Zombies: The Ultimate Horror Device

So Halloween has passed. Sad face. But I still find myself thinking about scary things, as there are still a bunch of movies/books/web series.....lots of "web things" still doling out the horror. Seeing as though I try to keep content on this site somewhat related to horror, I had a revelation the other day.

There are many devices authors/screenwriters use to try to scare us. Supernatural beings like Vampires/aliens/zombies/werewolves/etc. There is always the serial killer...like Jason or Michael Meyers. There are disasters like comets hitting the earth or the end of the Mayan calender....(seriously don't you all think that maybe those guys just got tired after planning out over 2012 years of history? Or what if its all just a huge ancient joke and they are in their version of the afterlife rolling on the floor laughing?)

Vampires get staked (or glitter....I hate them I hate them I hate them) Werewolves get shot with silver bullets. Aliens...get viruses loaded to their wireless network. It may be a huge pain in the rear to accomplish these feats, but think of most movies/literature/Twilight (which is not literature) and you will see that something is done, even if the hero dies in the process. But there is a definitive ending, or at the very least a decent ending.

Serial killers usually die, or escape til the sequel, no mater the number. Sometimes the even get frozen and put into space where astronauts of the future unleash an unspeakable horror. But there is usually a definite ending, one that finalize the plot, even if there is a sequel.

End of the world movies, well nobody would watch them if Earth just got destroyed. Even if there is catastrophic damage, people survive and well yay! Same goes with government created conspiracy or disease outbreak plots. They always get exposed. Long story short a book or film wouldn't do well if the heroes don't in someway topple the opposition. They may die in the process, but its usually for the greater good. I also realize that as I'm writing this that there are examples to counter some of the things that are being said but the point is that it's extremely difficult to pull off effectively.

Which brings us to zombies. To include zombies in a story is really opening up a can of worms. You have to consider a lot of things: What stage of the outbreak, what type of zombies, what created the zombies, what kills zombies, how are new zombies created, etc? There are a lot of technical aspects that you must address if you are going to use zombies as a horror device. It is easy to have loop holes.

On the surface if you stack a zombie up against vampires, werewolves, sentient killers, comets, and prophecy then zombies kind of seem like the low undead man on the totem pole. They can't think, are usually slow, and usually can be easily dispatched. But zombie's strength lie in their numbers and their ability to never stop. Zombies have the best endurance ever. They are the endless hoard.

Equally as difficult about zombies, from the writer standpoint, is how to write an effective ending for the zombies. Sure survivors can find a "safe island" or the heroes can all die, or whatever, but nine times out of ten no matter what happens by the end of the book/film there are still zombies with which we must contend. Try to think of books or films where there is an ending you enjoy. Are there still zombies? Probably. Here are some examples that are the first to come to mind: (Spoiler alert, skip over the list in case you don't want things ruined if you haven't seen/read these:)

1. Night of the Living Dead--hero shot by humans trying to hunt zombies, zombies remain
2. Dawn of the Dead--two heroes are bit, the other fly off in a helicopter, zombies remain
3. Day of the Dead--Most humans die...its been a while since I've seen but I know zombies remain
4. Land of the Dead--Humans survive, but zombies find themselves a "home" Zombies remain
5. Dawn of the Dead remake--Humans make it to "safe island" only to find...zombies!
6. Shaun of the Dead--survivors "win" but zombies now exploited for entertainment, zombies remain
7. 28 Days Later--Danny Boyle says they are not zombies, so they won't be included
8. Zombieland--4 survivors now a "family" Zombies Remain
9. World War Z--Survivors dictate the reclaiming of Earth from zombies, yet the job will never be fully complete, zombies remain
10. Zombie Island/Nation/ All zombies defeated...but horrible ending Read For More Info

So you see a trend here. It is difficult to write an ending for zombies because they are that catastrophic. Those guys in Canada even did that whole research process on it. Read For More Info Most people who have tried have had a hard time completely getting rid of the zombies. It's almost impossible. It's almost even more impossible to write a good ending where zombies are gone forever. These reasons pave the road for Zombies to be regarded as the ultimate horror device for ever ever ever.

