The movie flows nicely, with a good balance between action and character moments.
The low budget does hurt during the spread of the plague in Montreal. Having a few extras in white bio-hazard suits and surplus army uniforms shooting a couple of plague victims fails to create a "city on the edge of chaos" feel. Also, while Chambers puts in a good performance, the rest of the cast is uneven. In particular Frank Moore turns in an emotionally deadened performance - although, to be fair, Cronenberg seems to like having his actors underplay their character's emotional states.
Notes
Is Rabid a zombie movie? Or, is it more of a viral apocalypse, akin to 28 Days Later? I think it works as both, particularly if you look at the themes. People are reduced to mindless killing machines. authorities unable to contain the plague except with the most desperate and draconian of measures - Rose's fate and that of Ben in Night of the Living Dead are similar. A victim of the zombies/plague slowly turning into a monster. While the plague victims in Rabid are not undead, they fit comfortably into the zombie genre.
Verdict
Ultimately, Rabid is successful in spite of its limitations. It is a thought-provoking work by one of the cinema's most original filmmakers. Whether you are a Cronenberg fan or just looking for an interesting diversion from the usual horror fare, Rabid is worth checking out.
Extra Bonus
You didn't think I was going to post something about Marilyn Chambers and not include some sexy images of this Seventies hottie, did you?
Oh, all the background textures were taken from Lost & Taken, an amazing blog full of great images.
First, my take on 1953's War of the Worlds:
Next, a homage to some of the low-budget sci-fi related sex comedies of the '70s and 80s.
And, finally, the latest offering from The Asylum....haha, just kidding...maybe.
The film opens with an accident in a atomic weapons lab, an explosion that kills Karol Noymann (played by John Carradine; although he is referred to as Karol by the cast, he is listed as Carl Noymann in the end credits and is called Carl in the opening narration). This leads Professor Adam Penner (Philip Tonge) to resign from America's nuclear weapons program because of the threat it represents to the human race. His family, friends and colleagues don't understand why he thinks working on weapons that can destroy civilization is a problem. His daughter Phyllis - played by Jean Byron - exemplifies this attitude, hoping "he gets over it."
The night after Noymann's funeral, his reanimated corpse shows up at Penner's door, to deliver a message from the "Invisible Invaders." The aliens - whose ships and bodies are invisible, hence the name, and who can possess human corpses - want Penner to tell the world that the human race must surrender in 24 hours or a massive invasion force will be launched from the Moon. The alien explains that they are going to attack because mankind is developing nuclear weapons and space travel and might be a threat to their "dictatorship of the universe."
Of course, no one listens. The invasion commences; it consists of stock footage of various disaster, inter-cut with a few scenes of reanimated corpses lumbering about the countryside (all of whom are well-dressed, middle-aged white men). Our heroes (the Penners, scientist - and the initial, ambiguous love interest for Phyllis - John Lamont (Robert Hutton) and Air Force Major Bruce Jay (B-movie regular John Agar, who gets the girl in the end...of course)) retreat to an underground bunker, working desperately to find a weapon to defeat the invaders. After only three days, mankind is on the brink of extinction. However, at the last minute, our heroes succeed in developing a sonic weapon that can defeat the aliens.
The movie ends with the protagonists being thanked by the UN and the human race learning a valuable lesson; that in spite of our differences, we can cooperate
Analysis
While the story is pretty straight forward (and adequate for the 67 minute runtime) it does have a number of themes in tension. The attitude towards nuclear weapons is conflicted. They are responsible for the death of Noymann, Penner cites environmental contamination from tests and accidents as a reason he is leaving the project and their development prompts the alien invasion. The military justifies their development by saying the Russians are working on them, so we have to as well, a pragmatic/realist view of nuclear deterrence. While the aliens cite the development of nuclear weapons as one reason for invading, the fact that they wiped out the original inhabitants of the moon, shows that they are a genocidal menace. In this case, the argument can be made that nuclear weapons themselves are not the problem. Rather, the problem is that they cannot be employed as a deterrent. An incomplete, but potentially threatening defense is more destabilizing than either no defense or one that is a capable deterrent.
There is a mixed message regarding pacifism and peace advocacy. Penner is approached by the aliens because he has been an advocate for peace. Apparently, pleading for peace and cooperation leaves you open to manipulation by aliens, communists, and whatever other inhuman monsters are menacing America. However, it is the lack of peace - in the sense that building nuclear weapons is indicative of a lack of peace - that prompts the aliens to invade Earth when they do. They have been observing Earth for thousands of years; it is only when our technology is approaching the point where we can take our warlike ways into space that they finally see us as a threat.
With the specter of a catastrophic nuclear war hanging over America in the '50s, it is not surprising that attitudes towards peace were complex. Peace was desirable, particularly in the wake of the global devastation of the Second World War. However, advocating peace and disarmament while the "other side" prepared for war was seen as suicidal. It was also not clear what could provoke the USSR and Communist China. Would they launch an attack if they thought the US was too weak and passive? Or would an arms build-up lead to a preemptive assault?
