In-Depth Movie Reviews & High Quality Trailers

Posts tagged “zombies

Return of the Living Dead III (1993)

Okay, I didn’t have time to watch and review the first two movies for this month.  However, I feel this has generally been regarded as a markedly different entry to warrant being judged apart from them.  It’s a zombie film meshed with a teenage love story.  It’s no Shaun of the Dead, another film that I’m overdue in revisiting, but Return of the Living Dead 3 is a decent watch with one hell of a sexy horror femme fatale.

Colonel John Reynolds (Kent McCord) and his group of government scientists experiment on re-animating the dead for military use.  Meanwhile, his son Curt (J. Trevor Edmond) and his girlfriend Julie (Melinda Clarke) use the Colonel’s security pass card to sneak in and watch the proceedings, and are startled by the grisly sights they witness.  Later, when father and son have a disagreement, Curt and Julie take off on a motorcycle, but a little too much frisky behavior results in an accident which kills Julie instantly.  Grief-stricken, Curt takes her body to the lab and resurrects her.  However, she is now changed into an undead creature who craves brains to curb her incessant hunger, and self-mutilates herself to ease the terrible pain that now consumes her.  Yet, driven by his genuine love for Julie, Curt struggles to help her deal with her new existence as military agents and local gang members try to find them, who all have vile intentions.

The strong suit of Return of the Living Dead 3 is the love story between Julie and Curt.  This is mainly due to the very impressive acting talents of Melinda Clarke and J. Trevor Edmond.  Since the film doesn’t delve into the characters all that much, it really fell to the actors to make it click, and it does.  Julie is quickly established as a bit of a wild girl who enjoys a little bit of danger and risk.  She also has great sexual charisma.  Curt also has a wild spirit to him, but definitely shows he loves Julie dearly.  She’s really captured his passion and brings out the full life in him.  There’s never a point where their love isn’t strong or convincing.  When things take that undead turn, they both keep selling the emotional depth of their characters, but now, it’s a tragic pain and grief which they pull off amazingly well.

Now, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a horror comedy as it doesn’t go for parody, satire, or laughs particularly.  Yet, I wouldn’t say the film takes itself too seriously.  It’s really in that middle ground between true horror and gory comedy.  It’s hard to pinpoint how exactly it wants itself to be taken.   I think this is mainly due to a lack of a consistent visual tone.  It doesn’t always look like a tense, gruesome horror film.  Considering the very well executed love story concept, I think keeping it away from blatant laughter is best.  Yet, it does have its darkly quirky aspects which are just a matter of taste on whether its appropriate or not.  I would’ve preferred the movie go for straight horror, but the opposite fits better into this franchise.  Still, it doesn’t go remotely as far out with the comedy as its predecessors.

This was a release from TriMark Pictures, who I’ve mentioned before were mainly a low budget B-movie company in the 1990s.  So, a $2 million budget it was for this one, and while the production values are a little low, they are not bad.  TriMark really seemed to make the most out of what they had, even if there wasn’t much to work with.  The military base interiors are very nicely designed with a bunker mentality, and are brightly lit showing that the sets are fully constructed.  The sewers later in the film are filled with colorful production design, and serve their purpose just fine.  It’s certainly a film made within the means of the budget, but it does nicely make use of some practical locations.

All that sounds very tenuous, sort of like I’m straddling a line of light criticism.  This is because the problem is not in the budget, but in how the filmmakers present a film of this budget to an audience.  What I think the film really lacks is artistic and visual flare.  Just because this film has a low budget doesn’t mean it has to lack cinematic quality.  You’ve got lights, you’ve got a camera.  You just need to know how to use them both to create something that looks strong and compelling.  So, it’s a matter of talent, not budget.  An innovative filmmaker will use the restraints of budget to get more creative.  They can’t have the elaborate, mega-budget sets to really make the film look high grade, and so, they’ll use lighting and camera angles to create a striking visual appeal.  This film can be very well shot at times, but it’s usually in the more dramatic or horrific moments.  Many times, it’s just sort of point-and-shoot stuff with no sense of real danger or urgency in how it’s shot.  Aside from those big dramatic moments, the filmmakers don’t take advantage of tight framing to build up tension, or utilize lighting to create any kind of atmosphere.  They show the ability to create that kind of style at certain times, but the vast majority of the film just looks rather bland.  If the filmmakers could’ve maintained the stronger visual style throughout, I think the overall tone would’ve benefitted from it immensely, and made this a creepier, more tense horror flick.

