"BLESSED IS HE WHO EXPECTS NOTHING, FOR HE SHALL NEVER BE DISAPPOINTED"

Alexander Pope

Warning: due to the passionate nature of this post, it features worse language than what is normally found in this blog, and I’m not talking about split infinitives…




In this article I’d like to take the opportunity to let rip about some real disappointments.

Bitter disappointments.

I’m not even referring to the common-place buzz around the larger blockbusters (take that with a pinch of salt), but about the good-old-fashioned and ever-reliable word of mouth. The type of films your most trusted friends and movie critics tell you “man, you really have to see this!”. And I don’t mean films that were ‘meh’, I mean films that had me literally screaming at the television screen, or ringing up my friends shouting “why the hell did you recommend that piece of shit?”.

In no particular order, these are my ‘ten most’. Enjoy (if that’s the right word in this context).


28 Days Later
Danny Boyle, 2002.
Alright, so we technically have a lot to be thankful for with this. The atmospheric set-up, the nightmarish vision of  a deserted London (we’ve gotten used to seeing such things in America, but here on home territory it’s enough to turn the blood cold), some nicely developed characters- and who can forget: this is the film that made Zombies scary again! Holy shit, they can run now! Suddenly every film and comic geek had to reassess the skills necessary to survive the Zombie apocalypse.
So you may well be asking me ‘why are you so down on it?’. I’ll admit, it’s inclusion here may be a little unwarranted, and I enjoyed the first half of the film, but by God does the second half suck cock. End of the day; it was a good opening and a new take on the zombie myth, but it buckles during the second act and becomes an entirely different film in the third.
I’m in the minority with this view, I do realise that, but for all the hype this film received (and in my view Danny Boyle has always been hugely overrated) I’m looking for something really special, and to disappoint with such a weak climax is criminal. By all means break with some of the conventions, but you can’t go breaking all of them!
How can you have a ‘zombie movie’* without a zombie attack at the end? All we get is about five of them staggering around in the front garden (without having any impact to the story) and one (just one!) on the loose inside the mansion. For a bunch of squaddies who survived the worse of the outbreak, they sure fucked things up at the end, didn’t they? I mean, come on, how many of them were there? And they had fucking guns. And am I supposed to believe that a bunch of squaddies left to their own devices after less than 30 days, with no reason to assume the virus has decimated anywhere else in the world besides England, suddenly turn into hostile rapists and pedophiles? The T.A maybe, but not squaddies...
28 Weeks Later, now that was awesome.




Avartar
James Cameron 2009.
You’ve heard all the jokes, you know, the ones like Dancing With Smurfs. I wasn’t so much bothered by the obvious nods to other films, but by the sheer laziness of the story. A knowingnod here and there is expectable, and a few similarities is to be expected in any film these days, but this clichéd mess? “Isn’t that tough Latin soldier a lot like Vasquez? And that slimy corporate guy, that’s Carter Burke!” It doesn’t matter if they’re your own films Mr Cameron, it’s still fucking lazy! This, from the guy who’s capable of Terminator 2, Aliens and the Abyss? James Cameron, I know you can write, and that just makes this even more inexcusable! Don't even get me started on Unabtanium! Real subtle.
And, the ‘crowning turd in the waterpipe’, all that bullshit “game-changer” talk. How is it exactly a game changer Mr Cameron? Because it features cutting-edge CGI, which will be outdated before the year is out? Because it’s in 3D, a method first pioneered at the dawn of cinema? Because of the originality of your ideas (ahem)? Because it’s over 2 hours long, like every other fucking film these days? It certainly isn’t because of the complexity of the writing or the quality of the acting!
Game changer my arse. Despite all that, it wasn’t even any good anyway.




