Star Trek: Into Darkness... and I have no clever subtitle to add.

Star Trek: Into Darkness.

When it comes to the ancient and honored Civil War of Geekdom, I’m afraid that my flag is firmly planted in the Star Wars camp. That’s not to take anything away from Trekkies or the object of their cult-like adherence to Starfleet, but rather as an explanation of where I stand in the eternal debate. I enjoy Star Trek, I think it’s a well worthy science-fiction series with memorable characters and it deserves the fandom it has. But it’s just a fun series of movies for me. It was a decent television series that I would watch on occasion, never with any sort of regular devotion that I reserve for a few other projects in existence.  I’m not as versed as some with the subtle nuances and scattered trivia. I’m simply not as attached to the series as I would be to the Jedi or Luke Skywalker. I can complain for hours about how Han shot first, but I really don’t care about the difference between Romulans and Klingons. So I’m not heavily invested in the success or failure of the Star Trek series on the whole, which may be one of the reasons I really enjoyed the reboot.

I’ve seen what J.J. Abrams is capable of with recreating the franchise and doing so from what is basically ‘scratch’… he reset a number of characters, he dashed known “Trek” history out the window, and he created a brand new series out of the franchise with familiar and yet vastly different characters.  We do get a number of the stereotypical moments with Spock, Kirk, and McCoy and the interaction between the three we come to expect. On the other hand, the characters have new histories, backgrounds, and motivations to propel the plot and Starfleet in an entirely new direction. People are happy with a few of the changes, but some fans are up in arms over a number of issues. Fair enough.

Okay, I geeked out a bit when I saw “Mickey” from Doctor Who take on a small role in the very beginning of the film. It wasn’t really much of an impact other than to start the plot moving forward and introduce us to   the character played by Benedict Cumberbatch. The star of BBC’s “Sherlock” arrives in full force as the movies’ primary villain, a former Starfleet operative whose identity is a tightly held secret that fans of the series will thrill to discover. When he flees to Klingon space after having attacked a number of Starfleet targets (leaving a number of higher ranked officers dead or wounded), Kirk and the Enterprise are tasked with a secret mission to bomb the heck out of the Operative. The results will more than likely spark a war with the Klingon Empire, so Kirk ultimately decides to forego vengeance and attempts to capture the Terrorist instead.

The plot plays more like a Mission Impossible sort of film, with spies and intrigue and heavy action pieces all thrown into space. It doesn’t really feel like a Star Trek movie when it comes down to it, and that’s not necessarily a negative thing. Loyalties are questioned, Starfleet’s “prime directive” comes into play, and questioning when it’s alright to “break the rules” is a constant theme throughout the film. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto continue to drive the film as Kirk and Spock, their chemistry works quite well and we see how the two continue to effect one another.

4.5 out of 5.

Highly recommended.

My Thoughts after "Mr. Bruce, do you Swear?" (WARNING: Contains offensive Language.)

You want to know what offends me?

There are plenty of words out there that offend me. There are plenty of ideas that I find disgusting, horrible, offensive, and damaging. There are movies I won't watch, shockingly enough. There are books I won't read. There are songs I won't listen to, celebrities I find annoying, politicians who drive me up the wall, and there are plenty of words. I think the word "cunt" is probably one of the most offensive words I've ever heard, and it may be the most offensive term I can think of when scratching the back of my head for a decent insult. I could have gone with "arrogant, cruel, and vindictive bitch-woman", but I thought "Cunt" summed it up far better and much more succinctly. The fact that I already knew it was insulting and cruel and offensive was precisely what I was going for, because I wanted to verbally lash the victim of this horrible word. My favorite insult is "cum guzzling gutter fuck"... I dredged that out when I was a teenager and like to dust it off every now and again for shits and giggles. It's pretty offensive. It sends out red flags with a good many people and got me punched in the face once. The person who punched me in the face wasn't even the target of the insult, but rather his mother. I didn't think he would be appropriately insulted by the comment, so I threw it at him by adding "your mother is... " and found the words hit their mark. I find them offensive, and you're damn right I use them. Words are a fantastic weapon.

