Category Archives: Featured in Slider

manborg

Manborg

2012/ d. Steven Kostanski
         
It’s a very rare occasion that I give a perfect score to a film.  Very few movies are perfect and being the cynical, picky bastard that I am, I can usually find something to complain about.  And to give such a high rating to a Canadian film made for less than $2000 and shot in a garage on borrowed high school equipment, well…  I suppose you deserve an explanation.

Manborg opens with an epic battle scene where we learn that humanity is rapidly losing the war against the nazi-like denizens of Hell, led by the supremely evil Count Draculon (Adam Brooks, Father’s Day).  One human soldier, in a futile act of bravery, faces the Count in an attempt to save his brother.  He is shot full of lasers for his trouble and is dragged away, presumably to his death.  An opening credits montage complete with a pulsing 80′s electronic score brings us into the future using a Robocop-meets-Universal Soldier-esque transformation scene.  Humanity has lost to Count Draculon and the remaining citizens are rounded up for experimentation, torture and gladiator style death matches.  Our titular hero (Matthew Kennedy, Father’s Day) bursts out of a crate, confused and seeking answers.  He quickly runs afoul of the Hellspawn and is captured (after a chase with laser hover boards!) along with #1 Man (Ludwig Lee), a mix of Liu Kang and Chong-Li, complete with a badly dubbed voice (Kyle Hebert).  The two are thrown in a prison with laser bars where they meet 80′s Australian stereotype Justice (Conor Sweeney, Father’s Day (noticing a trend yet?)) and his inexplicably accent-free, anime-style ass kicking sister Mina (Meredith Sweeney, yup, she’s in Father’s Day too).  The group is sent to the arena and handily dispatches a group of demons in hover cars with help from Manborg’s arsenal of hidden weaponry.  The plot is fairly easy to predict from this point with escape and eventual revolt against the oppressing forces but depth isn’t really the point.

Originally conceived as a sort of demo reel for aspiring filmmaker (and Astron-6 alum) Steven Kostanski, the sheer scope of Manborg is something to behold.  Shot almost entirely on green screen with miniature sets and some brilliant stop-motion animation to help flesh things out, this movie looks, sounds and feels far bigger than its nearly non-existent budget.  Full Moon Video, even in their heyday, would have been hard pressed to create a world so convincing with so little.  One of Manborg’s greatest strengths is its absolute refusal to let anything get too serious.  Where camp was simply a by product of low-budget filmmaking for Full Moon and other 80′s straight to video producers, Kostanski (much like Lloyd Kaufman) revels in it.  Gore is plentiful and the fight choreography (by Ludwig Lee) is excellent.  The gags are nearly constant, from the aforementioned badly dubbed #1 Man to the evil Baron and his awkward crush on Mina.  The nods to 80′s movies are just as frequent with references spanning sci-fi, horror and action genres but Manborg never feels like pastiche.  The references are presented with a wink and a nod, acknowledging influence and taking the viewer back to a time when manual tracking controls and worn out tapes were a greater concern than plot or cinematography.  If none of this appeals to you than perhaps my rating might seem extreme.  But if, like me, you’re thoroughly enjoying the recent “rewindhouse” revival of 80′s movies that never were, you won’t find a more satisfying film than Manborg.  Given Kostanski’s recent makeup effects work on Resident Evil: Retribution, Silent Hill: Revelation and Guillermo Del Toro’s upcoming Pacific Rim, we may not see another movie like this from him for a while.  I sincerely hope that isn’t the case.

 

Texas

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: 3D

Written & Directed by: John Luessenhop
Starring:
Alexandra Daddario
Dan Yeager
Trey Songz
Scott Eastwood
Tania Raymonde

I’ve said it before: I’m a sucker for gimmicks. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE is a franchise that has spanned over three decades, and finally, seven instalments later, we are rewarded with a 3D film. Of course the question is, was it worth the wait? Or does this sequel fall into the heap of lacklustre efforts, the likes of which we’ve grown all-too-accustomed to seeing from long-running franchises?

Surprise surprise, this was the moviegoing experience of trying to make a bonfire with damp wood: every so often there’s a spark and a promise of something great, but instead it fizzles out and leaves you disappointed and frustrated.

It’s a shame, really, because I was absolutely jazzed after the first two minutes. They manage to recap the entire 1974 classic in mere moments, digitally restoring the picture and infusing it with surprisingly phenomenal 3D. I honestly would have left satisfied watching the entirety of the original film in 3D of that quality, but sadly, it was just a saw-tease.

