The real walking dead

DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

When I first saw "Dawn of the Dead," back in 1986, I found it to be a huge disappointment. I loved the original "Night of the Living Dead," and "Dawn" was like a gory second cousin in living color. Remember that I was a teenager at the time and was a big fan of Freddy Krueger (still am). But having watched "Dawn of the Dead" since, I was amazed at how much I missed. "Dawn of the Dead" is a comic horror film, full of satirical touches and director George Romero's own fiery theme of man's inhumanity to man and dead men.

The film does begin rather unevenly. The setting is a TV station (the only one presumably on the air) where the host is arguing back and forth with his guest over the zombies - they are everywhere and are turning the nation into zombies. How can we stop them? Can we study them, perhaps to find what drives the urge to eat humans? The scene is a study in chaos and paranoia, as we also hear the rumblings from the TV crew watching the host and the guest argue vehemently. To make matters worse, the military is in the building (or so I thought - the editing is haphazard but maybe that is the point), and they are busily wiping out every zombie by shooting them in the head. Eventually, after witnessing ten minutes of quick shootings and the rumblings of a priest with a wooden leg, four survivors take off in a helicopter and land on the roof of a shopping mall. All is fine and dandy until they realize that the entire mall is flooded with zombies! So how do you manage to take whatever you want from a mall while fending off zombies who are fascinated by elevators and do a lot of window shopping?

"Dawn of the Dead" has several moments of gore delicately crossed with brazen black humor. The film is a satire of consumerism, and what better place to consume and shop than a shopping mall? The zombies are drawn to this place because they feel they have been there before (and they like to consume as well), and I only wish that director George Romero pursued this idea further. If a zombie can recollect a specific memory by being in a familiar setting, can they think? If so, what channels it? And if they can think, can they see that maybe human flesh is not something to consume? Well, I just posed some existential questions here which Romero may not have thought of, but they went through my mind while watching this film. Most fans of the film will say that this a graphic geek show, designed to entertain and scare the bejesus out of you. It is that, and Romero has successfully managed to do so. But the setting of the film brings other questions to mind, considering this is not a nonstop avalanche of gore. The human survivors of the film stay at the mall for a long period of time, enough time to convert the dressing rooms into bedrooms. They even have a living room and a kitchen - it all looks like an advertisement for "Good Housekeeping." The dawn of America, Romero seems to say, is that the survivors of the Apocalypse will focus on living the good life of rich foods, TV, clothes, and all in great quantities, of course. Oh, and it helps to be armed and ready. The zombies are merely interested in consuming human flesh.

"Dawn of the Dead" is often brilliantly unnerving, fitfully gory and offhandedly scary, using a perfectly bland setting where you would never expect zombies to scour the regions of something so sacred to the American consumer. The ending goes on a bit too long (particularly after seeing Tom Savini, the king of gory makeup, as a motorcycle rebel), and the characters never truly come alive beyond being caricatures with glints of humanity. I must add that you still care enough about them to hope they make it out of the mall alive. "Dawn of the Dead" has a purpose and it fulfills it to a tee - to scare you and to gross you out. It does those things as well as any director could, but it is clear that George Romero has much more on his mind.

Baby Chucky, how cute

SEED OF CHUCKY (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

  
Years ago I argued briefly with a friend of mine that the "Lethal Weapon" films got 
progressively worse after number 2 and became comedies. My friend felt that the 
third entry was the best because of the humor. So it goes with sequels. The 
original "Child's Play" was a first-rate thriller about a killer doll with the 
mind of a psychopath (though "Trilogy of Terror" has the scariest doll ever 
seen). Then came "Child's Play 2" and "3" and they were as bad as sequels get. 
Director Ronny Yu injected new life into the series with "Bride of Chucky," 
which came on the heels of the "Scream" postmodernist horror trend. "Bride of 
Chucky" was more funny than scary but it was at least entertaining. "Seed of 
Chucky" is an aberration and an abomination, a movie so awful that I was more 
sickened by it than anything else. I am no prude and I enjoy horror films. 
Horror movie parodies is another matter but "Seed of Chucky" is wildly uneven 
with its mix of blood splatter and bad Hollywood puns that went out of style 
shortly after Robert Altman's "The Player" in 1992.

