It would not be hyperbole to say that George Romero created the modern zombie movie genre. With his groundbreaking first film, Night of the Living Dead, George Romero created an idea whose light still flickers in our collective imaginations. The movie deals not only with reanimated flesh eating ghouls, but also with gender roles and racism. Not content to simply dream up an idea and turn it loose on the world, Romero refined and polished his vision in the original sequel, Dawn of the Dead, offering up a scathing condemnation of our American consumption society.

And most people think zombie films are about blood and brains.

Diary of the Dead is a low budget, return to roots project for George Romero. In this film he chronicles the beginning of a zombie apocalypse, similar in timing with the original "Night" film. The events have been brought up to date, taking place in a thoroughly modern world that includes hand held video cameras, blogging, and the internet. In Diary of the Dead Romero sets out to ask the question of how far has our society really come since 1968? For all of our technological advances, how different are we as a species?

Unfortunately, in three short paragraphs, I've managed to ask that question more eloquently than Romero does in the film itself. The biggest problem is that the film wears its low budget on its sleeves. The cinematography is okay, the story is simple but effective, but the script and the acting leave a lot to be desired.

The movie takes place in a first person perspective, similar to the Blair Witch Project or the more recent Cloverfield. Like those movies, the main character is some smarmy twat who, for whatever reason, won't put the camera down regardless of the circumstances. This usually isn't a big problem for me in these types of films, some suspension of disbelief is necessary in all films after all, but the execution of it in Diary left me cold. The characters are constantly reminding us that Jason, the main character, is still filming. They ask why but Jason never responds. In the first 12 minutes the fact that he is filming is directly referenced three times. This is the type of question best left to nitpicky audience members, not characters in the film. When a character blatantly asks this question, everyone watching the movie suddenly thinks "Yeah! Why is he still filming?" So much for suspension of disbelief.

Another example of this occurs in the opening moments of the film. A girl, whom I will now refer to as Exposition Jill, introduces herself, gives us some background about the zombie invasion, and then lets us know she's edited together the footage we're about to watch. Exposition Jill goes on to tell us about the guy filming the rest of the film. His name is Jason Creed. This guy is filming this documentary, "The Death of Death," so that we will know the truth. Hooray. Filmmaker cliché number one and we're less than five minutes in. Then, to top this little sequence off, Jill tells us she's added music to some of the footage. She's added music to scare us. I'm not paraphrasing. She says she deliberately added the music to scare us. To make us care about THE TRUTH (TM).

Come on, George. We're not idiots. No one was going to say, "Hey, if this is supposed to be a documentary, where did the music come from?" Most people would happily explain it away to themselves as someone found the footage and doctored it up. No clunky expositional character required. The type of nitpicky person you're trying to address with this explanation doesn't deserve to be recognized. If someone is nitpicky enough to ask that question, hopefully everyone else in the room would tell them to shut up and just watch the movie. Instead, by addressing this issue head-on, the movie comes off as pompous and self-serving. Sorry George, but recognizing and calling attention to a gaping hole in the way you've chosen to present your story does not excuse said gaping hole.

Ahem.

P.S. 15 Minutes in and someone just mentioned Jason is still filming again. Awesome. I'm going to stop counting now.

Okay, nitpicking aside, this isn't a bad movie. I definitely think the script could have used some tightening up, if only to avoid the issues listed above. The acting is on par for a low budget film, but no one is going to win any awards. The makeup zombie effects are fun and effective and Romero shows a real love for the genre he helped create. There's a few real creative zombie dispatchings that were a welcome addition to the standard issue brain splattering head shots. One zombie gets bashed over the head with hydrochloric acid and we watch him stumble around as his skull dissolves. Another zombie gets lobotomized with an IV stand. A deaf Amish dude impales his own head with a sickle to off both himself and the zombie attacking him from behind.

That's a new one on me.

And then, 26 minutes in, Douchey McTardathon's camera runs out of battery and he separates from the group to plug it in. Yeah.

Yeah.

Moments of brilliance and moments of ridiculousness. A very unbalanced experience.