Agree/Disagree? Please back up your claims. 20 bonus points for the first person to correctly identify where the picture at the beginning of the post is from. Also: A Fun Zombie Song

Zombieland Reveiw

Hello all,

Apologies for not being able to see this movie sooner, but when you help run a Haunted House...well in October that kind of takes precedent.

Review of Zombieland:

You must accept, going in, that this movie is going to be ridiculous. To assume that it is a serious zombie movie or to assume that it is an "intellectual comedy" are not wise decisions. It is in essence a Zombiedy. If you go in thinking the above...you will probably be let down.

That being said, it was quite humorous. I laughed out loud at many parts, but will keep my lips closed in case there are readers who haven't seen it yet. My favorite part was when the take refuge in the LA house....

The movie also focuses on a number of rules. There are 32 rules but we only ever learn, I think, eight of them:

1. Cardio--To sustain long periods of running away from zombies
2. Double Tap--send the extra bullet into the zombie's head to ensure it stays down
3. Be weary of bathrooms--Zombies always seem to show up when we are vulnerable
4. Buckle your Seat belt--So you can slam on the breaks and you won't go flying
16? Limber Up--before you do anything so you don't pull anything
17? Don't be a hero--except when impressing Witchita
20..? Always check the back seat--A zombie or gun stockpile will always be there
32. Enjoy the Little things--Like Twinkies or "Caddyshack"

I agree with all of these, as I've memorized Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide inside and out. The only one I'd caution against is the double tap...and that's based upon the amount of ammo you have. In this movie the characters sure seemed to have a lot of it....

I liked these rules and I like how they were presented by the skittish, nervous, low self-esteem main character...I would have just liked to know more of the rules, since they clearly defined his life.

The other major issue that I saw was ironically enough, the lack of zombies. There would be very long stretches where you wouldn't see any zombies. Now that's okay, you can have a movie where that happens and it still works. Take either version of Dawn of the Dead. You might not see a zombie for 20 minutes, but you know that there is a hoard of them just outside the mall. Any pull away or establishing shot will confirm this, so the fear is real. I also get that the movie takes place during the later stages of the outbreak, so most zombies would probably have been pulled to major population centers in search of more food. But even at the end, when the major conflict occurs...when it really comes down to it...there aren't that many zombies. Aren't they supposed to be in LA? That is a huge population zone. I get that the point is to have Columbus attempt to rescue the other two characters but in a zombie movie the big fear is the endless hoard.

Maybe that's not what they were going for since the tone of the movie was clearly light. If that's the case then I am willing to back off my statement. My statement is also not a "Deal Breaker" as Liz Lemmon would say, because I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was just a comment tis all.

Lastly--A lot of people have been comparing as the next "Shaun of the Dead." "Zombieland" was good. It was funny. I'm going to buy it to add to my zombie collection. It would fit nicely into a Zombiedy-athon. But it doesn't even come close to the humor, horror, tediousness, complexity, and all around amazement that is encompassed with "Shaun of the Dead." I'm being very serious. I know a lot of you may think I'm jaded because I like horror, comedy, the British, and zombies so its easy to think that I'm just a fan boy spouting off a love fest for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

But in all seriousness, I had to analyze "Shaun of the Dead" for a film class and I've been studying creative writing for a long time now. Everyone watch "Shaun of the Dead" again and pay close attention to the point that the movie is trying to make. The point is that humans are so entrenched in their routines that even a zombie outbreak might go unnoticed and that most humans would not noticed something was wrong until a zombie showed up on their doorstep. This is painfully obvious in the characters of Shaun and Ed as we laugh at them and their exploits. But watch the film again and only pay attention to the background. (I'm also referring to the first act of the movie before the zombies are everywhere.) Notice for how most of the movie there are sirens going off, even if they are just faintly in the background. Notice how sick the people look on the bus that Shaun rides. Notice how when Shaun is in his place of employment and he is trying to sell the TV that you can see three green army trucks rumble past the camera. Then notice that when Phillip leaves the store, those same three green army trucks rumble by him. How much of that did you notice? How much more is there that I haven't noticed yet? Isn't it creepy to think we don't notice things because we only care about our little daily routines? "Shaun of the Dead" scared me for the first them when I realized what I just pointed out and I counted driving past five ambulances with their lights flashing. That's a lot for one day. They could have been the first five outbreak patients and had it not been for "Shaun of the Dead," I never would have had that thought.