Now, there is certainly plenty of blood and zombie gore done with fairly good results, but it’s just unfortunate that the unrated cut has not been released on DVD.  Despite the film passing through the hands of three different studios since its release, none of them decided to upgrade us from the VHS unrated release.  The horror level is pretty good, but certainly very tame by even the standards of the day.  Return of the Living Dead 3 is more a film focused on the tragic love story and a sense of gory fun.  While we get the brain eating undead arising throughout the runtime, the full-on zombie action really doesn’t materialize until the final thirty minutes of the film.  Still, it is quite good with a good helping of graphic imagery.  However, I couldn’t say it would satiate a modern audiences’ desires for zombie horror carnage.

What really gets gruesome is when Julie takes her self-mutilation to its fullest extent.  All manner of sharp objects are freakishly pierced through her skin, and it’s in every way terrifyingly imaginable.  She herself looks like something out of Freddy Krueger’s nightmares.  She’s both frightening and sensual at the same time.  The sensation gives her such a powerful rush that it transforms Melinda Clarke’s performance from tragic to absolutely ferocious and ghastly.  These make-up effects are immensely amazing.  It’s also lovely that Melinda Clarke had no issues with repeatedly appearing nude in the film.  We certainly don’t get enough sexual content in our horror films these days.

Notably, there is a supporting role of Lieutenant Colonel Sinclair portrayed by Sarah Douglas.  You would best know her as Ursa from Superman: The Movie and Superman II.  Her role here is nothing much to talk about, but it’s just a special casting note.  The rest of the casting is generally okay.  Not doing exceptionally excellent work, but not being exceptionally bad, either.  Although, Basil Wallace, who plays the homeless Riverman, does not put in a good acting job.  Every line is overacted.  It’s clear that there’s supposed to be an honest dramatic intention with the character, but this performance is just too silly to be taken seriously.

So, is the film all that good?  It’s okay.  It’s nothing I’ll ever rave about, but it’s worth a watch.  I definitely believe that a more dead-set tone of true horror would’ve strengthened the movie along with a darker, more atmospheric look.  They should’ve just gone for broke with intense horror all the way, and shy away from the strangeness or the low budget quirkiness.  There’s not much in the way of tension or suspense.  I will admit that zombies have never done all that much for me.  Slashers are really my favorite subgenre of horror.  Although, I do think Julie, in her fully mutilated state, comes off as an iconic image that wasn’t in a film of iconic status.  Her look is surely the one big impression that I’ve always been left with over the years from this movie.  I really think the tragic horror love story is greatly executed with two solid young lead actors.  It’s where this film shines the brightest, and with a more innovative visual style and tone, this could’ve been a really damn good flick.  As it is, I would say it’s generally all right.  If for nothing else, it’s worth checking out just for seeing Julie in her full horrific glory.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

Prince of Darkness is certainly one of John Carpenter’s stranger and more underappreciated films.  It’s the second installment in what Carpenter calls his “apocalypse trilogy” (which includes 1982’s The Thing and 1995’s In The Mouth of Madness).  Simply put, this film is about the coming of the apocalypse, and the arrival of the Prince of Darkness – Satan himself.  This is one seriously eerie and creepy film, but it has the slowest pace of any Carpenter film I have seen.  I believe this film comes as an acquired taste.  It can take multiple viewings to really enjoy it fully, as it did for me.

A group of scientists, students, and priests – led by Father Loomis (Donald Pleasance) and Professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong) – have come to study a mysterious canister which has been sealed away in the basement of a Los Angeles church.  The eerie green liquid inside this canister proves to be supernatural as it defies gravity, leaking upwards to the ceiling, and soon, it’s discovered that it is self-organizing as part of a living intelligence.  This has made way for changes to occur in nature that herald the coming of something evil.  And those who come into contact with this liquid are transformed into mindless undead slaves of Satan himself.  Outside the church, the homeless and derelicts of Los Angeles become powerless against the influence of hell.  The few human beings inside the church are trapped – barricading themselves inside with threats all around them.  Theories are abound as to what is happening and philosophies about heaven, hell, and all of creation.  But whatever forces are at work, these few people must not only survive these servants of hell, but also prevent the coming of the Prince of Darkness from the other side.

If you choose to watch this film, I suggest you get things as dark and as quite as possible, put in the DVD, get that surround sound just right, and get ready to experience one of the most haunting, frightening films ever.  This is possibly the most taut and suspenseful Carpenter film of all-time.  The master of terror gives us a film that nobody should easily be able to forget.  The score from John Carpenter & Alan Howarth is absolutely mesmerizing and powerful.  Right from the beginning, it sucks you into a creepy and absolutely ominous world, and doesn’t let go until the end credits have finished.  It’s an absorbing, killer work of musicianship that compliments the film marvelously.