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 3D is unique in the sense that it more-or-less gives the finger to its franchise predecessors and says: “Fuck you guys, Imma do my own thing.” Which it does… just poorly. Aiming to be a direct sequel to the original ’74 film, it picks up directly where the first film leaves off: exit Sally deliriously screaming in the back of a pickup truck, enter the police sherif on his way to the Sawyer Family’s House of Horrors. At this point I was still okay with it, but what happened next made my brain respond with, “Okay Matt, I’m checking out, buddy! I’ll see you when the end credits are rolling!”

The sherif, having arrived at the house, coaxes the family to come out and surrender. Inside the house, in a pseudo-DEVIL’S REJECTS scene, we see the family huddled together, prepared to defend themselves from the evil authorities. Bill Moseley replaces Jim Siedow, which made for a nice touch, and Gunnar Hansen also has a brief cameo, as the bearded man with a rifle. Oh, what’s that? You don’t remember there being a bearded man with a rifle living in the house with Leatherface and his family? Oh right, that’s because there was none! Somehow they managed to add a whole handful of extras into the house, making no explanation for who they were, or why they were even necessary. It simply didn’t make sense.

Let’s fast-track, so try and stay with me here. Inside the house, amongst those new bearded men with guns who miraculously appeared, is a woman holding her baby. Enter: a lynch mob. Apparently not content with the sherif trying to uphold the law, they decide to open up their own can of vigilante justice — taking a cue from the angry Elm Street parents — torching the house and murdering the family. The dirty work seems to be done, until one of the mob members finds the baby and proceeds to take it in secret, as a gift for his wife.

With the backstory complete, we then flash-forward to the present day, where we see the baby has grown up into the charmingly goth Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario). I’d like to take a moment to just point something out, here. If she was a baby in 1974, and the film jumps to present day… should she not be, oh, forty years old? Why then does she look like she’s in her early twenties?

And on that note, simply because I can’t stomach to think about this film anymore, I’m going to start wrapping up this review. Suffice it to say, she learns of her unsettling lineage, and returns to Texas for what becomes another — you guessed it — massacre (with a chain-saw, in case that wasn’t implied). The plot is so contrived and ludicrous I could go on and on, but I’ll force myself not to, simply because I’d rather use my time to review better, more worthwhile films.

If you find yourself watching it — purely out of morbid curiosity, or because you’re a completist — it will do nothing more than make you realize how much you love the original 1974 gem. As cliched as it sounds, they just don’t make ‘em like that anymore.

bomb

 
revsurvivor

Resident Evil: Survivor

Oh boy.

You’ll have to forgive me, but I can’t think of any other way to start off a review of RESIDENT EVIL: SURVIVOR. In the fall of the year 2000, Capcom released the latest instalment of the ever-popular Resident Evil franchise, this time deviating drastically from the usual third-person gameplay and putting you smack dab behind the eyes of the protagonist. RESIDENT EVIL: SURVIVOR was the first in the line of the first-person “Survivor” series, and would be followed by four sequels: SURVIVOR 2 CODE VERONICA, DEAD AIM, UMBRELLA CHRONICLES, and THE DARKSIDE CHRONICLES. All of which, by the way, are better than the game I’m about to review.

...that's not why he's hunching, you perverts.

…that’s not why he’s hunching, you perverts.

At the time of its release, I had already collected and played through all of the Resident Evil games. When SURVIVOR was released, I thought nothing of it, and purchased it right away; I had no idea at the time that it was a first-person shooter.  My initial reaction to the game was, however, fairly positive. As a fan of FPS games, I didn’t mind the change, although I did find the aiming system clunky and irritating at times – especially when playing for an extended period of time.

Of course, I hear what you’re saying: “Why play the game for so long, then? Why not just save the game and take breaks?” Unfortunately, SURVIVOR doesn’t offer the ability to save your progress. If you can’t finish the game in one sitting, you’re shit out of luck. Trust me, this is perhaps the most irritating aspect of this game. I can’t tell you how many times I would get near the end only to either (1) die, or (2) have to go somewhere, leaving me with the option of either letting my Playstation sit idle for hours, or sacrificing my progress.

