What is up with the
recent zombie movie craze that has been sweeping
Hollywood? Usually, vampires and werewolves are the
most commonly used horror figures -- not zombies. I
mean, everyone pretty much agrees that after "Night
of the Living Dead" and "Day of the Dead",
there is no room for improvement in the genre. Alas,
"Resident Evil" was a treat, and "House of
the Dead" tries for the exact same thing. Like
"Resident Evil", it is a prequel to the video
games, for which the title is known. The end of the
film picks up where the first video game began. Now,
you can say that is totally ripping off the "Resident
Evil" concept, because that is absolutely correct.
So, does it work and, if so, how well?
A bunch of stupid college students travel to a mysterious
island for a kick ass rave that is suppose to be the
'party of the year'. Alas, when they arrive, they
discover that everyone has vanished and nothing is left
but some party favors and a hell of a lot of alcohol.
Soon, they are attacked and continually assaulted by a
hord of the undead, hungry for human flesh. They
barricade themselves in an old house and start trying to
unlock the secrets to 'the house of the dead'. Oooh,
sounds scary, huh? You also have to add in the fact
that these 'stupid' college students have guns and bombs
-- lots of them. In "Night of the Living
Dead" all they had was one shotgun, some boards, and
the knowledge that fired scared the hell out of the
zombies. Here they have glocks, pipe bombs, and
laser cannons. Give the zombies a friggin' chance.
For starters, the acting is your basic horror film jargon
-- one liners, cheesy attempts at bad lassitude, and the
occasional exchange that could possibly be considered
witty banter. Jurgen Prochnow and Clint Howard are
really two of the only recognizable faces in the film, and
I found it a little bizarre that Prochnow's character was
named Captain Kirk (how obvious can you be?). I
guess they used a basically unknown cast to cut down on
budget costs, so they could spend more on make-up and
effects, and that was probably a good idea, because both
are very creative and very realistic. There is no
dispute that this is a good looking zombie film, but eye
candy is not always enough to make a picture stay above
water.
"House of the Dead" drowns because it puts these
college students in this unbelievable situations and
somehow thinks it can convince us that they know exactly
what to do at all of the right moments. Panic would
normally dictate action, not previous zombie experience.
I also disliked how the zombies were so superhuman.
In "Night of the Living Dead", it was believable
because the zombies behaved how you would think a recently
revived corpse would behave -- slowly and lethargically.
You could push one hard enough and it would fall over.
Here, they run like the wind, leap through the air, and
have more muscles than California's brand new governor.
This film could have been entertaining as a horror/action
film, but fails as that and as a regular horror film
because there is too much action and not enough fright.
Director Uwe Boll needs some work on his style and maybe
he could do some damage with his next film.
Otherwise, it will fall flat, just like "House of the
Dead" did.
