Zombi 3 (1988)

    Shortly after an experimental reanimation drug is created, a group of terrorists steal it and one becomes infected. The government agency responsible decides on a ‘sweep and clear’ of the area while 3 small groups of tourists converge only to be caught between the military action, and the now-widespread walking dead.

    First of all, it must be said - Zombi 3 does not hide its influences! The ‘shoot ‘em up’-style of action is very reminiscent of Romero’s ‘Dawn of the Dead,’ while the scientists versus military dynamic harkens to 1985’s ‘Day of the Dead.’ Even the method of mass transmission, (the airborne ashes of a cremated zombie,) is taken from ‘Return of the Living Dead,’ also released just three years prior! 

    These make it even more surprising that the movie seems to completely ignore its own predecessor, Fulci’s amazing ‘Zombi.’ 

    Providing its own cause for the outbreak, and the subsequent spread of the infection, ‘Zombi 3’ seems more like a standalone reboot than it does a sequel.

    The acting is not good, get that straight. I know that an Italian film that is dubbed into English, often times the dialog is altered somewhat to fit the actors’ mouth movements. I am typically as forgiving of this as I can be, but with only a few exceptions, it was clear that these “actors” were new to this. Or just blatant ‘over-actors.’ And this on the parts of both the living and the dead.

This over-the-top scientist acted like a dropout of
the William Shatner/Adam West School of Acting!!!

    There is an inconsistency between the zombies, too. At times, they are perfect Romeros, (see my Zombie Classification Chart,) other times Russos, sometimes wielding weapons, frequently jumping from above, (TOO frequently!), and don’t even get me started on the flying head! (Yes. You read that correctly!)

    On the film’s positive side, it DOES have a good and clear story arc, beginning to end: Creation of the virus, outbreak, spread, conclusion. Very linear. I like that! No meandering.

    The movie also has a couple of genuine scares, (that awesome pool rescue!), and even a zombie siege on a (poorly,) fortified stronghold. I also like the fact that even if the living characters are devoid of backstory and fairly interchangeable, it is surprising to see just how frequently and dispassionately the movie kills one off! Kind’ve refreshing that way!

    Lots of Fulci gore for the fans of that, too. True, a good deal of it comes from festering pustules and blisters that accompany the zombism this time around, but plenty of flesh tearing, too. 

    For all its faults, I didn’t dislike this film. In fact, I kinda enjoyed it. My objective grading device, the Zombie Movie Rubric, however, was not so kind. Action / Pacing, Zombies, and Budget save this from the “Total Stinker” category, tallying up a 1.33 out of 4 for a score. 

    It is really hard to believe this is the sequel of Fulci’s masterpiece, Zombi. (Or Zombi 2, depending on your source.)

    So, I wouldn’t say avoid this one, it has its moments, but I can’t recommend it, unless you are desperate for an cheesy, 80’s, Italian zombie flick, and you keep your entertainment standards humble.

    YouTube seems to have the movie in its entirety for viewing, too! If you still haven't decided to watch this, here is a (long,) trailer to help make up your mind! ZOMBI 3 

    Also, I can’t help thinking this movie had hopes of being shown in 3D. There is a disproportionate amount of second-person 3D zooming! 

Return of the Evil Dead (1973)

     

    Amando Ossorio’s Blind Dead are back and this time it is the 500th anniversary of when the townsfolk of Berzano burnt out the eyes of the sadistic, Satanic Templars and then burned them alive… uh, to death.

    With a whole new cast of hapless and well-eyebrow-endowed living characters to pursue, the Blind Dead rise with that same great grave-emerging scene from the original… I mean, that EXACT scene, cut and paste into this film. But What the heck! Why re-shoot it, right? It was awesome before, it’s awesome again!

    The blind, undead Templars are extremely slow moving, (except when riding their deathly steeds!) and show no signs of emotion or higher intelligence - with the exception of riding dead horses and using 16th century swords. In their filthy, grey, and decaying cowls and hooded robes, they are again the bearded skeletons of the original. 

    A few changes have been made by the way of vulnerabilities to the knights, and dispatching them is no longer impossible, but their look, movements, and completely chilling silence really convey the ghoulish and sinister feel.

Because, again, mood and atmosphere do most of the heavy-lifting here.

    That said, the scene of the mounted and sword-wielding knights doing a whole-sale slaughter in the town square really IS a gruesome delight, but still, kind of lacks the creepiness and primal-fear-inducing tone of the silent, shuffling, on-foot undead.

    I found the living in ‘Return’ to be a bit more engage-able than its predecessor. Personalities more developed, more interesting individual backstories, and making far fewer bad decisions. There is a much more linear feel to the plot, too, with a story arc that builds well and culminates more naturally. There is even a stronghold scene, à la Night of the Living Dead!

    Adding all of these factors up and measuring them on my ZMR, (Zombie Movie Rubric,) a decent rating of 2.88 out of 4 is the outcome. This equates to an above average Undead movie entry and earns a recommendation as a good, creepy, ‘lights out’ night’s viewing.

A YouTube Trailer will ensure you never forget the name: RETURN OF THE EVIL DEAD