But you know what really offends me?

No, fuck that... you know what pisses me the hell off? I mean, seriously pisses me off and sets all sorts of red flags up in my own head? I get pissed when one person tells another person to "shut up"... whether it's me or someone else, or whether I'm saying it or not, it fucking burns me up and makes me want to scream and claw and fight. I once threw someone across a room for telling me to "shut up".  And then broke a wall and nearly made a goddamn door out of it. Yeah, I had anger issues when I was growing up so suck it up because that's not the point. I find censorship to be offensive. And you know what? I also find the passive aggressive version of censorship to be even more offensive... when someone says that free speech means having a responsibility to say the "right" things, to NOT be "offensive", to NOT be harmful. Fuck that bullshit because I already wrote this a little earlier, but here it is again: WORDS ARE A FANTASTIC WEAPON.

So Jody Gilmore is a friend of mine and we've had chit-chats about classic movies, monsters, and the controversial work of Lenny Bruce. Gilmore once played Bruce in a play written by Rob Foster, so we had plenty to talk about. I'm a big fan of the man. I've downloaded a number of bits onto my mp3 player and continue to update my rhapsody with a number of people who benefited from the fight Mr. Bruce took to his grave. And when Gilmore decided to reprise that role in Paper Wing Theatre's latest production, "Mr. Bruce, do you Swear?", I was super excited and eager.

Lenny Bruce was repeatedly jailed for being offensive, for using his words. He was punished for delivering a series of ideas to an audience that huddled in the dark night clubs and allowed themselves to laugh at dark material. He casually tossed insults toward Catholics and Jews, he dropped the F bomb, he repeatedly went to jail, and he had a reputation that continues to this day. They say he fought the system, you know that? They say he fought the system and he lost... he fought the fucking LAW, man! He stood before a judge and a jury and plainclothes Detectives and he continued to use his words in defiance and he was fucking punished. Nat Hentoff once wrote: "Bruce opened the door not only in the way we live, but also in the way we cover it up."

I like that.

And it's appropriate that the play at Paper Wing Theatre is a sort of modern day reminiscence or dream or other-worldly idea regarding a conversation between Hentoff and Bruce. Hentoff is a well known civil libertarian himself, having long continued the fight after Bruce's death. But if you watch the show, if you pay attention, you understand something that every rebel without a cause often miss when they think of Lenny  Bruce: He wasn't really fighting the system. He was fighting a series of judges who wanted to redefine the system, he was fighting small-minded police officers, he was fighting the lame repetition of cuss-words taken out of context by Herbert Ruhe when the agent took the stand, he was fighting for his words in a country built upon a word that begins with C... .and it may be the most offensive word to the ears of Lenny Bruces' critics. Lenny Bruce believed in the system. Lenny Bruce fought FOR the system, he fought FOR his rights, he fought for is words... every one of the offensive bits and pieces that made up the whole of the context of his act.

You know, I'm sure people are reading this and wondering when I'm going to ever get to the show itself... I've been telling you about the show the whole time if you paid a little bit of attention. This show is about ideas, it's about a performance that hits straight for the goddamn heart and shreds the mind and the expectations of its' audience. You want me to tell you about the lighting? It was there, it was appropriately used, and it helped to tell the story. You want me to tell you about Jay DeVines' fantastic portrayal of Hentoff and various others who appear throughout the remembrance of Bruce? Jay DeVine is a great actor, he tackles the material with enthusiasm and delivers Ruhe's well known testimony in the New York trial. Oh, but come on, what do you want from me? Pay attention to the context and maybe you'll start to understand what I'm saying. Sorry, what I'm writing. You can't actually HEAR what I'm saying, can you?

"Mr. Bruce, Do you Swear?"