Consider what I thought this movie was going to be. I thought Chucky (voiced by Brad Dourif) and his bride, Tiffany (voiced by Jennifer Tilly), were going to have a baby (ick!) and discover that the baby was far more murderous and psychotic than they were (at least the teaser trailer seemed to hint that). But the movie begins with a sexually ambiguous doll (voiced by Billy Boyd, yes, from "Lord of the Rings") that runs away in E.T. style from an abusive ventriloquist. The Doll With No Name is looking for his parents and discovers they are Chucky and Tiffany, who are being used as props for a movie called "Chucky Goes Psycho." So the doll brings Chucky and Tiffany back to life thanks to an amulet. Oh, and for students of postmodernist horror, Jennifer Tilly plays herself and Tiffany, and there are precious few digs at Hollywood and at Tilly herself. Then we have rapper Redman as a film director making a movie about the Virgin Mary (a rap song about the Virgin would've been funnier) yet he prefers to cast Julia Roberts over Tilly (once again, the Julia phenomenon was more effectively used in "The Player").

Yes, "Seed of Chucky" has the requisite blood and gore. There's also a Britney Spears look-alike and John Waters as a determined paparazzi. But the movie is not even gruesome fun and stalls at truly mocking Jennifer Tilly and the Hollywood game. What I found were homages to Ed Wood and Brian De Palma, glorified gore, truly lame jokes and in-jokes, and a sickening feeling that the Chucky franchise is far from over.

Chucky gets Tilly

BRIDE OF CHUCKY (1998)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Bride of Chucky" is another one of those guilty pleasures - you know, a movie that you're ashamed for having liked because everyone else hates it. This 1998 sequel is campy, dumb, unscary, but always teeming with a tongue-in-cheek attitude that is refreshing to watch back in the days of late 1990's "Scream"-like homogenized horror movies.

This time, Chucky (voiced by the ever-reliable Brad Dourif) is assembled out of broken doll parts by his girlfriend Meg (the big-breasted Jennifer Tilly). She reads a book called "Voodoo for Dummies" and presto, Chucky is back with several scars running through his once cute Good Guys Doll appearance. No matter, he's back in business and kills Meg and then transfers her spirit into a female doll named Tiffany! Why? I wish I knew, but this isn't the kind of movie that thrives on logic.

The plot has to do with two teenagers in love who run away to Niagara Falls to get married for two reasons - to escape the girl's domineering father (John Ritter), the Chief of Police of a small town; and because her beau is about to collect a reward at a New Jersey cemetery (!) by bringing two dolls courtesy of Meg. Guess who the two dolls are? Oh, and guess who the girl is? A younger Katherine Heigl, back when she was willing to take a role that did not advance the state of dumb teenage girls in movies (oh, how I'd like to kick her for her comments post-"Knocked Up").

"Bride of Chucky" is certainly original and miles ahead of the last two Chucky fests, which helped destroy the horror genre before "Scream" came along. This is due partly to series creator and writer Don Mancini, who brings a level of wit and satire to the proceedings. The dialogue is chock full of references to "Natural Born Killers," Martha Stewart, "Boogie Nights," "Bride of Frankenstein," and several infamous horror icons.

The performances are crude but always riotous, including scene-stealing Jennifer Tilly and her whiny voice that carries the day, and a Marilyn Manson look alike that is hilariously played by Alexis Arquette. Brad Dourif's high-pitched laugh and various asides redeem what could have been schlocky junk. The teenagers are throwaway roles that could have been slipped in by any number of anonymous teenage actors from the "Dawson's Creek" variety.

"Bride of Chucky" is campy, outrageous fun that keeps moving at a fast clip (thanks to solid direction by Ronny Yu) and was part of the string of postmodernist takes on horror movies. It's not real horror but it will do as a worthy follow-up in the Chucky series.

Hi, I am Chucky, want to play?