The effects here are great.  There’s nothing here as complex as in The Thing (which Rob Bottin really delivered something groundbreaking), but there’s plenty of scary makeup work and visuals to unsettle any audience.  There’s such apocalyptic biblical imagery here – including swarms of creepy crawly critters – that it will have you squirming and jumping from your seat.  John Carpenter wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym “Martin Quartermass,” and man, he does just such an amazing job eliciting such haunting emotions.  The film has such a suspenseful power that it could ONLY come from John Carpenter.

That pseudonym is only one of several that Carpenter has employed in his career.  He uses them because he feels uncomfortable with his name plastered all over the credits as if it’s an egotistical thing to take so much credit.  Me, I believe in everyone getting the credit they deserve for the hard work they do.  The fact of the matter is that I know who Martin Quartermass, John T. Chance, and Frank Armitage are, and it is still John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness.

The cast is full of Carpenter regulars such as Donald Pleaseance (Halloween, Escape From New York), Victor Wong & Dennis Dun (Big Trouble in Little China), and Peter Jason (They Live, In The Mouth of Madness).  Also, Jameson Parker from TV’s Simon & Simon is in a lead role as well.  It’s very much a Carpenter style cast in that he doesn’t cast big stars, but a lot of strong character actors that give the film a textured diversity.  I really enjoy all their talents, and they all put in fantastic efforts.  John Carpenter has always been great in the casting department (probably best displayed in The Thing).  We even get a cameo from shock-rocker Alice Cooper, and he contributes the title song from the album of the same name.  The song only appears in a small scene, and via a guy’s walkman radio.  In any case, it’s always nice to see Alice appear in a horror film via an acting role or as a musician.  He has no lines, but appears creepy enough as one of the derelict servants outside the church.  Overall, this cast gives a lot of life and character to this slow-paced film.

In a way, this is different from most Carpenter movies, mainly in pace.  He’s always made very smart pictures, and his horror has never been something you can entirely shut your brain off for.  And while Prince of Darkness is full of atmosphere that drives every horror element forward, it is much more an idea and philosophy driven screenplay.  There are very few action set pieces as the danger and horror are played through tense atmosphere and chilling visuals.  It’s a film that crawls in under your skin slowly, and requires you to stay mentally aware of what’s happening for it to have the proper effect.

There’s a good deal of discussion in the film about philosophies regarding dreams, death, hell, religion, and so forth.  This adds to the psychological aspect of the film since it revolves around such supernatural or paranormal phenomena birthed out of an ancient evil covered up by the church.  With the film having such a wide ensemble cast, they have plenty of room for differing opinions and beliefs, but don’t let this make you think the film gets bogged down by it.  Not at all.  As they uncover more truths, it enhances the fearful and foreboding atmosphere of the film.  There is a haunting evil taking form in their presence, and it is slowly consuming them either physically or psychologically.

In everyone’s dreams, they see a transmission from the future of a dark figure exiting the front of the church they are all holed up in.  They get only bits and pieces, but they all share it getting a little more each time they fall asleep.  It is another piece of the foreboding doom that lies ahead of them, and it is immensely effective.

Prince of Darkness definitely has similarities to an old style zombie film where a group of mismatched people have to fend for their lives against an undead army.  However, Carpenter just pushes it further with so much more substance and unsettling visuals.  This really is a nightmare come to life.  A constant theme in Carpenter’s Apocalypse Trilogy is some sort of force consuming humanity and deteriorating it into something entirely inhuman.  In The Thing, it’s an actual alien life form that perfectly duplicates any organism it infects which could eventually wipe out the human race.  With In The Mouth of Madness, reality is twisted and distorted to where people become psychotic and homicidal in the wake of ancient evil reclaiming our world.  In Prince of Darkness, it’s sort of a bridge between the concepts.  As an ancient evil slowly claws its way back into our world, it also consumes nature and humanity until they become entirely mindless, inhuman servants.  Coming from three different screenwriters on three different films, that is an entirely fascinating conceptual arc.

This film is undoubtedly one of John Carpenter’s finest works.  Some don’t take a good liking to it because of its slow, slow pace, and its focus more on suspense than physical intensity.  Whatever the case, I find it to be a masterwork worthy of inclusion to anyone’s DVD collection.  The cast is very good, fun at times, but solid always.  The score is pure gold, a powerful accomplishment for Carpenter and Alan Howarth.  As in any Carpenter film, the cinematography is stellar, and the direction is absolutely phenomenal!  If you genuinely want to get creeped out to the max one dark, lonely night – this is the one film to watch!  I won’t say that Prince of Darkness is a perfect film as the pace can be a detractor to its potential.  Part of good tension and suspense is momentum, and it’s not entirely consistent here.  However, it is a great flick, and I will give it a great 9 out of 10.  If nothing else, the ending will grab you like only a John Carpenter film can!