You know what? I just had to suck back a few tears right there when I wrote that. That's a fucking awful question. It's a fucking rip-off of a question to ask a man who puts his words together to form a fucking goddamn idea and then to have his words ripped away from him. Do you swear? Is that what it came down to at the end of the day? Were a couple of people offended by some language, offended by an idea or two, offended because some guy stood on a stage and told jokes for a living? There are too many people in this world who are offended by something or another. They're offended by the word "Dyke", they're offended by the word "Nigger", they're offended by religion, they're offended by a lack of religion, they're offended by political discourse, they're offended by sex, they're offended by violence, and they point their fingers and then decry a belief that is slightly different than their own. And if I've offended you with what I've written, perhaps you needed to be offended... and I ripped that idea right out of a Suicidal Tendencies song, so don't credit me with some clever little sentence. I didn't put that idea in my head, they did. I've got a lot of really harmful ideas in my head, inspired by listening and reading a lot of words from a lot of people. I can thank Mr. Bruce for those ideas because he opened a door and he made so many of them possible.

Jody Gilmore is in the title role of Mr. Bruce. He inspires laughs, he inspires frustration, he inspires courage, and he brings one of the best performances I've ever seen on stage. He brings a lot of words to the show, also. Some of them are pretty scary. They are harmful, they are cruel and they are offensive. They are a series of ideas delivered in context. These words define a battle that started when a bunch of men decided to sign their names to a document that guaranteed that people could trade, exchange, and discuss various ideas and judge for themselves the worth and value of each idea. The battle didn't end in 1776, it didn't end when Lenny Bruce passed away on August 3rd, 1966. It didn't end when they decided to put "Parental Discretion" stickers on albums, it didn't end when Nat Hentoff was ousted from The Village Voice for sharing an unpopular decision, and it isn't over when the lights go down in Paper Wing Theatre.

Go see Jody Gilmore resurrect Lenny Bruce, because there isn't a better show on the silver screen or any stage in Monterey County.

John Dies at the End: the new Don Coscarelli movie.

John Dies at the End.

I suppose I should begin with Don Coscarelli. The man who brought me Phantasm and Bubba Ho-Tep has been a pretty consistent director for the weird and bizarre, often hitting the nail on the head when it comes to catching my interest. When he announced his intention to direct an adaptation of the novel “John Dies at the End” I knew only two things: 1. It was going to be a long time before I saw another Phantasm movie and 2. I had to hold off on reading the David Wong series that began with “John Dies at the End”. Since that time I’ve avoided all spoiler info on JDatE and I waited for the film to hit a local theater or DVD or whatever. Well, it nearly skipped the theater with a release direct to VOD but did manage to get a brief run at the local art house during a hell week for myself with a single showing at 9:30, which would have gotten me home well after midnight when all was said and done. I’m 37 years old and I have a family, so that wound up being all sorts of fouled up. And then I also refuse to order VOD when I’m likely to get the movie a few weeks later through Netflix… which is what I did.

Another friend of mine saw the movie before me… and he didn’t have that much to say about it. In fact, he seemed downright disappointed in the product and so my hopes were brought a little bit lower. But I still wanted to see the film for myself and it wasn’t too long before Netflix came through. As a side note, I no sooner got the DVD from my mail account than the movie became available ON DEMAND through Netflix two days later!!! Oh, I hate when that happens…

So did Mr. Coscarelli disappointment me? I rarely so passionately disagree with my friend, but this is one of those rare occasions where our views were totally different. “John Dies” utterly blew me away and was probably one of the trippyiest, most bizarre, twisted, and entirely entertaining bits of film I’m likely to see this year. The story is narrated by lead character David Wong and features a struggle against the supernatural, alternative dimensions, a drug called Soy Sauce, giant brain scorpions, a meat monster, ghosts, a famed television psychic, and a talking dog all leading up to bizarre climax. The problem is that telling anyone who reads this blog about this movie is a huge disservice to them, because this is definitely an experience kind of movie and something you need to see fresh in order to absorb the full strangeness of the piece. 