The film also looks at the tension between the scientific and military communities (a standard note of tension in science fiction films of the time). While science and the military are intertwined in many of the films of the era, it is an uneasy partnership. From the military's initial lack of understanding of Penner's reasons for quitting the nuclear weapons program to Lamont shifting from proponent of a robust defense to sniveling coward ready to surrender to the aliens (which leads to a fist fight with Major Jay) to Jay's no-nonsense "just build something to kill the enemy" attitude, the alliance between science and the military is not a comfortable one. That it is the clash between Jay and Lamont that leads directly to the means to destroy the aliens can be seen as an indication that this uneasy relationship is both necessary and complex.
Finally, the film touches at the need for unity among the nations of the world. While the story focuses on the United States and the efforts of our American heroes, it is telling that the first clue to the alien's weakness comes from a Russian scientist working in Moscow. It ultimately takes the efforts of the entire human race to win the war, even though our heroes develop the weapon that can destroy them. This is in contrast to other, similarly themed movies of the time. For example, in The War of the Worlds, the Communist block nations are never mentioned. It is a small moment, a tiny bit of dialogue, but it does reinforce the theme that we all stand or fall together.
Notes
The film has the best dressed zombies in movie history. They are all white men wearing suits and ties. I think the Invaders resurrected a graveyard of insurance salesmen.
Verdict
Invisible Invaders is fun, low-budget movie that has some thematic complexity, although it it is hampered by the reliance on stock footage, dull direction, flat cinematography and mediocre performances.
Synopsis
Opening with a prologue/flashback set in Vietnam, the movie gets right into the good stuff (as far as films like this are concerned): a raid on a cave complex being used by the Viet Cong leads to exploding dogs, flamethrowers torching VC, and cannibals munching on human flesh. The three protagonists - Norm (John Saxon), Charlie (Giovanni Lombardo Radice, billed as John Morghen) and Tommy (Tony King) - are introduced. Charlie and Tommy are prisoners kept in a pit in a Viet Cong camp, Norm is their commanding officer who leads a raid to rescue them. He is also bitten by Tommy...which somehow passes on a "cannibal virus."
The rest of the movie takes place years later in dreary looking Atlanta. Norm seems to be fairly well-adjusted. He's married to Jane (Elizabeth Turner) and has a nice house in the suburbs; however, he also has flashbacks to Vietnam that lead to him staring lustfully at raw meat in the fridge. While Norm isn't as bad off as Tommy and Charlie (both have spent their time after Vietnam in a mental institute) he is clearly not without problems. Played with a numbness that either shows a deep understanding of the character or a complete lack of interest in the role by Saxon, Norm's façade of normalcy rapidly starts to crack, starting with his biting Mary (Cinzia De Carois, billed as Cindy Hamilton), a trampy teenager living next door, during a brief dalliance.
The infection, however, continues to spread from one victim to another. At Jane's urging, Norm goes to the mental hospital for a check-up, is overcome with the urge for fresh human flesh, and helps Charlie, Tommy and Helen (May Heatherly - playing a doctor infected by a bite from Tommy) escape. The cannibal quartet winds up being chased into the Atlanta sewer system where, in an obvious parallel with the prologue, flamethrower armed cops chase the "enemy" through the man-made caves while Norm talks about going to the airport, in order to fly back to Vietnam.
As the film fades to black, all of the leads are dead and the authorities think the menace is over. With the last shot of an infected Mary, however, the audience knows that things are just getting started.
Analysis
What is impressive about the film is the major theme of the film; cannibalism as a stand-in for the trauma of war and its life-long effects. All of the vets display traits - albeit exaggerated - that one associates with post-traumatic stress disorder. Emotional detachment punctuated by outbursts of rage. Flashbacks to the horrors that haunt them. A love/hate relationship with the source of their trauma; at one point, Charlie rants about what's great in Vietnam - "leeches," "snakes," and "Viet Cong booby traps." At the end of the movie, Norm dresses in his uniform, to face what is his inevitable demise. By doing so, it is clear that Norm never left the war behind. And, it also serves as an indictment of a society that sends men to fight, but views them with suspicion, fear or indifference when they return home.
While not The Deer Hunter, this is certainly an interesting attempt to take the cannibal/zombie horror film and do something more than just go for the gross-out - although there is plenty of that too. Cannibalism as a metaphor may not be subtle; but it is pretty effective. Notes While technically not zombies - the flesh munchers are not dead - this follows the tropes of the zombie film. The zombie reflects aspects of culture - the fear of disease, the fear of death, the unease with consumer culture, even the idea that in the modern world we are nothing more than anonymous members of a mindless herd - all of which are found in Cannibal Apocalypse.
Verdict
Cannibal Apocalypse is a fun, goring romp. Check it out.
The trailer, just for you. Because I care (and it's on YouTube).
Spread of Simian Flu: Before the Dawn of the Apes (Year 1)
Struggling to Survive: Before the Dawn of the Apes (Year 5)
Story of the Gun: Before the Dawn of the Apes (Year 10)
More info on the release can be found here.