The gameplay puts you behind the eyes of a man suffering from severe amnesia. Unaware of who he is, he struggles to survive the zombie-ridden streets of Raccoon City, all the while attempting to figure out his true identity. The characters are all new – with the exception of a very brief Leon Kennedy reference – however, the enemies are classic RE monsters. Lickers, moths, tyrants, hunters… all of them fall victim to your well-aimed bullets as you traverse the unsettling stages which take you everywhere from back-alleys to government facilities and abandoned hospitals. The graphics haven’t held up over the years, but the sounds are still genuinely unnerving.

Truth be told, I have good memories of playing this game. It was a go-to favourite for my cousin and I to play on our afternoons of gaming, as we would alternate levels and see just how far we could make it before having to turn off the console and lose our progress. We played it so often that we still reference some of the ridiculous dialogue to each other (“…am I Vincent…?”). However, I can understand why the majority of gamers rate it so low, and consider it to be the weakest instalment of the Resident Evil franchise.

"Let my pixelated hands hug you."

“Let my pixelated hands hug you.”

As an aside, I feel that the game would have been better received had it provided the option to actually play through the levels with a gun controller. Unfortunately, only the Japanese release was provided the option; it has been rumoured that the North American version did not allow the gun in order to avoid controversy after the (then) recent Columbine school shooting.

Although the FPS RESIDENT EVIL games for the Wii are undoubtedly superior, I still maintain that SURVIVOR is goofy fun, if you’re in the right mood. Pixelated graphics and clunky gameplay aside, it’s guaranteed to make you miss the old era of Playstation 2, and remind you just how far video games have come in such a short period of time.

bbb

Blood, Babes, and Boogeymen: Stalking the First Slasher Film

“I like women, especially beautiful ones. If they have a good face and figure, I would much prefer to watch them being murdered than an ugly girl or a man.”
– Dario Argento

“The police are always off track with this shit! If they’d watch Prom Night, they’d save time! There’s a formula to it. A very simple formula!”
– Randy (Scream)

“Who’s there?”
– Almost every victim in a slasher film


A Brief Note to the Reader

Although I have made every effort as to not deliberately spoil the films discussed, it was still unavoidable in some cases. The vast majority of films referenced are those which reside in the realm of “popular” horror – that is, those films which almost every horror fan has undoubtedly seen. However, if you are a newcomer to the genre and looking to avoid any plot reveals, I urge you to tread lightly.

That said, I hope you enjoy. The original intention of this article was simply to collect my thoughts and answer a much-debated question. To my surprise, what I imagined to be a brief, 500-word article quickly unraveled into what you see before you.

I hope that I was able to provide a clear and logical presentation of my thoughts on the matter, and as always, I welcome your thoughts and input.


Stalking the First Slasher Film

As any horror fan knows, there are certain topics which are, simply put, irreconcilable. One only has to propose a question like “what is the scariest horror film ever made?” to see a group of passionate horror connoisseurs lock horns in an endless debate. Of course, questions like this are, at their essence, a simple matter of taste and personal preference. It’s why the horror genre is so

A shocking still from BLACK CHRISTMAS; often regarded as the first slasher ever made.

A shocking still from BLACK CHRISTMAS; often regarded as the first slasher ever made.

expansive and plays host to so many subgenres: zombies, creature features, demonic possession, hauntings, etc. Therein lies the challenge of the horror storyteller: to find the common elements that terrify all of us; that which resonates deep within our psyche and creates an unshakeable feeling of pure horror.

There are questions pertaining to the horror genre that have been raised which, by all accounts, should be answerable, but still find themselves shrouded in the veil of debate. It is one such question that I have chosen to tackle as the topic of this article:

What is the first slasher film ever made?

The slasher film is near and dear to my heart, and this topic is one that I’ve been meaning to address for a long time now. I too am guilty of debating it with other genre buffs, and though I enjoy hearing other theories, I thought it was time to lay down my own thoughts in writing. Before we begin, know that I make no pretense; admittedly there are people who are far greater experts in the slasher film subgenre. And if they have not been able to determine with absolute certainty which film bears the rightful honour of being the first, what hope do I have? Still, bear with me as I travel through the annals of horror history in hopes of unearthing the answer to an age-old question.

The horror film, like everything else, is the product of evolution. I think we can all agree that the slasher film did not simply arrive, but came into being after a slow process of development. Herein lies the problem: where do we draw the finish line of the development process and say “This is where the slasher film emerged in its pure form”? Of course, in order to do this we must know what we’re looking for. A definition of the slasher film is unarguably essential.