Now, that's not to say the movie doesn't have a few faults... some of the CGI and green screen tech is a little low budget, but keep in mind that Coscarelli bucks the studio system and creates INDEPENDENT films for the weirdos. But while the effects tend to lag at points, the acting more than makes up for it... we have an amazing performance from Paul Giamatti and Clancy Brown has an interesting turn as the mysterious psychic television personality, Marconi. 

4 out of 5.

9 to 5 at the Paper Wing Theatre

9 to 5: The Musical

“9 to 5” is a Broadway musical adaptation of the early 80’s film starring Dolly Parton, Lilly Tomlin, and Jane Fonda as three uppity women who fantasize about killing their innocently flirtatious boss, Mr. Hart. Paper Wing Theatre unflinchingly addresses the dangers of what happens when you allow the women-folk to leave the kitchen with shoes on and enter the workplace.  Can you imagine a world where women were treated equally? Well, I am most certainly glad that someone is willing to tackle the dangers of such thought. The show is set in the year 1979

Kate Faber takes the lead as Violet, a single widow taking struggling to make ends meet as she raises her unruly teenage son (Jordan Brewer). She is the de facto office manager, training the new employees and running errands for the heroic Mr. Hart (Michael Alliman). Kidding aside, Faber has an amazing voice and plays up some of the tongue-in-cheek anachronistic comedy with special nods to some modern references scattered through the show. She opens the second act with a great song, joined by the male ensemble, in one of my two favorite pieces for the show. She’s joined by Judy (Alyca Tanner), a recent divorcee entering the workforce when her husband leaves her for another woman, and Doralee (Mindy Kruty-Crothers), an always chipper country-western singer struggling to fit in when her “assets” draw unwanted attention from the office men. The three ladies are constantly harangued by their sexist, egotistical, manipulative, lying bigot of a boss and his trusty secretary, Roz (Kelly Machado). Events transpire that draw them together.  The three women are forced into action after an accidental poisoning forces them to kidnap Hart and hold him captive for a month in his own home, allowing the three women to take control of the office for a time. Their policies have an immediate effect, but I’m going to say you should probably see the show if you want to know what those policies are and what effect they had. I’m not going to sit here and spoil it for you, faceless reader!

I know some of you are aware that my earlier comments were a little tongue in cheek in reference to the sexism being addressed by the show, but let me be clear… Michael Alliman is cast as a slimy weasel of a boss, filling the shoes of Dabney Coleman from the original production. His dismissive attitude toward Judy, his lecherous advances toward Doralee, and his dependant lack of appreciation for Violet gives each of the women a reason to fantasize about his death in elaborate scenes that feature the villain getting his come-uppance. The ladies are all brilliant throughout these scenes, and Hart is the perfect foil to common decency that everyone takes a certain degree of pleasure in seeing him suffer.

My favorite song in the show was, without a doubt, the solo piece from Roz as she tells the audience how she truly feels about her boss and expresses her unrequited passion.  “Heart to Hart” is great and allows actress Kelly Machado to take her moment to shine with both voice and comedic timing, with a special appearance from Alliman who adds just the right moment to the whole piece. I laughed so hard I nearly passed out!

A big kudos to the rest of the cast and crew throughout the show, because there was almost always a constant movement on the stage.   The smaller roles gave considerable momentum to the story arc as the ladies navigate through office politics, social cliques, and even the amorous affection of a young accountant vying for Violet’s regard. If I were to sit here and write about everyone who left some sort of impression on me I’d be writing long past anyone’s interest level, suffice to say that there a bunch of people whose talents deserve more than just a brief blurb in some guys blog.

5 out of 5.

Evil Dead Remake!!! Late, but I've had it saved for a few days now.

“EVIL DEAD” The remake

I am not a fan of remakes.

That’s not to say that I condemn them out of hand or refuse to watch a remake, only that I have not seen too many that have brought a major justification to the table for their existence. Often they’re only pale imitations of the original or they just aren’t very good to begin with. In a few instances, the movie just blatantly spits in the face of the original and delivers a new ‘vision’ that does nothing that the film maker believes it does. On a rare occasion there are some very good remakes, however… especially when the source material begins with something that maybe didn’t do so well or where something is blatantly a product of its own time and could be retold with a fresh outlook based on a new generation.