CHILD'S PLAY (1988)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(originally viewed in 1988, not reviewed till 1998, hence all the postmodernist horror comments)

Let's begin by saying that I am heartily sick and tired of post-modern, cleverly designed horror/slasher flicks which try to comment on the whole slasher genre, only to end up becoming what it is that they are pretending to satirize. The year 1998 had the following in store: "Urban Legend," "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," "Halloween H20," and "Bride of Chucky." The latter has the same degree of self-awareness, considering there's one shot of someone watching a clip from "The Bride of Frankenstein."

"Child's Play" is one of the better horror films that was released around the time of "Halloween 4" and "Monkey Shines." It unfolds at a quick pace with some tense, scary scenes. No one really needs a description of what this film's story is about - a killer practices some voodoo magic and his soul enters the Chucky doll (a toy every kid desires). The best scene is when the mother (Catherine Hicks) picks up the package that the doll came in, and the batteries fall on the floor! Oops! How can the doll speak without batteries? When she threatens to throw the doll into the fireplace, the doll's face contorts into the angry, evil Charles and emits some Exorcist-like obscenities: "You filthy slut!", and so on, and so forth.

"Child's Play," however, has some unbelievable moments that hinder the tension towards the end. For example, the suave cop (Chris Sarandon) who shot Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) disbelieves the kids stories about the doll speaking and giving orders, and he disbelieves the mother after she's obviously been attacked (she's bitten on the arm). Then the cop is attacked by Chucky and, curiously, when he sees the kids' mother afterwards, he doesn't even tell her that he was attacked! Why not? That's hard to swallow, and it is unlikely that such a doll would travel through the cold city of Chicago unnoticed, but that's a trivial complaint. The ending, as effective as it is, is a cross between "Terminator" and "Halloween" where the killer just keeps rising back from supposed death. They could have easily blown the doll to kingdom come, so you can see why it was stupid to make two inferior sequels about the same damn Chucky doll.

"Child's Play" is done the old-fashioned way (even for an 80's horror movie) by not including a high body count or any needless gore - the movie builds its suspense with thrills and chills thanks to the able hand of director Tom Holland (who helmed one of my favorite upbeat horror comedies, the original "Fright Night"). The performances are decent (including Alex Vincent who appeared in the next two installments) and, most importantly, we care about the characters' plight. Although it doesn't come close to the unrelenting terror of the voodoo doll episode in "Trilogy of Terror," "Child's Play" is still better than most recent horror slasher flicks. Oh yeah, and there are no clever post-modernist jokes.

1970 predates Evil Dead by several equinoxes

EQUINOX (1970)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

What happens when you have a film where two young couples run around a half-mile of desert and bush only to enter a cave and then exit it? "Equinox," that is what happens. What about a smiling old man who laughs like Woody Woodpecker inside a cave and hands a magic book with strange symbols to one guy? "Equinox," that is what happens. What about a park ranger who turns out to be the king of demons, known as Asmodeus, who is mad that the magic (and very dusty) book is in their hands? "Equinox," that is what happens. What happens when you have a pair of Ray Harryhausen stop-motion effects including a giant ape-like creature with hooves? "Equinox," that is what happens.

The movie begins with an institutionalized young man, Dave (Edward Connell), who survived the attack with demons. He tells his story in flashback to a curious reporter. In the flashback (which is the whole film), Dave is looking for a geologist in a park that looks more like a series of dunes surrounded by some bush and caves. He is joined by two girls and another guy, and we get a strange dimension where they can see a castle that is more of a mirage. Creatures appear after the magic book is taken, though none of the symbols are uttered in any incantation that opens any portal. The demonic creatures chase the victims who run around endlessly. That is the film, folks.

"Equinox" was directed by three people, one of them being the uncredited Dennis Muren (who also helmed the special photographic effects). Muren went on to do fantastic visual effects for "Jurassic Park," "Star Wars," "Terminator 2," "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," and much more. Actor Ed Begley, Jr. was assistant to the cameraman. He also went on to better things. The reporter at the end of this snoozefest sums up "Equinox" best: "There is no story here."

Bloodless Pitt, Schoelen and Leitch

CUTTING CLASS (1989)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Cutting Class" is so confused and muddled that I gave up figuring out what it was trying to be. Is this a slasher film, a parody of a slasher film, or just rotten, slipshod filmmaking? I'll go with the latter.