So from here, more stuff happens. There's a fairly drawn out sequence with some paramilitary types that always seem to grace flicks in this genre. Some of what happens is pretty cool, some of it isn't. The film's message about our dependence on the media and technology is scathing in typical Romero fashion. The heavy handed commentary about our YouTube society, a society that would rather watch itself fall apart for entertainment value rather then lend a hand to help, will bludgeon you over the head like a sledgehammer. This is a stark contrast to the subtlety evident in Romero's earlier works. The points made are perfectly valid and thought provoking, but this is a case of a film suffering for its message.

Oh, and yes. Like always, in the end, we're the real monsters.

The Bottomline: The good outweighs the bad, but you'll want to turn your brain off to get the most out of the film. Not a good sign for a film trying to deliver a social commentary. If you like Romero and have been jonesing for a zombie fix in the post-Land of the Dead world, you're likely to enjoy it. Lord knows you'll never see a big budget, studio produced Romero flick again, so take what you can get I say.

Three stars.

The modern comic movie adaptation fan has clearly been spoiled by the excellent Iron Man from Marvel Studios and the Batman Begins franchise reboot from Warner. Back in 2004 when Hellboy hit the silver screen the best efforts we had seen so far were Spider-Man two years previous, X2: X-Men United, and Spider-Man 2 that very same summer. While there was precedent for good comic adaptions, Hellboy was by no means a sure fire hit.

You'll be glad Revolutionary Studios took a chance on this property. At first glace, a big, bright red demon smoking cigars and cracking wise doesn't look like a recipe for success. There was a real chance that, in the wrong hands, the artistic visual style of the comic books could seriously hamper any serious attempts to adapt the character for a mainstream audience. The studio was right to take on the still budding director Guillmero del Toro to work on the film. As a filmmaker, del Toro has never shied away from the fantastic. Years after Hellboy, he would come into his own with the visually impressive and thought provoking Pan's Labyrinth. At this time, del Toro still had something to prove.

By taking one look at Hellboy, you can really feel del Toro's visual style just beginning to take shape and pop off of the celluloid. His eagerness to embrace special effects, both practical and computer generated, does the realization of Mike Mignolia's Hellboy universe a great justice. Although del Toro is clearly just gaining his footing in this film, and he definitely feels reigned in by studio suits at some points, you never doubt his energy and enthusiasm for the material.

Enough pre-review swooning. Onto the film. Hellboy is a fun-filled, action-oriented experience. The special effects are all well done and the practical makeup effects used to bring the life the titular character are top notch. As good as the makeup is, Hellboy would be nothing without the actor beneath the latex, and Ron Perlman delivers in spades. His ability to act from beneath a full facial appliance is a true testament to this unsung Hollywood hero's abilities. Hellboy himself is a fun character, with a lot of personality. His bright red skin jumps off the screen, but his cigar chomping, wise cracking, bullish attitude is what makes him memorable.

Doug Jones does a wonderful job as the the man inside the Abe Sapien makeup, delivering a performance just this side of Andy Serkis. His voice acting by David Hyde Pierce is top notch. The necessary babe and love interest, provided by Selma Blair as the firestarter Liz Sherman, is suitable hot both literally and figurtively. John Hurt plays Hellboy's adopted father and doesn't miss a single sentimental beat. As far as acting goes, there isn't much here to complain about.

The script, on the other hand, is a bit lacking. The Lovecraftian themes are definitely welcome. More stories involving the elder gods and the chaotic hells they may bring upon the earth are needed in films. It's a story line not yet mined for all it's worth, so some credit for being original is definitely due. However, some of the scripting and dialogue is just clunky and overly expositional. Too much of Hellboy's world is explained to us rather than letting us experience it. The biggest sin the movie makes is the inclusion of the main human or "normal" character, John Myers. Rupert Evans does a commendable job with the material he's given, but it just isn't enough to stop the character from feeling like a studio note. It's almost imaginable that some studio suit somewhere couldn't justify letting del Toro make a movie about a bunch of freaks. The charatcer of John Myers is there to provide the audience with a "normal" character they can identify with, and so that the audience can be introduced to the world with a suitable anchor to reality. Basically, it feels like a big cop-out.