And then, even rarer, the remake just stands on its’ own merits. Such is the case with “Evil Dead”, a remake of the Sam Raimi classic which starred Bruce Campbell and got a good number of people started in the business. But this isn’t a continuation of the story begun so many years ago, this isn’t a remake that includes the two sequels, this is a straight up “5 kids go to the woods and get possessed” remake of ONLY the original film. It’s a formula brought to snarky parody in recent films like “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil” and “Cabin in the Woods”, the latter of which is referenced by a local reviewer who wonders why this movie was even made since the formula had so richly been played out since the films initial release. The same reviewer wonders why Sam Raimi would greenlight the production, act as an executive producer along with the original films’ other makers, and generally laments the lack of “soul” and execution from this films creators. A reader might actually wonder if the reviewer actually watched the original film, or if they only vaguely recollect the basics given the cult status of the films popularity. I rarely tend to agree with the reviewer, who seems to fashion herself some sort of a "fangirl" who quickly bashes any genre film that doesn't immediately capitulate to her feminist views and somehow act as an apology to all the male chauvinist sexism spread throughout the years. Yeah, I'd say I'm not a fan but I honestly look forward to her reviews in the newspaper because they differ so vastly from my own.

“Evil Dead” may not be a parody, but it’s still one of the most hilariously gory films to ever reach my local multiplex. The screen is painted red with blood and there are visceral scenes of unbelievable cruelty as the five characters are forced to cope with the awful horror they accidentally unleash.  The flimsy excuse for these five to be so secluded is that our lead character, Mia, is undergoing a cold-turkey rehab from some unnamed substance abuse problem. After finding and reading passages from the book, the rest of the group continuously excuse the erratic, violent, and self-abusive behavior from Mia to be a result of the hardcore detox. This confusion is played to both serious and comedic effect as Mia’s actions become much increasingly intense and the ‘reader’ of the book (Eric) starts to fit the puzzle together and figures that Mia has become possessed.There's an especially hilarious moment when Eric is trying to tell Mia's brother, David, what he thinks is happening and David keeps questioning the theory.

Oh, the characters… the ones we’re supposed to care about are David and Mia, the estranged brother and sister. David is here to help his sister after having grown apart from her and his dying mother. There's a bit of a history referenced here between the two characters as they opine over photographs that seem to have been taken some time in the past. Of course, the photo looks about a week old and everyone in it has the same hair style as they currently have in the film so... uhm... how much time have these two been apart? Don't worry, you won't get an answer. This is just flimsy back story exposition. Eric and Olivia are the childhood friends struggling to help Mia through her addiction, both of whom harbor feelings of resentment for David since he seems to have disappeared from all of their lives some amount of time ago. Natalie rounds out the group as David’s girlfriend, who is as blank a slate as they come when it came to character development. Seriously, she's introduced with only the slightest of waves and barely says anything through most of the rest of the movie. You sort of know she's just fodder going in, so that kind of adds to the comedy a little later in the film. Most of the problems between David and Mia are explained through scenes of stilted exposition dialogue that comes off as largely awkward, though Mia’s performance is pretty strong despite the writing. Her possession is well played to horrific effect, and when the poop hits the fan it TRULY hits the fan.

I know it sounds like I’m being a little cruel to the film, but this is what it is… another cabin in the woods movie. It’s a remake of a classic. It doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel to be entertaining, and entertaining is precisely what it is. The formula isn’t ‘dead’ just because Joss Whedon wrote a film that offered a parody on the tropes delivered, it’s still a fun concept and good way to make a scary movie. The actors playing Eric and Mia tend to stand out while the others just sort of blend into the background… but it’s not a situation where the movie is "bad but at least it has gore", it’s a fun little spook ride at the amusement park with lots of influences from various horror movies. It plays with clichés, dances with the hardcore fanbase, and generally has some good stuff to offer.