What is a slasher? What separates it from the other brands of horror film? We know it to see it, so it shouldn’t be beyond us to properly label it. Let’s begin then by stating some of the accepted characteristics of the slasher movie:

The slasher film adheres to (with only slight variation) a formula:

1. The killer is male (though very rarely exceptions can occur).
1a. Their motive for killing generally stems from a childhood trauma or incident.
1b. They are often indestructible (especially when masked) and inescapable.
1c. Their weapons are typically sharp tools and objects, such as knives, axes, chainsaws, and scythes. This is perhaps one of the most important criteria for a slasher film. Any other method of death must be the exception to the rule, and not the norm.
1d. The killer often takes the role of the anti-hero, punishing the promiscuous and morally lax, or in many cases, returning to wreak vengeance on those who unjustly wronged them.
1e. Although we never see it, the killer takes great pains to carefully hide the bodies of his victims, often orchestrating elaborate reveals.
1f. The killer is always the voyeur, spending the majority of the film watching and stalking.
1g. The killer possesses the ability to further isolate the victims through sabotage, be it by cutting the phone line, puncturing their car tires, etc.
1h. At the end of the film the killer, thought to be defeated, proves himself to be alive, thus preparing the way for a follow-up film.
2. The protagonist (henceforth called the “Final Girl”) is primarily female (though notable exceptions can occur, such as in NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2, et al.)
2a. The Final Girl is generally aware of the situation, and acts with a common sense lacked by the supporting characters.
2b. She/he is a virgin (although later deviations occurred, the essence of the Final Girl is intended to be pure).
2c. At the climax of the film, the Final Girl discovers the bodies of all her friends (thus earning her name) and is forced to directly confront the monster.
3. The victims are often attractive young-adults, typically in either high-school or college.
3a. There is always at least one promiscuous couple who engage in sexual activities. After the act is complete, the couple typically separates (the most common situation involving the woman leaving to shower) thereby giving the killer a way to destroy them individually.
3b. Often the attitude of the character determines whether they will live. A bully is likely to die, regardless of any additionally immoral behaviour. This also solidifies the monster as the anti-hero, standing up for the weak – albeit unintentionally.
4. There is often an “expert” on the killer who spends the duration of the film hunting them, or providing advice on how to stop them (ex: Sam Loomis in HALLOWEEN, Sister Mary Helena in NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS). When needed, they are able to shed light on the monster’s origin and expand the character’s mythology.
5. There are scenes of excessive nudity.
5a. Breasts and blood are two staples of the slasher film. The most common is to feature a woman showering/changing – that is, to show her concerned with her aesthetic presentation, exposed and vulnerable, under the assumption that she is alone.
5b. It should be noted that, as an exception to the rule, nudity does not equal death: the Final Girl herself can be shown naked (ex: Nancy bathing in A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET)
6. The use of illegal drugs is punishable by death.
7. The setting/location plays a vital role.
7a. The killer often strikes only on a particular day, be it a recognized calendar event (HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13th, CHRISTMAS, APRIL FOOL’S DAY, VALENTINE’S DAY, etc) or a day/anniversary that is personal to the killer (ex: the traumatic day responsible for creating him).
7b. Favourite locations for slasher films include: campgrounds, schools (including dorms, college campuses, and highschools), friendly all-American neighbourhoods/towns, and isolated farmhouses.
8. The audience is frequently put in the killer’s point of view, often times also incorporating the heavy sound of the killer’s breathing.

There are, of course, exceptions to the formula (the formula just defined could be expanded further to address the role of law officials, parents, etc), often intentionally altered for the purpose of adding an element of unpredictability to the mix. However, the exceptions to the rule are not important to this article. For them to be deliberate exceptions inherently means that they follow the first slasher film, and are thereby not worthy of our consideration at this time.

In HER BODY, HIMSELF: GENDER IN THE SLASHER FILM, Carol J. Clover opens the first chapter with the statement:

“At the bottom of the horror heap lies the slasher (or splatter or shocker or stalker) film: the immensely generative story of a psychokiller who slashes to death a string of mostly female victims, one by one, until he is subdued or killed, usually by the one girl who has survived.”

While she has no doubt hit the nail on the head in generalizing the plot of the slasher, my problem falls in her undiscerning amalgamation of the slasher and the splatter film, which I feel are two very separate beasts.

The splatter film, whose lineage can be traced back to the early days of the French Grand Guignol theatre, concerns itself more with the ability to shock; mutilation, torture, and the graphic dissection

A graphic cover to H. G. Lewis' exploitative splatter classic: THE GORE GORE GIRLS.