Luckily, despite some clunkiness, the movie is driven by a collection of imaginative, particularly nasty villains. The lead amongst them is Rasputin, as realized by Karel Roden. He and his mistress are suitable masterminds for the proceedings, but it's their company that's far more interesting. The walking, mechanical nightmare that is Karl Ruprecht Kroenen is a sight to behold, particularly with his Vader-like breathing aparatus removed. A cooler henchman hasn't been seen in cinema in many years. Sammael, the hound of resurrection, is a fun creature-creation, although the costume does look a bit rubbery in some scenes.

The plot of the film deals with Rasputin trying to bring about the end of the world by allowing the elder gods entry into our world. Hellboy himself is central to this plot, being the demon son of the ultimate evil. Having been raised by men to know the trials and tribulations of our world, he will be left with a choice. Will Hellboy fulfill his destiny and bring about the end times or will he rise above and fight for the salvation of mankind?

The Bottomline: Hellboy is a good comic movie, made in a time when good comic book movies were still a rarity. If you're willing to accept some cheese and a few pieces of clunky exposition, you are unlikely to be disappointed.

Four stars.

Tonight on the chopping block is the relatively recent big-Hollywood DVD release of 30 Days of Night. The flick is one of the better mainstream offerings to come down the pipeline in awhile and is a flick that any horror fan should probably check out. The movie covers a fantastic premise: A small group of bestial vampires descend upon a small town in Alaska where the sun sets, not rising again for 30 days. The vampires have the free run of the small town population, able to feed at will without the need to worry or hide from the sun. The movie follows a group of survivors trying to outlast the night.

For a Hollywood movie the level of brutality on display here is simply amazing. These aren't your grandmother's Bela Lugosi vampires. These are bestial, ravenous, guttural beasts of the night. They're not going to just drink your blood, they're going to rip you limb from limb and leave you screaming. Over the course of the film we see several beheading, the slaughtering of dogs, and a brutal ax-delivered death of a little girl turned vampire. The level of gore isn't going to impress hardcore indy gore-hounds, but for a wide release movie, you couldn't possibly expect anymore.

The next thing I noticed watching the film was the cinematography, which at times was simply gorgeous. Some of the scenery looks like a living painting, a look no doubt intentional due to the comic book origins of the material. The use of CGI enhancement gives an otherworldly quality to the material, making it jump off the celluloid. I've included an example of this below, but you really need to see the pictures in motion to get the full effect.

Okay, so enough praising. The movie isn't perfect and I don't want you to read this thinking it is. The acting can be a bit rough at times, especially from lead male Josh Hartnett. I understand they were trying to portray a multidimensional lead character but he just comes across as effeminate. The film definitely would have benefited from an actor capable of injecting a bit of testosterone into the proceedings from time to time, especially during the climatic fight scene. As is, the climatic battle between Josh Hartnett and the leader of the vampire pack comes off as sad and pathetic, a far cry from the epic battle you can tell the filmmakers were going for. Having the worst piece of laugh-inducing special effects in the movie cap off this fight didn't help much either.

There's also a serious problem with time progression in this film. At times, they simply throw a subtitle up on the screen indicating how many days are left before the sun rises. The movie skips from Day 1 to Day 9 to Day 29, or something like that. When this happens the scene breaks feel forced. They don't flow naturally, and they decrease suspense.

The Bottomline: 30 Days of Night is an impressive first offering from Ghost House Productions. This level of horror should be consistently seen in theaters across America. The film isn't perfect, but it's a lot of fun and, hey, it beats watching another J-horror remake (looking at you, Shutter).

Three stars.

Automaton Transfusion is an independent, extremely low-budget massive-scale zombie flick recently released on DVD. The hype over this film has been massive, as Bloody-Disgusting raves that "[Automaton Transfusion is] the holy grail of true independent horror films." On the flip side of the hype is a review from Dread Central that states "My brain can’t manage another moment of this Hot Topic Horror film." So which is it? Is Automaton Transfusion the greatest independent horror flick since Blair Witch or is it a steaming pile?