"Zombieland" although widely entertaining doesn't even come close to that level of sophistication.

Zombieland Preview

Getting back to the roots today--a preview of a horror film. Well actually it's more of a "Zomb-edy." Thanks to friend, screen-writer, and fellow blogger John Rocks (yes that's his real name) for the tip on this movie. His blog can be found here: http://www.johnwritesforthescreen.com/

I will post the "Zombieland" trailer a little further down for your viewing convenience. Some points to consider about this movie:

1) "Zombieland" has fast zombies, much like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "28 Days Later" (though I know that they aren't zombies.) Fast zombies usually ramp up the horror factor at the risk of deviating from the usual characteristic slow and shambling hoard. Always a difficult choice to be made when stating up your zombies.

2) The star of "Zombieland" is Woody Harrelson. Given his appearance, yet distinctive voice it almost gives the impression that the hero will be a strange blend of Cheers bartender Woody Boyd and Crocodile Dundee. Not sure how Harrelson will be as the star of an action/horror/comedy such as "Zombieland," but time will only tell.

3) Reminiscent of "Shaun of the Dead?" The trailer clearly marks "Zombieland" as being a comedy. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of dark tones or panic stricken survivors but rather almost a "game show" like feel to the plague of undead. They even compete for the best "zombie kill of the week." A lot of people will compare "Zombieland" to "Shaun of the Dead" but from simply the trailer I think there will be a huge difference.


Although "Shaun of the Dead" is also a hysterical movie, it is extremely dark and moving film. "Shaun of the Dead" does make light of the zombie genre in the first two acts, but by the third, when they are in the Winchester, the film becomes so dark and serious, you forget how much you laughed earlier in the movie. "Shaun of the Dead" is very underrated and is quite possible one of the best movies ever made, technically speaking. There are so many subtle nuances and make the movie extremely creepy as to denote that people wouldn't notice a zombie uprising until it was too late. If anyone wants more on this, let me know in the form of a comment.


But in "Zombieland" the characters seem to be more lighthearted. They are swirling around an amusement park, make many quick quips, and other quirky things. I'm not saying that these will make for a bad movie, just it will be different in tone than "Shaun of Dead" and actually might let some people down who are anticipating something similar.


Overall, "Zombieland" will be funny, entertaining, light-hearted, and will poke fun at the zombie genre. However, if you are looking for the next zombie thriller that is more traditional...well you might have to wait until "World War Z" gets closer to completion. But please do not forget that this is all comming from soley the trailer. Trailers can sometimes decieve...if you want to know ask me what I think about the movie "Freedomland."

Agree with me? What do you think? Watch the trailer then leave some comments please.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

***May contain spoilers*** Here is the short review: If you like the X-Men series and by this I mean the comics, not just the other three movies--and you are a fan of the mythos and lore and story, then this movie might not make you happy.

If you don't care about the X-Men series and you just want an awesome action movie with some overdone CGI that looks blatantly fake, then go ahead. You can even take your girlfriend because Hugh Jackman is pretty close to naked in the film and you can distract her with that.

Longer review:

I think this movie should have been called, X-Men Origins: Cocktease.

Here's why: This movie's most consistent attribute is that is gives you about five seconds of something you want to see and then takes it away forever. Take Gambit for example. Fans of the series have wanted to see Gambit from day one. He was rumored to be in "X2" and then again was supposed to show up in "X-Men: The Last Stand," but in both instances he was cut out. So when Gambit appears in the "Origins" trailer, I get mucho excited. But...yeah, he's in the movie for about five minutes. On top of that, most of the time we see him, he's doing some nutso flipping ninja action. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ninja's and I know that's one of Gambit's maneuvers, but it just seem so out of place in this modern, non-comic rendition of the X-Men. I mean there is a reason why Wolverine doesn't wear the yellow polyester. Oh, how come only once in the whole movie does Gambit use his playing cards as a weapon? THAT IS WHAT DEFINES HIM. When he does it, it's so cool, but it only happens once.