Casino Royal
Martin Campbell, 2006.
First of all, I’d like to point out that this is the director who recently bought us Green Lantern. Just saying...
I’m not a Bond fan, which I realise may put me at something of a disadvantage to reviewing a Bond film, but I went to the cinema expecting that to work in my favour. After all, this was supposed to be a radical reinvention of the character. Instead I was lumbered with this sad-sack of an film, watching the most unsympathetic, misogynistic, self-centered unlikeable prick of a hero scowl and strop from one short-lived action scene to the next. And to top it off, Bond doesn't even kill the main antagonist. Oh no, that honor goes to some guy you barely meet in the film's set-up. I'm normally quite astute in films (I didn't see what was so complicated about Inception at any rate), but I had to nudge the guy next to me and ask "who the hell was that?". Imagine it: a Bond film where Bond doesn't beat the bad guy? No, Bond get's some twat that nobody remembers, in a scene that felt like it was tacked on. Talk about an anti-climax. I assumed the guy faked his own death to trick Bond into releasing the code to his love interest, but he really was dead.
In screenwriting and story telling, they always teach 'don't take the climax out of the hands of your protagonist' because it's hugely unsatisfying and leaves the main character looking redundant. Something else to bare in mind; 'Deus Ex Machina (or 'god in the machine'), a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object. Or another villain suddenly bursting in and saving the hero from torture...




Cloverfield
Matt Reeves, 2008.
Behind the mystery and the found-footage gimmick is a blatant knock-off of Godzilla, only less fun and more whiney. They told us it was a ‘post 9/11’ movie. Well, sure if by that you mean it was made afterwards, that’s a no-brainer. If by that you mean ‘edgy’ because you’ve used a faux documentary style reminiscent of the news coverage on the day the planes hit the Twin Towers, then I’d like to point out that footage of horrific events like this have ALWAYS been in the public domain, you just never heard about them because you’re fucking American! That’s not a racist statement I assure you, but as a country you need to wake up and understand that things like that have happened across the globe, try asking the Jews all about it. Making a film that intentionally brings to mind a horrific occasion in modern history for the purposes of entertainment isn’t ‘edgy’, it’s just distasteful.
On a lighter note, it’s a dull film with lots of spoilt yuppies running around in the dark panicking, and that whole found-footage thing is boring and headache inducing! Plus, who’s actually still be running round filming all that? Sure, to start with perhaps, but if you’re in the middle of all that then NO! And even if you were that stupid, the army would have snatched that off you in a heartbeat in the field hospital scene…
And what sort of a title is Cloverfield? Is that a subtle attempt at irony?
I once bought a shatter proof mobile phone. I dropped it onto gravel in the first week and it broke. My new phone has a battery on it that lasts around two days, if I don’t actually make any calls or send any texts. Modern technology isn’t made to last. That may sound like an unrelated comment, but whatever those yuppies paid for that camcorder was worth it! It’s battery lasted for 12 hours straight, and it didn’t break (or even switch off) when it was dropped from the monsters mouth. They should put that on the advert!
It's a duff creature design too! If you have to wait almost the whole film just to get a glimpse of it, at least make it worth while. It looks like something from an old episode of Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles.




Contagion
Steven Soderbergh, 2011.
Films that rely on so many big-stars are rarely worth the time to watch. It’s called ‘stunt casting’, and it’s there for either one of two reasons. Either to attract attention to an otherwise uninteresting project, or to counter the fact that the film has no time to develop proper characters (“hey look, it’s Kate Winslet! I like her, she’s always nice, I know where I am now”). I’d say this film needs ‘stunt casting’ on both accounts.
It comes across less like a film and more like a lecture. It’s 28 Days Later, without the Rage Virus. It’s like getting a lettuce sandwich: sure, you can eat it but it’s definitely missing something important… Like the fucking filling!
Yes, I like Laurence Fishburne, I like Kate Winslet, and I even like Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow. I wouldn’t even describe their roles as cameos…




Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009
I’ll cover this in more depth another time, as I have a Quentin Tarantino post coming soon, but for now I’ll just cover the basics.
It’s a bit shit.
More to follow...




Spiderman 2
Sam Raimi, 2004.
It’s the best of the Sam Raimi Spiderman films, if you believe what your friends tell you. Yet, if like me, you have a slightly better memory, you’ll realise that this is almost exactly like the first Spiderman film!
Peter Parker is trying desperately to woo the girl of his dreams, but due to his shy demeanour and the constraints of a double life he keeps dropping the ball. He is befriended by a nice scientist who becomes a sort of father figure to our hero, except trouble is on the horizon- the nice scientist is working on an experiment that could benefit human kind, but after a slight miscalculation (you’ve guessed it) the scientist is transformed into a vicious villain!
You tell me, is that a description of Spiderman 1 or 2?
Alright, so it’s Spiderman, you’re limited as to what you can change, so why pick a villain with such a similar background? I know it was played well, but it felt a little tame after Willem Defoe’s scenery chewing turn as the Green Goblin.
On a final moan, Doc Ock weilds these giant arms, which are quite powerful, but he himself is just a podgy fella, while Spiderman is strong enough to flip cars punch through walls. So why is it that whenever Spiderman punches Ock in the head he just shakes it off??? Excuse me but no, if Spiderman punches a normal guy in the head then that fight is fucking over. End of. It will also require an 18 certificate.