Unsurprisingly, the answer is somewhere in between. Much like the aforementioned Blair Witch, there is a lot of hard work and love evident in this film. The director has done a commendable job making a Hollywood worthy film on a $30,000 dollar budget. The majority of the acting is well done and the the makeup effects beat anything I saw in the theater in the last twelves months (Rambo excluded). Also much like the aforementioned Blair Witch, the movie has a million-some-odd flaws that critics will pick up on, harp upon, and tear the movie a new one over. And to be honest, the critics won't be wrong.

Automaton Transfusion is likely to suffer most from the hype surrounding it. Hard to please independent fans may judge it harshly for its perceived mainstream acceptance. This aside, Automaton Transfusion is truly one of the better independent horror films of recent memory, but that fact doesn't mean your average, theater-going, six pack Joe is going to appreciate it. The film quality is below digital, there aren't any explosions, and Jessica Alba or Sarah Michelle Gellar aren't in it. Most people are going to look at it and not see what the big deal is about. The movie is fantastic considering it was made for $30,000, but most people aren't going to know that factoid or, let's face it, care.

With all of that out in the open, I'd like to say that I found Automaton Tranfusion wickedly entertaining for the majority of its runtime. The story follows a three high school students, portrayed by actors who actually looks like they could be in high school!!!! They head out to the nearby city to see a rock concert, but when they arrive they find the city is deserted. The proverbial shit quickly hits the proverbial fan and they find themselves on the run from a massive throng of fast, intelligent zombies that have the unique ability to sniff out us living warm-bloods no matter where we hide.

The zombies, if you can call them that, were the biggest disappointment I had with the film. It's not that they aren't well realized. They are, and the majority of them have some pretty decent make up to boot. They're certainly vicious enough, rapidly descending on survivors and quickly tearing them into pieces. Mostly I'm just nostalgic for old fashioned slow-moving, overwhelm you with sheer numbers and inevitability-type zombies. I suppose I can't hold that against the film though. I did, however, have these thoughts as I watched the movie:

• How the hell are they sniffing out where people are? Humans have a terrible sense of smell
• Why do zombies travel in packs? Why is there never just one, wandering around by his/her lonesome self. (Side note to self: Lonesome zombies, tales of the forlorn undead. This is gold. Sell script idea immediately.)
• How are there so many of these zombies? Everyone they kill they tear to pieces- as such, none of the victims should be getting up and joining their ranks.
• If they're supposed to be 'intelligent zombies' why do they give up so easily? At one point, when a door comes between the zombies and the main characters, the zombies try to get in for about ten seconds before giving up and wandering back into the night. The main characters leave the house through that door no less than ten seconds later.

And so on.

With the exception of one scene of exposition near the end of the film, its pretty much wall to wall action for the 75 minute runtime. The blood runs freely although never in ways that are all that surprising or memorable. When the movie comes to a screeching halt with the words "To Be Continued" splashed up on the screen, you're likely to find yourself wanting to see more. I know I did.

The Bottomline: Automaton Transufsion is not without its plot holes and technical mishaps. It is a compentantly made film that is worth a rental for gore hounds looking for a fix. Writer/Director Steven C. Miller could be one to watch for if he ever gets his hands on a real budget. I'm definitely looking forward to the sequel.

I'm vaguely disappointed that the torn in half, crawling zombie on the uncensored DVD box cover is nowhere to be found in the film itself. Oh well.

Three stars.

Today we mark our first foray into the wide wilderness that is old school horror. On the chopping block is the oft whispered about slasher flick, The Burning. There is a lot of history tied to this film, and was one of many films banned by the British Board of Film Classification in the mid-1980's. It was the first film produced by Harvey Weinstein whom would go on to create Miramax and The Weinstein Company. It starred then unknown talent Jason Alexander, Fisher Stevens, and Holly Hunter. The special effects were done by industry great Tom Savini, just following his work on the original Friday the 13th.