A graphic cover to H. G. Lewis’ exploitative splatter classic: THE GORE GORE GIRLS.

of the human body are presented throughout its blood-soaked celluloid. Though it may contain elements of the slasher – point of view shots, a final girl, etc – these are incidental. The true slasher is less savage in nature; the kills can be gruesome, but it is the buildup – the methodical stalking – that sets it apart. The killer of a slasher film is fully within his element as the voyeur, watching in the shadows and choosing how much of his presence to reveal to his victim. Indeed, the slasher movie killer is a master of suspense, playing a lethal game of cat and mouse before delivering the final cut.

The same as only the most discerning wine-tasters can differentiate blindly between vintages, the average horror viewer will most likely not see a difference between some slashers and splatters. Take, for example, Herschell Gordon Lewis’ 1972 bloodfest THE GORE GORE GIRLS. The film features ample nudity, killer’s point of view perspectives, a strong female lead, and even a detective sworn to hunt the killer. Yet it should by no means be considered a slasher. What it lacks is almost as abundant as what it shares: there is no build-up to the murders; the killings are savage and exploitative, often featuring additional, excessive post-mortem mutilation; the victims are not the traditional young people associated with the slasher subgenre, but are instead middle-aged and often unattractive; the kills are prolonged, beyond repulsive, and are not performed with knives, axes, or sharp tools; and the list goes on. Additionally, at the time of its release in 1972 the slasher formula was not yet defined (but more on that later).

Some may argue that a careful consideration of foreign horror must factor into our search. It has been well established that Mario Bava’s 1971 picture A BAY OF BLOOD (also released as TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE) was perhaps more than simply a source of inspiration for the later 1981 American slasher FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2; some of its death scenes were recreated shot-for-shot.

The Italian giallo, a movement which encompassed both literature as well as film, began as early as 1929. The term – which is Italian for yellow – referred to the trademark cover colour of the crime/mystery themed paperback novels. These books served as the precursors for the films which evolved to have their own unique style and subject matter; as we will see, the Italian gialli proved to be a very strong influence for the slasher.

The first recognized giallo film, THE GIRL WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, emerged in 1963 and was directed by Mario Bava. Though it lacked the elements generally associated with the genre, his follow up film, BLOOD AND BLACK LACE (1964) featured the popular black-gloved killer archetype.

For Europeans, the term giallo can be used to describe any number of films belonging to the horror/thriller genre. However, we would be making a categorical error were we to simply dismiss

A terrorizing still from Dario Argento's TENEBRE.

A terrorizing still from Dario Argento’s TENEBRE.

all slashers as gialli. The giallo has itself developed to include a set of defining characteristics, which include a permeating theme of madness, obsession, or murder; a black-gloved killer who conceals his identity well; the frequent use of the red herring as a plot device; highly stylized visuals which utilize brilliant primary colours; and elaborate, often sadistic murder sequences.

It is clear that the slasher paradigm responsible for the “golden era” of slashers (approximately 1978-1984) stemmed from both North American as well as European influences. On one side low-budget American filmmakers (influenced by the French Grand Guinol and spearheaded by filmmakers like H. G. Lewis ) were producing exploitative guts-and-gore pictures; on the other hand, Mario Bava and his protégé Dario Argento were pushing the boundaries of violent cinema in the Italian giallo.

It was necessary to first establish where the slasher film originated from, in order to distinguish it from what came before. But where does this leave us in our search to discover the first true slasher? Truthfully, we are close to pinpointing it.

In 1974, a young Canadian filmmaker followed up his zombie-themed cult-hit CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS (1973) with a low-budget picture about a psychopath who terrorizes a group of young sorority women during their holiday break. At the time of its release, audiences were shocked by the obscenity and raw violence that permeated from each terrifying frame; featuring Margot Kidder and Olivia Hussey, the film was none other than BLACK CHRISTMAS.

BLACK CHRISTMAS is of vital importance because it is widely regarded to be the first true slasher film ever created. At first glance, it seems valid enough; the age group, the location, the point of view shots, the cat-and-mouse stalking… but is it enough? Are we able to draw the definitive line and declare it to be the official starting point of the slasher subgenre?

Let’s first examine the killer and see if he remains consistent with our earlier list of “monster” characteristics. The identity of the killer in BLACK CHRISTMAS is never revealed – the audience is granted a single scene which displays only his eye, peering through a crack in the door. There is no explanation for his homicidal spree and no backstory given to his character; even his name remains debatable. At the beginning of the film he simply infiltrates the sorority and begins to prey on the young women. We are led to believe there is nothing especially supernatural about him, although none of the girls have the chance to fight him and prove otherwise. They are subject to his sporadic and lethal attacks; he reveals himself only through the profane prank calls he makes, leaving the viewer to imagine what his physical appearance looks like.