The Godfather
Francis Ford Coppola, 1972.
Oooooooo. Controversial! The film that makes every critic’s top 10 is in my garbage pile. Truth is, no film will ever live up to that amount of hype, and I was bored watching it. Too many plot strands, unsympathetic characters, and a disjointed and badly-dated style just left me feeling like I’d seen better.
It would seem fair to say that it’s unfair to hold aging badly against it, but not every film out of the 70’s is that rambling or passé. And it’s not impatience before you ask, I’m a patient guy, I enjoy slow films, so long as they go somewhere and keep me involved- my mind isn’t ruined by the fast editing and explosions of modern cinema, it was just a dull film. I was under-whelmed, and given all the hype, that’s a crime enough to warrant it’s appearance in my list. Catchy tune though, and I suppose a film now responsible for so many dyed-in-the-wool cliches had to be influential in its day...




Titanic
James Cameron, 1997.
Poor Mr Cameron, you made the list twice.
Well, the sinking ship may have been impressive enough (I’m not going to be picky about bendy fences and the like), but the over-blown romance at the centre of the plot was, well, over-blown. It was engineered to appeal to simpletons and teenage girls, the sort who use glitter, love pink ponies and still have MySpace pages.
Not an awful film, but is it worth all the hype? Does the Box Office success reflect the quality of the film? No. I think, between this and Avatar, it just goes to show that Cameron is a master at playing the marketing game, and we’re all still stupid enough to fall for it. Myself included.




True Grit (remake)
Ethan & Joel Coen.
“Zzzzzzz… Wait, what did he say? Is that even a language?”
Do I like the Coen brothers, those eccentric and ecliptic purveys of the bizarre and the cultish? I’m really not sure where I stand on this, and no, this isn’t a set up for a gag. Sometimes I love their films, other times I think they produce some of the worst kind of crap. I think they clearly suffer from something of an ego.
For me, this and The Big Lewbowski are at polar ends of their output; True Grit being among their worst, and the other among their best. I wasn’t even that impressed with No Country For Old Men, which like this, took a long time to say very little. We all know that ‘violence begets violence’, it’s a fairly old maxim, and I’m sure I’ve seen it in better films than this self-important piece of conceited critic-fodder.







*A note to Danny Boyle.

Yes, despite your argument to the contrary, 28 Days Later IS a zombie film. You believe, wrongly, that because the infected are not technically ‘dead’ that they should be omitted to appease your pretentious reservations, but here’s why you’re wrong: have you never heard of the zombie slaves in Africa, strongly associated with the Voodoo culture? Although slightly revised, this is a snippet from an article by David Wong that explains my point in greater detail:

This baffling phenomenon has scientifically been explained by the use of poisons that slow your bodily functions to the point that you'll be considered dead, even to a doctor. The victims are then be brought back under the effects of a drug like datura stramonium (or other chemicals called alkaloids) that leave them in a trance-like state with no memory, but still able to perform simple tasks like slave labour.

These ‘zombies’ are, factually speaking, still alive, but are definitively recognised as zombies in their own culture, and ours. Just because you explain away mysticism doesn’t mean your film is any less a zombie movie, so stop being so arty and just accept that you made a zombie movie; one with a promising beginning and a shit ending!

“If I am to meet with a disappointment, the sooner I know it, the more of life I shall have to wear it off.” 

 Thomas Jefferson

"HELL IS OVERFLOWING, AND SATAN IS SENDING HIS DEAD TO US!"

*Televangelist. Dawn Of The Dead (2004).

I can't claim credit for this, an article by David Wong, posted October 29, 2007-  as seen on CRACKED.CO. Just thought it was worth sharing. So break out your 'Boom-Sticks', things could turn nasty...


A countdown of the top 5 reasons, in reverse order of likelihood, for a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE...