The film has garnered a bit of notoriety over the years, thanks to an especially brutal raft massacre scene that takes place in broad daylight. The notoriety has no doubt doubled for the simple reason that the movie has long been out of print, rarely even playing on late night TV horror fests. As such, although I've heard great things about this film, I'd never been able to view it for myself. However, thanks to Anchor Bay and the glorious technological advances afforded us by DVD, The Burning is available for consumption once more.

The film takes place at a common 80's slasher setting, a summer camp in the middle of the woods. We meet a group of young boys that wish to seek revenge against the crusty old camp caretaker, Cropsy. Okay, so the caretaker isn't that old or crusty, but I like the ring of it. At any rate, the revenge prank goes severely south and old Cropsy ends up severely burned, hence the title of the flick.

Cut to 5 years later and the horribly disfigured, shadow dwelling, trench coat wearing Cropsy is released from the hospital. We're not exactly sure why the hospital is releasing this particular patient as there appear to be some unresolved psychotic tendencies. In fact, the doctors can clearly be heard saying via voice-over "We know you still resent those kids for what happened, but try not to think about tracking them down one by one and murdering the little bastards." Okay, so that's not the line word for word, but it might as well be. At any rate, Cropsy gets out of the hospital and kills a hooker. Not exactly sure why, but hey, that's show business for ya.

Next we jump to the summer camp and get acquainted with a new group of kids, one of which is Jason Alexander (with HAIR!). Also, one of the kids responsible for burning the caretaker five years before is now a counselor at the camp. More importantly, the camp is apparently now co-ed because there is a lot of old fashioned 80's T&A on display. Cropsy quickly find his way to the camp and gets with the dispatching of these wicked, sex crazed young folk. The first set of boobs (Not the prostitute's. Go figure) make their entrance around twenty minutes into the film, concurring with the film's first red herring.

From there, we have approximatey forty more red herrings in a row. Seriously. The first death (not counting the prostitute) occurs about 45 minutes in. In this scene, we're treated to several sequences of full frontal nudity as teenage girl wanders the forest looking for her clothes which were stolen while she was skinny dipping. Whew. Do not try such long and convoluted sentences at home, kids. This sequence deserves some recognition as it contains more nudity than most other films from this era. Props.

The next thing of interest that occurs is the aforementioned raft massacre scene. A group of 6 or so kids attempting to escape via raft are cut to ribbons by the shear-wielding maniac. Again, some recognition is deserved as no other 80's slasher with a scene containing this level of unflinching brutality comes to mind. Also, the fact that this attack happens in broad daylight, with a group of character that hasn't done something stupid like split up, shows smart, inventive writing on the part of the screenwriter.

The third defining moment of this film is the climax, which consists of a fairly boring, overly-prolonged chase sequence. The reason this is a defining moment is because the character is peril is not your slasher standard teenage girl. No, there are two characters in peril and they are both male. I'm not sure if the writer was consciously avoiding genre cliches or not, as I'm not sure a strong genre formula had been established at the time this film was made. Either way, again, props.

That's not to say the movie is above criticism. The film takes too long to get to the killing. There's an abundance of day-for-night shots so you can never tell what time of day it's supposed to be in the film. Some of the kills could be call repetitive (not by me though). None of the characters are particularly likable. You only see the horribly burned caretaker for a grand total of 30 seconds. The climactic chase is boring. Etc.

All that said, if you're a gore hound or a slasher junkie, it's worth checking out. There's a lot of history, some real smart scripting, and the raft scene is something no horror fan should go without seeing (although, in retrospect, it's not all that gory). Anchor Bay has done good in resurrecting this film. I can only hope some other wayside fallen gems can get the same treatment in the future.

The Bottomline: If you're a genre fan, consider this film mandatory viewing. For casuals, you might be better served rewatching Friday the 13th. Either way, recommended.

Four stars.

The Tripper is the directorial debut of David Arquette, husband of Courtney Cox, star of several fun horror b-movies movies including the Scream Trilogy and Eight Legged Freaks, and former WCW Heavy Weight Champion (really). Considering his involvement in the independent film scene I figured he'd have a good handle on how to make a fun, low budget slasher flick.

