Zombies, zombies, fucking zombies. We really should be sick of the sight of them. The most annoying thing about them is that regardless of how many zombie films come along people keep on making more on them.
On the flipside every so often someone comes up with a decent take on them, and most of the awful films don't make it as far as the cinema. They have a much better hit rate than vampires and with good reason.
Zombies may have no emotions or feelings but that's a hell of a lot more appealing than being angst-ridden self-obsessed immortal teenagers.
No-one is scared of vampires- if a vampire kills you, you slowly fade away in the throes of sexual ecstasy. If a zombie kills you, you're torn apart screaming in unimaginable pain. If a vampire turns you, you turn into a romantic pale-skinned ponce- like how Pete Doherty sees himself. When a zombie bites you turn into a stinking mess with decaying flesh and unwashed clothes- essentially how the rest of the world sees Pete Doherty.
Therefore zombies are more scary.
It seems that every film-maker and writer has spent his (or her, but let's not kid ourselves here) life waiting for the chance to give us their take on the zombie story. This new era seems to have begun with the not-technically-zombies zombie film 28 Days Later. Danny Boyle?s straight-faced tale of running zombies was then answered by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg?s shuffling zomcom Shaun of the Dead. Since then there's been a consistent run of original takes on the genre.
Hecklerspray?s recent favourite is the Greek comedy-horror? Evil:In the Time of Heroes which flips between modern day and ancient times and features Billy Zane as an immortal warrior monk. It's knowingly ridiculous and charming with it.
So news that Frank Darabont was taking time off from making decent Stephen King adaptations to helm a TV version of Robert Kirkman?s The Walking Dead comic series was met with excitement. The first episode aired in the UK on Saturday so in quality terms was it a Dawn or a Diary of the Dead?
After an attention-grabbing first scene that has cop Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) shooting a zombie child in the head, the programme rewinds to the events that lead Grimes to be unconscious in hospital when the zombie outbreak occurs. It then steals the same scene from Day of the Triffids that 28 Days Later borrowed, with Grimes waking up in an apocalyptic world seemingly free of living beings. He then spends time with a father and son who are squatting in Grimes?s road, being haunted by zombie-mum.
Here we get a measure of a world where everyone you know is dead, or worse, undead. After this, Grimes heads towards the cities to get chased around by an army of shuffling evil, hungry for the innards of anyone who appeared in This Life.
So far, so good. It's cinematic in its scale and look, the atmosphere is incredibly tense and the emotional realities of the situation are well written and convincingly performed. Lincoln not only comfortably carries the narrative but also has a decent American accent. Accents are a curious British concern but they can be distracting for us if done badly.
The only criticism is that thus far it hasn't gone into any areas that haven't been fully covered by previous films- the Triffids scene, the parent/child survivors and scenes of devastation are all conventions of the zombie and post-apocalypse genres. Its only unique aspect so far is that it can spend time with character development- something that's difficult when you only have 90 minutes and have to squeeze the dialogue around imaginative undead slayings.
So now Darabont?s got our attention, what's he going to do with us now?
Mike says
Do you really have to use the F word these days to get your point across? How many young ones google? Please…(*&%&* would have been enough…shame.
Si Sharp says
If you feel it added nothing to the writing then fair enough. We were using it to express exasperation (excuse the editorial ‘we’) but it must seem somewhat affected if you’re not used to seeing swearing in a review. As for little ones googling? Should we refrain from any adult references (swearing, descriptions of sexual acts or drug taking) just in case any (unsupervised) youngsters bypass all the free pornography (using a PC that hasn’t been fitted with net nanny or some other software sold to responsible parents that censors adult content including swearing) and instead choose to read a review about an adult TV series, and are unable to work out exactly what “****ing” means? Would you go through your copy of your broadsheet newspaper supplement with a marker pen in the morning everytime there’s an interview with Daniel Radcliffe a few pages down from an interview with someone more fond of forbidden vocabulary just in case your child stumbles across it? Where is the line drawn? ‘Gossip for Grown-Ups’ – the clues are there if you look for them. You’ve made an interesting point. However, it is one we don’t agree with.
wrlord says
Who the hell is Pete Doherty ?
Si Sharp says
Apologies for British cultural reference but we have to put up with sort of thing every time we watch an American film. How do you think we felt the first time someone mentioned a ‘twinkie’ or ‘recess’. As for who he is- you can use wiki like anyone else. Or don’t. Your life won’t be especially richer once you know.
Julian J-Dawg Phillipz says
It would have been better if the zombie-mum who got shot in the head was fit. Please keep up the swearing. x