Similar things can be said about John Wraith. Halfway through the film when it seems like Wolverine's on his own, he runs into John Wraith again. It seems like maybe they will be all "Army of Two," against Stryker and Sabertooth...but no...that only last for about five seconds too. It honestly seems like whenever they have something cool happening, they decide to move on. Also it seems like the filmmakers did not want to make a film that was based on the other three. Like every so often you can almost hear the director yell from off screen, "Oh crap, um, hey guys we should um make something up right now about why Wolverine can't remember anything." The ties to the other movies are so awkwardly placed that its...well..awkward.

Perhaps another title should be: X-Men: ZOMBIES!

I don't know about you all who read this, the two of you that do, but I mean what is it with the removal of heads? That is how you kill zombies right? I didn't know it was the only thing that killed X-Men. At three separate points, that I can remember, decapitation is used to indicate what is needed to kill someone. Stryker orders Weapon XI to decapitate Wolverine (as even Ademantium Bullets won't do the trick,) but then Wolverine finds that the only way to kill Weapon XI is to also go for the head. When asked how Wolverine will kill Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Wolverine's brother in this movie...) Wolverine replies, "I'm gonna cut off your God damned head. See if that works." Seriously? Okay. I guess. Why don't you just use your claws to spark a fire that catches a trail of gasoline that eventually burns all the way to a helicopter thus exploding it...or something?

There are also a lot of major loose ends that aren't tied up, which leaves one to wonder if they are planning for a X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2.

Acting is pretty good, especially Jackman. Taylor Kitsch turns in a wonderful Gambit, I just wish there was more of him. Wil.I.Am is a good John Wraith. I also never thought I'd say this either, but Ryan Reynolds in an X-Men movie (as Deadpool) was pretty fantastic. "Okay, people are dead." "Your looking nice today sir, it's the green, it brings out the seriousness in your eyes." I was a fan of Ryan Reynolds in this movie. Congratz universe. You win.

Last pet peeve. Why? Why? Why? Why in the very beginning when we first meet Logan, (played by a child) are we shown his "father" taking care of him. The "father" is played by an actor who looks just like Jackman, obviously signifying that this youngster is Logan because he will grow up to resemble his father. Right? So then why, several moments later after a disgruntled neighbor shoots and kills the father played by a Jackman look-a-like (who again...looks like Wolverine) does the neighbor...who looks nothing like Wolverine...inform little Logan that he is actually Logans father.

That was a confusing paragraph, let me try to point it out with some simpler phrasing:

Hugh Jackman look-a-like "dad" + Young Logan/Wolverine = Makes sense because Jackman also plays old Wolverine

Random Neighbor/Real Dad + Young Logan/Wolverine = No sense...because there is no actual resemblance. Why go through the fuss to get Jackman-ish to play the part if it ultimately doesn't matter and serves to confuse the audience?

Thanks to Bill Gatevackes for catching an error in my post. Nice to know someone reads! (In fact thats why I did that Bill...to see if anyone actually reads muahahahahahaha!)

Horror Review(s): David Wellington's "Monster" Trilogy

Warning: There will be spoilers in this post. I understand that a normal book review does not include spoilers. But I have deemed this a "Horror Review," as I know a large circle of people who love the horror genre, and would rather spend their time reading quality material. In order to either classify the following works as "Should read," or, "Avoid like the plague," I will need to include a few elements of plot, character, ect, to make my point. That is why there is a comment section, and I encourage people to agree or disagree with me. Also please forgive the length, but I'm tackling three books at once.

This installment refers to the "Monster Trilogy" by David Wellington.

The is a trilogy that details a Zombie Epidemic, and the roles of those caught up in the new world. A quick summery of each book.