Boy was I wrong.

The movie is pretty much a train wreck from start to finish. The biggest problem turns out to be Arquette himself. I don't have many complaints about his direction. Arquette seems to do a passable job, keeping the camera moving and composing interesting shots and angles. My biggest issue is the writing.

The story surely sounds interesting. A young boy, Gus, growing up in the late 1960's has the Reagan pro-war rhetoric bombarded into his little brain until an incident involving a pack of (literally) tree hugging hippies ends with bloodshed. Cut to 40 years later and a group of drugged up hippies are heading out into the middle of nowhere to attend a Woodstock-like music festival. The young boy has grown into mentally disturbed man and the presence of all these hippies drives him over the egde. Donning a nice, pressed suit and casting a striking resemblance to the late former President, Gus takes to the woods to make those hippy bastards pay, spouting clever Reagan-esque quips along the way.

Like I said, it sounds good. I, for one, love a little socio-politcal commentary in my horror flicks from time to time. George Romero was a genius at this game. David Arquette, not so much. The first problem? None of the characters are likable. The drugged up hippies are one dimensional stereotypes in the worst possible way. They literally have no purpose in the film other than show up, do drugs, and die. All of the non-hippy characters are portrayed as deep south red neck hicks who do nothing but make life miserable for the hippies. Even the sheriff assigned to provide protection at the event doesn't believe the hippies when the shit hits the fan because he dismisses them as drugged up idiots. Simply put, there isn't a single intelligent, likable character in the movie.

The other problem I have is that the killer's motives just don't make any sense. He's clearly supposed to be a caricature of Ronald Reagan. This being the case, you would expect the character to carry some heavy ideological ideals. You know, kill with a purpose. Myself, I expected that the killer would focus on killing hippies and he'd make a point of leaving the conservatives alone. Not so. The killer is surrounded by the liberal hippies and the conservative red necks and kills each indiscriminately. In fact, he kills a rather large number of red necks around the midpoint of the film, without any rhyme or reason. Later in the film, the sheriff is asked "What do you think [the killer] is after?" The reply, delivered with what I suppose was supposed to be stylized action bravado, is, "Hippies." Apparently David Arquette didn't watch the movie he was writing because, for this line to make any sense, the killer would have to of followed a basic rule set up to this point in the movie, which he hasn't.

So as not to sound all negative, the movie does have a pretty massive massacre scene towards the end where old Reagan goes postal on a huge crowd of hippies. The body count throughout the entire movie is pretty high too, although almost all are dispatched via an ax. The massacre would be more impressive if the special effects weren't so plain jane. I've seen better gore in movies shot by a bunch of teenagers on 16mm celluloid.

Tie all of this together and you're left with a real yawner of a film. The kills are repetitive, there's no suspense, and the characters are all annoying. To top it all off, despite the premise, there's not even a cohesive socio-political message delivered by the film other than "Reagan was the bad." Sorry Dave, you're just going to have to try harder next time.

The Bottomline: David Arquette has crafted a pretty average slasher flick. The sheer novelty of watching a Ronald Reagan look-alike dispatch hippies is worth an extra star, but that's about all the film has going for it. The Tripper isn't unwatchable, it's just not very good.

Two stars.

This is not the Black Sheep from 1996 starring Chris Farley and David Spade. No, this is the Black Sheep from 2006, made in New Zealand, with special effects by Peter Jackson's WETA powerhouse, and starring no one you've ever heard of. Rather than explain to you what kind of movie you're in for, I think I'd be just as well off letting the poster do the talking.

And what a poster it is. I'm especially fond of the tagline, which reads "There are 40 million sheep in New Zealand... And they're PISSED OFF!" If this poster doesn't clue you in to the fact that this film is going to be walking the fine line between comedy and horror, nothing short of a blow to the head will.