#5. Brain Parasites
As seen in ... Resident Evil IV

What are they?
Parasites that turn victims into mindless, zombie-like slaves are fairly common in nature. There's one called toxoplasmosa gondii that seems to devote its entire existence to being terrifying.
This bug infects rats, but can only breed inside the intestines of a cat. The parasite knows it needs to get the rat inside the cat (yes, we realize this sounds like the beginning of the most fucked-up Dr. Seuss poem ever) so the parasite takes over the rat's freaking brain, and intentionally makes it scurry toward where the cats hang out. The rat is being programmed to get itself eaten, and it doesn't even know.
Of course, those are just rats, right?

How it can result in zombies?
Hey, did we mention that half the human population on Earth is infected with toxoplasmosa, and don't know it? Hey, maybe you're one of them. Flip a coin.
Oh, also, they've done studies and shown that the infected see a change in their personality and have a higher chance of going batshit insane.

Chances this could cause a zombie apocalypse?
Humans and rats aren't all that different; that’s why they use them to test our drugs. All it takes is a more evolved version of toxoplasmosa, one that could to do us what it does to the rats. So, imagine if half the world suddenly had no instinct for self-preservation or rational thought. Even less than they do now, we mean.
If you're comforting yourself with the thought that it may take forever for such a parasite to evolve, you're forgetting about all the biological weapons programs around the world, intentionally weaponizing such bugs. You've got to wonder if the lab workers don't carry out their work under the unwitting command of the toxoplasmosa gondii already in their brains. If you don't want to sleep at night, that is.
You may be protesting that technically these people have never been dead and thus don't fit the dictionary definition of "zombies," but we can assure you that the distinction won't matter a whole lot once these groaning hordes are clawing their way through your windows.




#4. Neurotoxins
As seen in ... The movie The Serpent and the Rainbow, the  Resident Evil 5 video game.

What are they?
There are certain kinds of poisons that slow your bodily functions to the point that you'll be considered dead, even to a doctor (okay, maybe not to a good doctor). The poison from fugu (Japanese blowfish) can do this. The victims can then be brought back under the effects of a drug like datura stramonium (or other chemicals called alkaloids) that leave them in a trance-like state with no memory, but still able to perform simple tasks like eating, sleeping, moaning and shambling around with their arms outstretched.

How it can result in zombies?
"Can?" How about "does." This stuff has happened in Haiti; that's where the word "zombie" comes from. There are books about it, the most famous ones by Dr. Wade Davis (Passage of Darkness and The Serpent and the Rainbow). Yes, the movie The Serpent and the Rainbow was based on this guy's actual science stuff. How much of it was fact? Well, there was that one scene where they strapped the guy naked to a chair and drove a huge spike through his balls. We're hoping that part wasn't true.
What is definitely true is the story of Clairvius Narcisse. He was a Haitian guy who was declared dead by two doctors and buried in 1962. They found him wandering around the village 18 years later. It turned out the local voodoo priests had been using naturally occurring chemicals to basically zombify people and putting them to work on the sugar plantations (no, really).
So, the next time you're pouring a little packet of sugar into your coffee, remember that it may have been handled by a zombie at some point.

Chances this could cause a zombie apocalypse?
On the one hand, it's already fucking happened! So that earns it some street cred right off the bat. But, even if some evil genius intentionally distributed alkaloid toxins to a population to turn them into a shambling, mindless horde, there is no way to make these zombies aggressive or cannibalistic.
Yet.




#3. The Real Rage Virus
As seen in ...28 Days Later

What is it?
In the movie, it was a virus that turned human beings into mindless killing machines. In real life, we have a series of brain disorders that do the same thing. They were never contagious, of course. Then, Mad Cow Disease came along. It attacks the cow's spinal cord and brain, turning it into a stumbling, mindless attack cow. And, when humans eat the meat...

How it can result in zombies?
When Mad Cow gets in humans, they call it Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Check out the symptoms:
Changes in gait (walking)
Hallucinations
Lack of coordination (for example, stumbling and falling)
Muscle twitching
Myoclonic jerks or seizures
Rapidly developing delirium or dementia
Sure, the disease is rare (though maybe not as rare as we think) and the afflicted aren't known to chase after people in murderous mobs. Yet. But, it proves widespread brain infections of the Rage variety are just a matter of waiting for the right disease to come along.