Monster Island: Tells the story of Dekalb, a UN Weapon's inspector who must retrieve AIDS medication for a female Somalian Warlord. This warlord is essentially holding his daughter, Sarah, for ransom under the guise of enrolling Sarah in her "School." The "school" is actually a training organization for girls to become elite military commandos. Dekalb ventures forth to New York city with a group of school girl commandos. Wellington, you have my attention. Dekalb must navigate the zombie infested streets while dealing with other survivors, a sentient zombie named Gary, and a Celtic Druidic Bog Mummy Ghost, known as Mael Mag Och, who all stand in Dekalb's way.

Grade: A- Out of the three, this book is actually the best. Great detail, neat premise, and an actual good ending. If this was the only book that was written, I would be praising it as one of the most unique and entertaining zombie novels ever written. But Wellington made a mistake... two more books.

Monster Nation: A prequel to the first book, details the origins of the Epidemic. It is told through the eyes of two main characters, Bannerman Clark a Captain in the National Guard, and Nilla, a girl who wakes up in the strange new world with the ability to become invisible. The book concludes with the explanation of the cause of the zombies, which I will talk about in more detail later, so you have a chance to stop reading if you don't want it spoiled.

Grade: B- Wellington has very awesome action sequences in this book, but I just feel like the character of Nilla is there...just to be there, and I know he is setting her up for the third book, but I don't know, I really just found myself more excited to get back to the chapters about Captain Clark. Oh and the ending = awful.

Monster Planet: Okay Wellington, you impressed me with the first book, then let me down horribly with the second. But I already bought the third. Can you make it up to me?
In the third chapter of this saga, the story advances twelve years past the events of Dekalb and his adventures in New York. His daughter Sarah, now apparently this universe's version of Obi-Wan Kenobi because she can't be wrong, killed, and knows things that even DELTA Force operatives don't know, tries to rescue her Somali friend and mentor, Ayaan, from the grasp of the Tsarevich. The Tsarevich is the most powerful "Liche," in the world, with the ability to control the undead, and create more liches.
There is a cat and mouse game between the human factions, the undead factions, and the ghost of ancient Celtic Druid Bog Mummy faction. The story ends with all of these forces coming to a FINAL SHOWDOWN, to decide the fate of the planet.

Grade: C+ Why, oh why must an idea teaming with potential be squashed away by one of the most simplistic, rushed, frustrating, and disappointing endings, ever?

Okay, now for the part with spoilers, and the analysis from a horror perspective.

The Monster Trilogy has a lot of neat elements, that are all largely vague in the first book, which is awesome.

• Zombies that can regenerate if they eat the living.
• Ancient Egyptian mummies also brought back due to the epidemic.
• Sentient zombies, because when they died, they had oxygen supplied to their brains, so they retained sentience, and gained the ability to control the undead. These types of characters are referred to as "Liches"
• The Ghost of Celtic Druid who is the evil mastermind attempting to orchestrate the end of the world because his ancient gods charged him with this task.
• A Russian Liche who actually wears armor into battle, and captures people and changes them into Liches, that all get some sort of supernatural power.

I can live with all of that. Most genres need a step or two outside of the box. However, what they don't need is the rest of the stuff in the books. See what Wellington does, is takes a step outside of the box, and has us all going, "oh, ok, this is new and kinda neat, please continue on this level," then takes his idea balls it up and punts it into "stupid land."

This transition starts at the end of the second book when you find out what exactly is causing the zombies. Now I'm paraphrasing, but, apparently a scientist was trying to find the cure for cancer for his wife by tapping into the natural life force of the Earth. In so doing he wounded the planet, spewing forth an unhealthy and unnatural amount of pure life energy that is for some reason bringing the dead back to life.

Really? So what you're saying is that there is SO MUCH life energy that the dead are rising, yet there is no adverse effect on the living? The trilogies climax occurs at the "Source" of the wounded earth. All of the pawns both living and undead have been manipulated into coming to this place by the Celtic Druid Ghost, so that he can overload the Source with energy to destroy the planet.

Yet when the zombies venture too close to the Source, (the same source that created them by the way,) they start to combust. The living don't. How does that work? Why would pure life energy raise the dead, and kill them, but not hurt the living? Wouldn't that almost be like cancer? Cancer is when a cell is multiplying too rapidly. Too much life energy in my mind would have an adverse effect, if it causes decaying bodies and ancient mummies to catch on fire?