The plot of the film is extraneous really, but here it is: Henry, our boring hero who grew up on a cattle farm before moving to the big city, is returning home. It seems Henry has developed a bit of a phobia against our fluffy white mammal friends, ever since a tragic farming accident left his father with a serious case of being dead. Henry has returned home to sell his half of the farm to his evil prick brother, Angus. With a name like Angus was their any chance he'd be anything but the movie's main villian? At any rate, it seems old Angus wants the full ownership rights to the farm because he's running a diabolical genetic engineering laboratory out of one of the barns. Oh yeah, and a couple of hippy tree huggers show up and spend a lot of time complaining about the meat industry and other such things that hippies like to complain about.

So, being as this is a tale of science run amok, it's time for the science to run amok. Those aformentioned hippies steal some highly biohazardous material which turns out to be a mutant, killer sheep fetus. One of the hippies gets bit by the thing before it escapes into the pastures where all the other sheep are doing their lazy, grazing thing. A few bites later and we have acres and acres of woolly, crazed, flesh eating, mutant beasties.

This is the part where the movie picks up. Our unlucky heroes, consisting of Henry, Experience (the waifish hippy chick), and a farm hand named Tucker, have to travel across the open pastures, make it back to town, and raise the alarm. Angus, of course, will do anything he can to stop them. You may recall that I said there were a pair of hippies, not just one. Turns out that the bite of these creatures results in some serious cellular regeneration, creating MUTANT SHEEP MEN!

Yeah, that's right. Weresheep.

I'll let you bask in stunned silence now.

The final part of the film plays out a little like the Dead Alive with a mix of Night of the Living Dead thrown in. I wouldn't want to spoil anything, but the movie ends in a whirl wind of excitement. Black Sheep is one of those rare films that delivers exactly what the poster promises; Lots of fun and lots of sheep.

The movie has its share of scares but is played largely for laughs. The film would no doubt be at home in a late night film festival rotation, surrounded by your slightly inebriated friends. There's a lot to love here and little to dislike. The special effects are cheesy but great, and all the acting is worthy of a Hollywood theatrical release. Fans of early Peter Jackson will be delighted to see a lot of similarities.

That said, the movie still isn't perfect. Americans may be put off by slang-filled New Zealand dialogue. The pacing is a bit off as well, although I never found myself waiting impatiently for the next development to occur. The climax, while indeed climatic, didn't have the build up that lets you know that this is the big final moment in the film. It just sort of happens.

The Bottomline: Black Sheep is a fun-filled film. It's not perfect, but horror-comedy fans will feel right at home. The film would play well at parties or social gatherings as the comedy/cheese quotient is high enough to keep horror casuals entertained. Recommended.

Four stars.

Let's be up front about this. Some of you aren't going to like this movie. More to the point, there's a good number of you that won't understand this movie. At all. Not one iota. Evil Aliens was shot on video, has questionable acting, and, at times, is just plain over the top ridiculous. To enjoy this movie you will need to be one of three things:

1. A connoisseur of low-budget cinema (or, as I call it, a B-movie geek)
2. At a party, prepared to go MST3K on this movie's ass
3. Hammered. Really, really hammered.

That said, let's get to the flick.

The film opens with a couple having sex near some old English ruins. The opening scene ends with the couple getting captured by the titular evil aliens and the guy buys it via way of a large, cumbersome anal probe/drill. Ouch. And it only gets better (worse?) from there.

I don't think I can appropriately convey the awesomeness of this movie with words, so I won't even try. I'll let the film speak for itself.

Yeah, that's right. A female alien strips down and engages in rough, freaky, intergalactic, interspecies sex with one of the male leads. Folks, I've seen a lot of movies, but this one was new to me. Oh yeah, you know how in bad horror movies blood just seems to spray everywhere? This scene caps off like that, but the fluid in question definitely isn't blood.

If you're a fan of Peter Jackson's early work, you're well aware of a little movie called Dead Alive (or Brain Dead, if you're from the UK). At the climax of that film, the main character fights off a horde of zombies with an upturned, gas-engine lawnmower. Do you remember the giddy excitement you felt the first time you saw that scene? That one moment where he was about to hit that first zombie with that lawnmower and you thought to yourself, "There's no way they're actually going to- OH GOD! They're actually showing it!" Yeah. The wheat thresher scene is kind of like that.