His first victim is a shy, morally righteous girl on the verge of leaving the sorority for the holiday break. In claiming her life at the onset of the film, it is shown that the killer acts indiscriminately, destroying the just and unjust alike. Additionally, his method of murdering victims does not utilize the characteristic “sharp object” as demonstrated by the typical slasher film; of the seven deaths in BLACK CHRISTMAS, only one involves a knife.

The Final Girl of the film (Olivia Hussey) is also a slasher-film oddity. Although in no way promiscuous on-screen (there is in fact, no nudity to speak of in the film) she is most definitely not the virginal character one expects from a Final Girl – she is not only pregnant, but seeking an abortion.

Although BLACK CHRISTMAS demonstrates several of the characteristics found in the American slasher film, it is also lacking a great deal of them. BLACK CHRISTMAS is not the first full-fledged slasher, but sits just at the cusp. It is very accurate to say that had BLACK CHRISTMAS never come into existence, the first true slasher would also not exist in the way we know it, and therefore we owe a great deal of gratitude to Bob Clark and his terrifying holiday nightmare.

In 1978 a budding young filmmaker named John Carpenter was approached to direct a movie, having previously had a good deal of success with an offbeat, controversial action film titled

A rare behind-the-scenes shot on the set of John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN.

A rare behind-the-scenes shot on the set of John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN.

ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13. Irwyn Yablans, the producer, explained the intention of the film: to portray evil incarnate as it maliciously sought out and destroyed young-woman babysitters. Set on the most sinister night of the year, the film was, of course, HALLOWEEN.

Once again I must stress, to the average moviegoer there probably isn’t a great deal of difference between HALLOWEEN, BLACK CHRISTMAS, or even THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE for that matter. Yet as horror fans we possess the ability to discern such differences, thereby categorizing films properly. All one has to do is re-read our earlier list of slasher film characteristics and you will see that HALLOWEEN meets all criteria.

It is all the more relevant in that it was the first film to portray a character like Michael Myers – physically impressive, masked, and unstoppable. Although characters like Leatherface from THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE had been created prior, their character treatment was still as mortal men capable of being stopped, and not pseudo-supernatural entities. The unrelenting (and unsettling) force of Michael Myers hearkened back to WESTWORLD (1973), a sci-fi picture in which a murder-bent machine was seemingly undefeatable.

Before HALLOWEEN, all of the pieces were there… they just had yet to be assembled in the right order. John Carpenter was able to gather up the fragments and, for the first time, create a fully finished masterpiece. HALLOWEEN not only popularized the slasher genre thus paving the way for countless sequels and imitators, but it also cemented the formula that the golden era of slashers would be built upon.


Today’s horror films have become an indistinguishable pastiche. They are the culmination of everything that has come before; the borders of subgenres have been broken down, making it occasionally impossible to accurately label a film. However, more often than not, mainstream horror films still operate according to the basic formula laid out in HALLOWEEN. The bad men will always die, the floozies will always die (often naked), and 99.9% of the time the Final Girl will resist temptation and vanquish the evil before the end credits role.

HALLOWEEN is, in every way, responsible for inspiring an era of horror. Its influence is still – and will forever – be felt in horror cinema.

WD-S1

The Walking Dead (Season One) Review

Developed by: Frank Darabont
Media reviewed: Blu-ray

With the return of season three after its hiatus, I feel it’s more than fitting we begin some extensive (not to mention long overdue) Walking Dead coverage.

I’ll admit it. I was slow to start the Walking Dead television show. Partially because I didn’t get AMC, but also because I didn’t think they could pull off Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore and Charlie Adlard’s  graphic novel and keep it going. I was (and still am) a huge Frank Darabont fan after his various Stephen King adaptations, but I was hesitant. By the time I caved and picked up season one, I was well ahead in the comics. I was fully prepared to nitpick each and every detail and felt guilty doing so. After all, we should be watching to enjoy, right?

Well, as soon as that first episode’s credits began to roll, I noticed changes all right — and I didn’t care. Frank Darabont is a name I will now trust vehemently. Yes, there are radical changes and departures from the comic, but I’m actually in favour of this. Now you can read the comics without necessarily spoiling the show (and vice-versa). Of course, this can backfire if it’s your solid strategy, but both mediums offer enough thrills, chills, kills and blood spills to keep any avid zombie enthusiast entertained for a long time.