Jill Schoelen is Paula Carlson, a high-school teenage girl who is being sought by two guys at school. Basketball high-school star Dwight (Brad Pitt) wants Paula in bed - are they going steady or not? Who knows. Former mental patient Brian (Donovan Leitch, Jr.) was once Dwight's best friend, but he may also want to get down and dirty with Paula. Or does he? Who can tell with all those endless menacing stares except, after a while, the stares become monotonous and laughable. Martin Mull is Paula's father who is attacked and practically left for dead, dragging himself from end of a marsh to another. And let us not leave out the late Roddy McDowall as a teacher who also has the hots for Paula.

"Cutting Class" has one murder that is certainly clever in its visual design - it takes place in a gym and has been mentioned in the slasher film annals of blood and gore murders. The rest of the movie is a slow-moving bore that is choppily edited and completely lacking in rhythm. It feels like leftover 80's slasher nonsense featuring a bloodless cast and intrinsically bloodless direction by Rospo Pallenberg (who wrote two decent films, "The Emerald Forest" and "Excalibur"). Jill Schoelen practically walks through this movie, getting by on her cheerleader looks and her tush (a waste of a good actress). Brad Pitt merely exists as eye candy, though he shows some passion when getting his head stuck in a vise. The whodunnit of new murders at the school can be seen a mile away (hate to give it away but just think about the season of the witch). This movie makes me wonder just what the filmmakers intended - its purpose is nonexistent.

A dusty, dull Devil

DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST (2005)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia 

I'll be honest: I'd love to see a grown-up Regan MacNeil as played by Linda Blair. I'd like to see Regan as a single woman with a child, living in present-day America, dealing with her personal, private and real demons. That would be a fascinating sequel, if done right. But a story about Father Lankester Merrin's early days, several years before the events of the original "Exorcist," doesn't really satisfy me unless of course the role is played by Max von Sydow. They sort of dealt with Merrin's past in the abominable "Exorcist II: The Heretic" and then again for the horrendously underimagined "Exorcist: The Beginning." Now there is the earlier version of "The Beginning," Paul Schrader's own "Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist," considered too spiritual and not horrific enough. There is more spirituality in this version, but less emphasis on what makes some of the characters spiritual.

Father Merrin (played once again by Stellan Skarsgard) is the faithless priest, now archaeologist, who is in South Africa in the late 1940's digging out a dome with a church underground. It turns out it is a church with statues of archangels surrounding it, and there is a pagan church underneath that by way of a coffin. British colonialists protect the church but there is only so much they can do when demons unleash their powers, specifically Mr. Pazuzu himself (not actually named in this movie, but you know who it is). Merrin's crisis of faith comes into play again, and there is some poor villager, Cheche (played by international singer Billy Crawford) who may be possessed. Oh, yes, and a lovely nurse (Clara Bellar, who certainly looks the part of a Florence Nightingale-type) and let's not forget the young, naive priest (Gabriel Mann).

Schrader's version of this film was shelved by Morgan Creek productions and remade by Renny Harlin in less than a few months apart (completely unheard of in La-La Land). Harlin's MTV-version was a blood-soaked bore whereas Schrader's version is simply boring. Skarsgard is generally a fine actor but he is so indifferent to the events surrounding him that you wonder when he is going to yawn (and that crisis of faith cliche is well becoming too much of a cliche nowadays). The CGI effects, though sparingly used, are shoddy including a laughable scene where cattle eat hyena remains. There is also a Northern Lights-montage section that leaves one almost nostalgic for Linda Blair waving her arms in ecstasy amidst locusts in "Exorcist II." Whatever spirituality exists in this film is only in the mind of the beholder, or the viewer.

"Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist" is not a bad film by any means. It is visually spellbinding at times (thanks to the lensing by veteran cinematographer Vittorio Storaro), and there is a fear of dread that occasionally works - it even looks like a western. In the end, though, the actors are cardboard and listless and the story doesn't carry enough punch (though I like the opening scene with Merrin in the Holocaust era). The devil may have had his due in 1973, and we don't need any more extensions of "The Exorcist" added to our collective memory.