City of the Living Dead, (1980)

  Whilst in a seance, a young woman sees a priest hang himself in a church graveyard. This apparently, opens up The Gates of Hell, allowing the dead to walk again.

Soon, the young psychic, with help from a New York journalist, (Christopher George,) set out to find the town of Dunwich, where said suicide took place - ROAD TRIP!!!

The pair have only 48 hours, or until All Saint’s Day, to get to Dunwich, (the site of the ‘original Salem - city of witches and evil!’) to destroy the dead priest's body and close the gates of hell.

It is important to note that this film is NOT a sequel to Lucio Fulci’s 1979 masterpiece, Zombi, (or 'Zombie 2,' depending on where you are in the world,) or connected to it at all. City of the Living Dead, it seems, is the first in The Gates Of Hell trilogy by Fulci, to be followed by ‘The Beyond,’ and ‘House By the Cemetery.’

All of the classic Fulci elements are here, though, plenty of guts and gore, close-up eye zooms, writhing worms, and a chugging, dramatic score.

And unlike Zombi, this is not your typical undead apocalypse film, and as such, does not necessarily adhere to those conventions. I mean, yes, the titular ‘Living Dead’ are the recently deceased and do move slowly and silently, but also seem to, um, ‘teleport’  at will - much more like a ghost or spirit, - appearing and disappearing with ease.

As for the other ‘Rules of Romero,’ the eating of flesh is present, but inconsistent - and not necessarily a given. Also, zombism did not appear to be transferred through bites, but in fairness, no one was just bitten. And lastly, the undead can be killed with more than just a head shot. In fact, one Z is dispatched fairly quickly with a stomach stabbing!

So, again, this is not a straightforward walking undead movie. Despite its title, City of the Living Dead is more of a story-driven Italian horror movie with some zombie-like elements. A departure from the mainstream, yes, but it has some decent scares, decent gore, an interesting plot, and some engaging characters. 

Suffice to say, I dug it! But, as is typically the case, I needed the objective grading tool known as the Zombi Movie Rubric for a fair and unbiased evaluation.

    With its originality, great characters, decent acting a good film quality picking up where the pacing, and actual zombies let it down, City of the Living Dead earned itself a respectable 3.0 out of a possible 4.0! This equates to a pretty good recommendation with that one caveat - this is not your regular Zombie Outbreak movie. Go into it forearmed and you’ll enjoy it all the more.

P.S. 1970’s American TV staple, Christopher George, fresh off of The Love Boat and Fantasy Island, steals every scene he’s in!!!

Here is a nice High Def trailer from YouTube - CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD

Anger of the Dead, (2015)

    We open with a young mom, Alice, getting a little-too-late phone call warning her of the dangers outside, and not to leave the house. As she is struggling to understand him, her 4 year-old-daughter opens the front door and well… yeah.

    Flash forward 4 months and we find Alice and some other on-the-roaders struggling to get to a ferry heading to an island with no zombies, without getting bitten.

    Meanwhile, we are also treated to a parallel storyline of a woman, held prisoner, being ‘human-guidea-pig-style’ tested on, and, just to prove she is an innocent victim, also kept in chains, beaten, and raped.

    Flashbacks between the two storylines are quick and disjointed, often switching to storylines within the storylines, causing a kinda confusing first quarter of the film. Once things start to become familiar, one can settle in and follow the plots more easily.

    Of these plots, one is a very straight forward, “Get to de choppa” story arc. A small group, on the road to a final destination with rapidly impending deadline, battling the hurdles of running out of fuel and food, despair, and of course, zombies.

    The second storyline is not so clear. A woman being held captive for reasons unknown, helped to escape, and hunted by an unrelenting and cruel military captain who makes zombies seem a bit less threatening.

One story seems to have nothing to do with the other, and remains that way for most of the film.

    Fortunately, the acting was fairly decent. Some subtle accents implied that English was not the actors' first language, but they all pulled it off convincingly, and often, unnoticeably. 

    Unfortunately, the characters portrayed were mostly devoid of any backstory, history, or personal motivation. Aside from the over-the-top performance of the sadistic Captain Rooker, most of the characters were fairly interchangeable.

    Of zombies, we were given the fast, growling, howling, animalistic sort, (ugh.) They showed signs of anger and frustration, as well as letting out roars of rage. (See Zombie Classification Chart.)

    As to the OTHER ‘Rules of Romero,’  zombism was transmitted through bites and dying, and the dead did feast on the living, but it was not made clear if headshots were the only means of killing them, as these dead, athletic as they were, seemed to be killed fairly easily.

    And, for some reason, once dead and infected, the zombies' faces develop thick and malformed brows and cheekbones, but the rest of their bodies remain unchanged. 

    The hand-held camera effects were numerous and, although I know they were meant to convey what the characters were experiencing, very distracting for me. The shakiness during action scenes, the wobbliness when a person was drugged and unsteady, and that weird, partially obstructed viewpoint, from behind a pillar or doorframe, kind’ve made me feel like I was spying on people.

    For all my griping, this was not the worst zombie flick I’ve ever seen. So, to to be fair, I held it up to that most impartial of tools, The Zombie Movie Rubric. Based on its nine objective criteria, Anger of the Dead, buoyed by its SPFX and decent acting, yet dragged down by a deadly-slow crawl, earned itself a surprising 2.11 out of 4.0. 

    This rating translates to a nice, middle-of-the-road zombie film entry. Something to watch if you’re jonesing for some undead, but, ultimately forgettable.

    YouTube has a coupla’ trailers for you to decide if you’re interested or not. ANGER OF THE DEAD Enjoy!

Sorry about all that camera action - grab your aspirin!

 

The Rules of Romero

    Since films are often praised here for adhering to the rules of zombism set down in George A. Romero’s Night of the Living Dead, it was time to list these ‘Rules of Romero’ formally. 

    Bear in mind that prior to 1968, ‘Zombies’ were the products of voodoo, individuals brought back to life to perform a task by a necromancer. They were simple tools with no drive of their own.        

    Night of the Living Dead re-invented zombies, and in doing so created the entire sub-genre. 

    These were the rules of that movie.

1. ZOMBIES ARE DEAD. Not simply infected individuals. And  

       not just dead, ‘recently deceased.’ 

2. IF YOU GET BITTEN BY A ZOMBIE, YOU BECOME A ZOMBIE.  Zombism is transferred through bites. Once bitten, a

        person dies. Once dead, they rise up as undead.

3. ZOMBIES EAT HUMAN FLESH. Not just brains, not just 

        virgins, not just the healthy. Any flesh. 

4. ZOMBIES ARE SLOW AND SHAMBOLIC. Not running, not 

        talking, not sad, or angry, or growling! 

As Sherriff McClelland said: “They’re dead. They’re all messed 

        up.”

5. THE ONLY WAY TO ‘KILL’ A ZOMBIE IS TO DESTROY 

        THE BRAIN.

“Kill the brain, kill the ghoul.”

This ‘Newscast’ scene from Night Of The Living Dead sums up most of these rules quite nicely. 

    Although deviations from these rules does not necessarily make a movie bad, it doesn’t make it better, either. But being able to create a new movie within the confines of these parameters earns a special distinction here.

See my Zombie Classification Chart for further information regarding Zombie types.