4 out of 5.

Circle Mirror Transformation: At the Stardust Theater

Circle Mirror Transformation is awkwardly hilarious. That's my first and most prevalent thought throughout the show... the awkward interaction between the characters, long moments of uncomfortable silence, and the general feeling of discomfort when people simply don't seem able to communicate. The story revolves around a community acting class focused on the "touchy-feely" exercises on improvisation, self-revelatory monologues, and other similar activities designed to improve awareness and communication. The six week course is shown through a series of vignettes as the characters become caught up in the exercises and their personal relationships with one another.

The instructor is "Marty" (Judie Rogers Swartz), whose work has been focused on children's' classes but is finally able to bring her love of theater to adults with this new program. Constantly cheerful and optimistic, Marty attempts to convey that the participants are participating in important exercises in abstract theater. She is most heavily challenged by the groups youngest member, Lauren (Hannah Maurine Schmidt), whose attitude prevents her from seeing the purpose in many of the exercises being taught. Swartz brings several layers to the character of Marty and her cheerfulness is often pulled back to reveal a deep hurt, frustration, and even hope as events transpire.

Shane Dallmann is Marty's husband, James. Described as an "aging hippie", James is coerced into attending the class and doesn't seem to understand what the exercises are for. At first seeming like a gentle father-figure, James' history is revealed early in the play and we see the antagonistic nature of that history play out throughout the six week course. He is estranged from his daughter, struggling with his wife's constantly positive attitude, and struggling with his own failures to commit in on a professional or emotional level with the world around him for fear of becoming "like his father".

Theresa is a former actress who left her life and boyfriend in New York to find a quieter life in Vermont. Of all the participants, Theresa seems to fully embrace the abstract exercises and constantly seeks to "perform" at every opportunity. Tatum Tollner brings a lot of humor and a certain degree of "siren"-like to quality to the part as she seems to lure the attention of the groups' men.

The group is rounded by "Schultz", a recently divorced man reaching out for personal contact with the world around him. He is probably the most vulnerable member of the group, and Matthew T. Pavellas yanks back many rules on personal interaction to great comedic effect throughout the show. Shy, uncomfortable, and unaware of his own social missteps, Schultz was the character I found most easy to identify with and largely became the character I most liked.

"Are we going to be doing any real acting?" The petulant arm crossing and non-involvement from Lauren is probably the most important aspect of the show, a young girl who find herself watching and learning from the people around her. She often sits in a manner that seems so familiar, those awkward teenage years where people try to disappear into the background. She's almost always present throughout the show, watching and observing the characters and how they interact with one another. As the weeks go by, she becomes more involved and takes many of the lessons to heart. Hannah Maurine Schmidt was incredibly good with great body language to the events around her.

The shows awkward pacing is flat out brilliant for getting the most laughs from the audience, reveling in the uncomfortable silences between the characters and their body language. Director Renee Infelise should be given a huge round of applause for those large moments of silence. The sparse setting, with a mirror along one wall and a large rubber ball that moves throughout the show allows the characters to play with wide empty spaces and effectively build and take apart those invisible walls everyone constructs between themselves. Whether you've taken part in similar exercises before or not (and I have not, honestly) you will find familiar moments between the characters and the humor of communication.

Go see the show, which is currently playing at the Stardust Theater.

Warm Bodies

WARM BODIES

thoughts

The commercialism of the “zombie” product is probably one of the most ironic statements in the direction of our society as a whole. The phenomena is a little strange, a little bizarre, and maybe a little rough for the hardcore fans who have been watching these movies for decades. I mean, you have Zombie Walks, one of the top rated shows on television is about zombies, and zombies are creeping into culture on nearly every level. The staggering success in movies, comics, books, video games, and television shows has given the Hollywood Machine a fairly standard addition to their rolling assembly line of cookie cutter garbage. Nothing else so summarily describes this cultural numbness than that of the movie “Warm Bodies”.