Well, you might say, maybe the Source doesn't effect the living because they are already made of the pure life energies anyways. Well I will counter with this: Earlier on, one of the Liches named Gary figures out that if he consumes what little life energy remains in the zombies, he will regenerate. During the story Dekalb nearly kills Gary. In attempts to enact revenge, Gary starts to consume as much life energy as possible, thus growing him into a huge giant like creature that Dekalb and his friends must fight.

So if consuming that much life energy causes Gary to mutate, why are there still no ill effects for humans, who already have a lot of life energy in them to start, especially when they are next to the Source? It makes no sense.

The other epic fail to this trilogy is the ending. All through the three books, master villain Mael Mag Och, the Celtic Druid Ghost I keep referring too, is manipulating all the other characters to bring about the end of the world. In fact his mantra, that he asks to almost everyone he encounters is, "What's more important than the end of the world?" But nobody has an answer for him...that is until the end.

At the end Mael has almost brought his plan to fruition. He's been able to transcend from his ghost form into a physical body, and may attempt to enter the Source, overload it, and thus blow up the planet. He has also eliminated every single legitimate threat except for Jedi Master Sarah, and Nilla--the invisible Liche girl from the second book. Mael has convinced Nilla that the end of the world is necessary, and that she should use her invisibility to protect Mael from the burning nature of the Source, until he has been able to overload it. (BTW: Why would being invisible make you immune to catching on fire?)

Anyways, right before Mael gets to the Source, Nilla suddenly stops time, a power she has chosen to conceal right up until this point, to show Jedi Master Sarah, what the the other side of life is really like. Almost like Obi-Wan coming back to talk to Luke. During this time freeze, Nilla echoes Mael's words, "Whats more important than the end of the world? Mael said that a million times, and I've never come up with an answer."

Sarah thinks about this, and then realizes that the only thing that's more important is, "the next day;" the fact that there is a future. Nilla then replies, "I never thought about that," then proceeds to drop her invisibility killing (again) both herself and Mael. The world is now safe.

Seriously? That's it? That's what I read through three books for? The next day? Why not love? Each other? Sex? Power? The plight of good versus evil? God's will? ANYTHING. The next day can be even shittier. At any point you could die of a freak accident. I know time is precious and I hope to live till I'm 100, but if I don't have anything else to live for, but "the next day," then woop de freaking doo.

Or am I more pissed off because the ending for both this world/the trilogy rests upon an idiotic conversation that can be boiled down to something like this:

Nilla: Hey um, you know I think the capital of Texas is Dallas.

Sarah: Actually it's Austin.

Nilla: Oh man, better not destroy the world then.

C'mon Wellington? Why are we strung along for something like that? You've teased us with awesome action sequences and neat ideas to end us with that? And why did you include these other missteps?

Why is Ayaan's Liche ability to fire Spirit Bombs ala Dragon Ball Z?

Why when the whole story is based around life energy can a crazy guy in the woods eat zombie's hearts and gain dark magic like abilities, including grafting a tree root to replaced his severed limb, and then animate it into a hand?

Why do you have one of the most bad ass villains ever, whom you refer too only as the Green Phantom, whose Liche ability is to control metabolism, thus making zombies faster, and who also cuts off zombies hands, and sharpens their wrist bones into sharp spear like weapons, and who also has a staff made out of human femurs, and has no disregard for anyone at all reveal his dumb ass name? All though the books he is the Green Phantom. What a great epithet and character you have created only to at the end, when showing that Ayaan has earned his trust, does he essentially say, "hey, instead of calling me the Green Phantom, you can call me Enni Longstrom." Enni Longstrom or Green Phantom? After the horrible ending I described above, this was like salt into the wound.

So to conclude for any who are still actually reading: If you like horror, I recommend you should avoid. You will be left unsatiated by the let down of an ending, and the spoilage of a potential awesome premise. I really want to say that the first book is worth a read, because it does not deviate from the original awesomeness. But why read something when you already know it will turn out awful? Please don't make the same mistake I did.