Finally, we have the obligatory, hand-held, motorized power tool. Ash has his chainsaw. Lionel has his lawnmower. Candy has her hand-held soil tiller. Copious homage to other genre films is paid during the setup and execution of this scene. A simple shot of an over head light bulb getting splashed with blood will have Deadite fans grinning from ear to ear.

Evil Aliens is what the recent blockbuster Grindhouse aspired, and failed, to be- a return to old school, no-nonsense, trash cinema. Whereas Grindhouse felt forced and manufactured, Evil Aliens is genuine and satisfying. Evil Aliens is sick and twisted but possesses a wicked sense of humor. The filmmakers clearly didn't have a lot of money, but the money they did have was used well. The special effects and makeup in the film are well done, although some of the CGI could look better. The script is smart, with many nods to other genre films, including The Evil Dead, Dead Alive, Night of the Living Dead, Bad Taste, and Freak Out. The movie is FULL of fun moments like the three detailed above. The director/writer, Jake West, clearly loves the genre and his film plays out like a wish list any horror fanboy might have written. Evil Aliens is a labor of love, and I loved it right back.

Bottomline: Evil Aliens is definitely not for the uninitiated or those without a sense of humor. For those true B-Movie fans out there, do not miss this one. It's an exercise of excess and one hell of a ride. It's out on DVD already, so check out your regular haunts and get a copy ASAP.

Four stars.

This is a movie that came out on DVD last year (weird), sometime towards the end of June. I had heard a bit of buzz about it coming out of the major indy film fests, but I never really got bit by the bug to check it out. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon basically fell off my radar as quickly as it showed up.

Quick jump to early December and I'm sitting at home in a darkened living room, begging my lady to make some popcorn, as the previews come up on the Hatchet DVD. If you'll indulge me for a moment I'll explain that my sheer excitement over Hatchet and my deep desire to see it in a theater setting led me to sit through all the previews stuck in front the the feature film. This is something I never ever do. But I'm glad I did as it reintroduced me to the messed up world of Leslie Vernon.

The movie's basic premise is that Leslie Vernon has been training his entire life to become the next big horror/slasher icon and a film crew is documenting his rise to infamy. The first half of the movie takes place as a mockumentary, think Spinal Tap but with more murder. The film crew covers everything from Leslie's extensive physical training, to discussing house exit strategies, and even the inevitable mass homicide in the film's final act. There's a lot of sly audience winking, but never in that heavy handed Scream sort of way. The movie simply oozes charm.

Nathan Baesal does a comendable job as the titular Leslie Vernon. During the mockumentary he delivers a great, fun performance. Leslie Vernon is your average twenty-something simply trying to make his mark on the world. You genuinely come to like Leslie and his behind the scenes, on-camera antics. Just when you feel like this guy could be your best friend, he breaks out a serious, nasty comment or action, reminding you just who this guy really is.

And that is who Leslie Vernon really is, a human monster with some seriously creepy, clown-like vibes coming from that mask. In the second half of the film the mockumentary facade fades away and we get down to the slasher essentials. Although this is the weakest part of the movie, that's not really a complaint. The more traditional slasher portion of the film is well done, and as it happens, necessary for the film's success. The mockumentary is fun, but it needs to lead somewhere, and the last half of the film is that much required pay off.

This is one of those films that didn't get a lot of mainstream coverage and I'd hate for it to slip through the cracks. Even if you're only a casual friend of the genre, I'd recommend checking this one out. Doubly so because this is one of the few slasher films in recent memory that the lady sat down to watch without any additional goading on my part. Nathan Baesal is charasmatic as hell and really draws you into the world of the movie. By the time the slasher movie really begins, you're so comfortable with the characters that you almost forget what you're in store for.

Bottomline: The film is fun but still manages to scare, and the girlfriend loved it. What more can you ask for in a horror flick?

P.S. I didn't mention this anywhere because it just didn't naturally fit, but the film also co-stars Robert Englund and even features a brief cameo by Kane Hodder. Rock!

Five stars.