I don’t mean that in a negative way, either.

No other movie dares to expand the zombie mythos, no other movie shatters the paradigm, and no other movie better illustrates the utter ridiculousness of the success of zombie films as  much as “Warm Bodies”. And that is not to say that the film does all of this with any such intention. In fact, it may be with the complete lack of intent that the film makers managed to make such a ridiculously moronic blend of genres into such an entertaining bit of fluff that it acts as a parody to itself in every sense you may never expect. Many people saw this movie as the “Twilight” with zombies, other people saw it as “Romeo and Juliet” with zombies, and still others saw it as cheap popcorn trash. I think there’s something much more important going on here. 

Not only were all those opinions right on the money, but they all failed to truly recognize the piece of artistic genius this film may have unintentionally created. At the core point of the story we have a zombie named “R” who falls in love with a human girl. The story is told solely from the point of view of the zombie. Now, because we are being told a story from the point of view of the monster, we have got to already take some liberties with the zombie mythos from the very start… mainly, that zombies are capable of thought. Zombies are driven by more than just the deepest of hungers. Zombies are not monsters. And in that very important decision, the film makers have completely undermined the purpose and intent of the “zombie” as a creature, as a feared monstrosity, and they’ve dressed it up in cartoonish buffoonery for the core purpose of entertainment.

Once you accept that point, it’s easy to see why this film has to bend over backwards in order to get the PG-13 rating it so richly deserved. People don’t really get ripped apart in view of the camera, there aren’t too many real ‘scare’ moments, and what ‘horror’ there is occurs just out of view of the frame… even “R”’s devouring of brains looks more like a gelatinous mass he scoops into his mouth too quickly to really count as much of anything. The zombies aren’t really scary in any way. Rob Courdry is featured in the film as R’s “best friend”, M. He brings a lot of humor and genuine emotion to his zombie character and is probably the most well developed character the film, so it’s easy to like him and root for him when the conflicts reach their apex.

The movie is a film about zombies, and rather than showing them as only “near-human” creatures capable of life, there are a group of zombies who have rotted to near skeletons and abandoned all sense of humanity. The “bonies” are driven by hunger, hate the possibility of change with their near cousins, and seek to devour both humanity and “near”-humanity with equal relish. In point of fact, these cheap CGI creatures aren’t even the decaying mockeries of life afforded to Romero’s traditional creature. These are more Harry Hausen-like walking skeletons from the old Sinbad movies… choppy movements, constant leering grins, and a total lack of any real horror to be found in most zombie films.

Fans of Zombie movies aren’t going to find much to be impressed with in regards to “Warm Bodies” as an entry into their much-beloved genre… it’s teen-age soft-core horror at best, an amusing parody, and an unintended satire on the state of our society at this point in time. It’s a perversion of the core themes found in all the genre’s mixed into this little twisted salad… “Romeo And Juliet” is not a romance, it’s a tragedy. “Zombies” are not about misunderstood creatures that need a little love. And “Twilight” doesn’t come anywhere close to making the kind of unintended statement this movie actually seems to thrive on. The farcical concept of bringing humanity to monsters in a contrived Zombie Apocalypse seems to be a cringe inducing nightmare waiting to happen, but the movie never promises to be anything more than what it is. It delivers on what it promises and it sort of succeeds in not being too blatant of a slap to the face in doing so.

What I think a lot of zombie fans need to remember is that these are “fictional” creatures… before George Romero brought the ghouls to the screen, zombies were the result of a voodoo ritual in tropical island movies. Different film-makers have introduced various concepts… the fast zombie, disease zombie, demonic zombie, deadite zombie, brain-eaters, alien parasites, and on and on and on. The core point was that they were mobilized walking corpses that attacked humans for whatever reason. If someone wants to make a horror flick geared toward teenagers, let them have it. Not every teen-based horror film is a travesty to the genre incapable of entertaining in any way, shape, or form. And if this movie happens to be a little less insulting than many, it should be given an opportunity of some sort.

3 out of 5.