"Woo-hoo! No traffic!"

“Woo-hoo! No traffic!”

STORY ARC AND BIG BAD
Well, the big bad is zombies. Spoiler alert. Though if you really want to get specific, then I guess human nature is the big bad. It’s not uncommon: any post-apocalyptic fiction usually deals with mankind’s nature in a lawless (sometimes irradiated) wasteland. This isn’t an exception. However, the zombies do take the spotlight as the immediate threat for the majority of season one. After sustaining a gunshot wound in the line of duty, Sheriff Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) awakens in an abandoned hospital to find the dead are quite undead and his wife Lori (Sarah Wayne Callies) and son Carl (Chandler Riggs) are missing. In a stroke of luck usually absent in post-apocalyptic tales, however, Rick finds his family along with his former partner Shane (Jon Bernthal) and a handful of other survivors. The short, six-episode season follows several plot threads from the comics while also adding in its own, and overall it works well to establish the characters and the absolute hell they’re trying to survive. The season finale involving the CDC is a bit far-fetched, but the final product has the perfect blend of zombie-killing and personal drama that is the foundation of Kirkman’s series.

WalkingDeadS1-1024x576

Even in the zombie apocalypse, group photos are still fashionable.

CAST
Andrew Lincoln as Rick Grimes: A former sheriff’s deputy from King County, Georgia, who awakens from a coma to find the dead are walking (go figure!). Brit Lincoln does a fine job as level-headed and born-leader Rick.

Jon Bernthal as Shane Walsh: Rick’s best friend and former partner, who helped Rick’s family escape the apocalypse. Shane’s character is really difficult to discuss without spoiling anything. Let’s just say it’s clear that Rick and Shane butt heads over what the group’s best interests are.

Sarah Wayne Callies as Lori Grimes: Rick’s wife and mother of Carl. I’ll say this right up front, I can’t stand Callies’ portrayal as Lori. Not since The Shining has there been a wife this annoying. Again, without spoilers, you’ll either love her or hate her. Probably the latter.

Laurie Holden as Andrea: A former successful civil rights attorney. Two lead females in this show and I can’t stand either of them. Andrea is the one character that didn’t translate from the comics well. Laurie Holden wasn’t bad in Silent Hill as Cybil, but plays Andrea as the whiniest and most obnoxious “tough gal”.

Jeffrey DeMunn as Dale Horvath: An old man who owns the RV around which the survivors have formed a community. Finally, a character you can’t help but love. Another Darabont regular, DeMunn’s Dale is a shining highlight in this cast of characters. What he sees in Andrea, however, is a mystery.

Steven Yeun as Glenn Rhee: A former pizza delivery boy who is often sent on dangerous missions. Glenn is just awesome. From his “introduction” at the end of episode one, to his running and gathering skills, Glenn’s reluctance and fear of the situations he encounters comes across as natural rather than annoying.

Chandler Riggs as Carl Grimes: Rick and Lori’s son. Riggs is fine as Grimesy Jr., but doesn’t really have much to contribute this season.

Norman Reedus as Daryl Dixon: A Southern hunter that prefers a crossbow. Everyone’s favourite character, apparently (and one not found in the comics). Daryl is badass, but I didn’t have the same fascination with him that everyone else apparently does.

 

Rick didn't quite understand how zombies worked after waking up from that coma.

Rick didn’t quite understand how zombies worked after waking up from that coma.

BESTS AND WORSTS
This is rather simple: the best episode is the pilot “Days Gone Bye” and the worst is the finale, “TS-19″

“Days Gone Bye” is a fairly faithful adaptation of the opening chapters of the graphic novel and sets up this world really well. Morgan and Duane — the father/son couple that discover Rick — are faithfully portrayed by Lennie James and Adrian Kali Turner, respectively. Morgan’s guilt and struggle with his wife’s recent zombification give an emotional context early on and the contrast in family situations between Morgan’s and Rick’s is crystal clear.

[Spoiler Alert below]:

“TS-19″ on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the comic and in this case, that’s not a good thing. The CDC and Dr. Jennings’ use as expository devices just feel unnecessary. I don’t really care if this is a virus, a mutation or cosmic rays from Venus. The “escape just in time from the explosion” also felt way too Hollywood for this “realistic” cast of characters.