Chances this could cause a zombie apocalypse?
If the whole sudden, mindless violence idea seems far-fetched, remember that you are just one brain chemical (serotonin) away from turning into a mindless killing machine (they've tested it by putting rats in Deathmatch-style cages and watching them turn on each other). All it would take is a disease that destroys the brain's ability to absorb that one chemical and suddenly it's a real-world 28 Days Later.
So, imagine such an evolved disease, which we'll call Super Mad Cow (or, Madder Cow) getting a foothold through the food supply. Say this disease spreads through blood-on-blood contact, or saliva-on-blood contact. Now you have a Rage-type virus that can be transmitted with a bite.
Just like the movie. With one bite, you're suddenly the worst kind of zombie: A fast zombie.




#2. Neurogenesis
As seen in ... Laboratories around the world.

What is it?
You know all that conversy out there about stem cell research? Well, the whole thing with stem cells is that they can basically be used to re-generate dead cells. Particularly of interest to zombologists like ourselves is neurogenesis, the method by which they can re-grow dead brain tissue.
You can see where this is going.

How it can result in zombies?
You wanted the undead to make an appearance in this article? Well, here you go, you creepy bastards.
Science can pretty much save you from anything but brain death; they can swap out organs but when the brain turns to mush, you're gone. Right?
Well, not for long. They're already able to re-grow the brains of comatose head trauma patients until they wake up and walk around again.
Couple that with the new ability to keep a dead body in a state of suspended animation so that it can be brought back to life later, and soon we'll be able to bring back the dead, as long as we get to them quickly enough.
That sounds great, right? Well, this lab dedicated to "reanimation research" (yes, that's what they call it) explains how the process of "reanimating" a person creates a problem. It causes the brain to die off from the outside in. The outside being the cortex, the nice part of you that makes humans human. That just leaves the part that controls basic motor function and primitive instincts behind.
You don't need the cortex to survive; all you need is the stem and you'll still be able to mindlessly walk and eat and enjoy Grey's Anatomy. This is how chickens can keep walking around after they've been beheaded (including one case where the chicken lived for 18 months without a head).
So, you take a brain dead patient, use these techniques to re-grow the brain stem, and you now have a mindless body shambling around, no thoughts and no personality, nothing but a cloud of base instincts and impulses.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we like to call a real, live, undead fucking zombie. So there.

Chances this could cause a zombie apocalypse?
Think about it. Under every legal system in the world, all rights and responsibilities are terminated at death. All it takes is someone with resources and a need for a mindless workforce of totally obedient slave labor.
How long until somebody tries this?
We're betting somebody in the world, maybe North Korea, will have a working zombie by Christmas.




Finally...

#1. Nanobots
As seen in... Michael Crichton's novel Prey, The PS2 game Nano Breaker

What are they?
Nanobots are a technology that science apparently engineered to make you terrified of the future. We're talking about microscopic, self-replicating robots that can invisibly build--or destroy--anything. Vast sums of money are being poured into nanotechnology. Sure, at some level scientists know nanobots will destroy mankind. They just can't resist seeing how it happens.

How it can result in zombies?
Scientists have already created a nano-cyborg, by fusing a tiny silicone chip to a virus. The first thing they found out is these cyborgs can still operate for up to a month after the death of the host. Notice how nano scientists went right for zombification, even at this early stage. They know where the horror is.
According to studies, within a decade they'll have nanobots that can crawl inside your brain and set up neural connections to replace damaged ones. That's right; the nanobots will be able to rewire your thoughts. What could possibly go wrong?

Chances this could cause a zombie apocalypse?
Do the math, people.
Some day there will be nanobots in your brain. Those nanobots will be programmed to keep functioning after you die. They can form their own neural pathways, meaning they can use your brain to keep operating your limbs after you've deceased and, presumably, right up until you rot to pieces in mid-stride.
The nanobots will be programmed to self-replicate, and the death of the host will mean the end of the nanobots. To preserve themselves, they'd need to transfer to a new host. Therefore, the last act of the nanobot zombie would be to bite a hole in a healthy victim, letting the nanobots steam in and set up camp in the new host. Once in, they can shut down the part of the brain that resists (the cortex) and leave the brain stem intact. They will have added a new member to the unholy army of the undead.




Now, it should be more than clear by this point that our goal is to be responsible researchers. We don't want to create a panic here. All we're saying is that on an actual day on the actual calendar in the future, runaway microscopic nanobots will end civilization by flooding the planet with the cannibalistic undead. Science has proven it!