[End Spoilers]

FINAL WORDS
If you haven’t read, watched or played any form of The Walking Dead, you’re akin to a human survivor while the rest of us pop-culture zombies chow down. You can willfully ignore this leader in the (arguably over-done) zombie genre, or you can join the masses. Again, I’d choose the latter.

 

vids

Vicious Vids

Most Haunting Music Videos

Metallica – One
d. Bill Pope
A darkened music video set features the band performing their song amongst the backdrop of scenes from the movie Johnny Got His Gun. The music is eerie, and the video captures that emotion perfectly. As the song picks up momentum, so does the video.

Tool – Sober
d. Fred Stuhr
Guitarist Adam Jones is well-known for his stop-motion animation models, created the models for the video. Simplistic in its shooting, the video remains purposefully dark, but also purposefully ambiguous so by the end of the video the viewer is left with more questions than answers.

Dir En Grey – Obscure (NSFW)
d. Hiroyuki Kondo
If you enjoy Japanese horror films, this video is for you. Its quick-cuts and jarring images are not for the faint of heart. The video is NSFW solely because of blood and guts shown in the video. It’s a pretty interesting concept, none the less.

MGMT – Kids
d. Ray Tintori
This video is a child’s nightmare. I have no idea how they got away with making the video, because I did some research into it – and yes – that child was actually present with all of those monsters scaring it. Anyway you look at it, this is something I would not show my kids, let alone have mine star in it.

Cattle Decapitation – Forced Gender Reassignment (EXTREMELY NSFW!!!!)
d. Mitch Massie
This video is not even on YouTube. This video is hands-down one of the most goriest thing I’ve seen. And I’m even talking about movies as well. Death metal band Cattle Decapitation hold back absolutely nothing as this video features everything: torture, violence, gore, swearing, and more. This isn’t “art” as it is so much just a crap-shoot of violence. It’s sick, it’s twisted, and it really should never have been made. That being said, the video is essentially a shot against the Westboro Baptist Church.

I will tell you again, this is EXTREMELY NSFW. I’m not kidding.
(We will not embed this video, but here is the link if you must: http://vimeo.com/51762225)

Sólstafir – Fjara
d. Bowen Staines & Gunnar B. Guðbjörnsson
If you got past the Cattle Decapitation video, don’t fret about this one. It’s not violent, as it is definitely haunting. Icelandic band Sólstafir features a young woman dragging a coffin while going through trials of her mind. Out of all of the music videos presented thus far, this one wins for being the one with the best music to match the performance. It’s a gripping watch.

Rebecca Black – Friday
d. Chris Lowe & Ian Hotchkiss
What’s more frightening than not knowing what day of the week it is? In this video, a young woman is lost in time while being stuck in the well-lit version Stepford’s suburbia. Escaping with an presumably underage driver, the video goes darker as she continues her journey to find out the mystery of the cosmos: what day could it be?

toycon

Canadian Toycon March 2013

This past Sunday we managed to get all of our current contributing writers in one place! We set up a booth at Canadian Toycon in Burlington to display our website and show off some of Matthew T.’s fantastic horror art. We met a lot of great people, made some new friends and ending up having a blast!

BT Gang (L to R) Drew, Shredi Knight, Ali, J-Rod, UncannyDerek & Matthew T.

BT Gang (L to R) Drew, Shredi Knight, Ali, J-Rod, UncannyDerek & Matthew T.

Around noon we had the pleasure of speaking on a horror panel with a few other guests; Mask Maker Monster Matt Paterson; Author J.M. Frey; Casper Van Dien of STARSHIP TROOPERS fame; and star of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 1 & 2, the lovely Ashlynn Yennie. We discussed various topics such as the psychological aspects of horror, horror in TV, and we learned a lot about how we all came to be horror fans. The common thread of concern across the table seemed to be with kids. From Ashlynn’s nephew to Casper’s son and daughters, we discussed their hesitations and “how much is too much?” The panel moderator, Paul Quinn, recorded the entire discussion which you can now find HERE.

Ashlynn Yennie with a knitted human centipede made by BT firend Cassie Leigh. Contact us if you would like to order one from Cassie!

Ashlynn Yennie with a knitted human centipede made by BT friend Cassie Leigh. Contact us if you would like to order one from Cassie!

After the panel we stopped by the Black Fawn Distribution table for a quick chat and picked up a DVD copy of the film DEVIL’S NIGHT starring Danielle Harris. We should have a review up on that by next week. We learned that Black Fawn will be at Shock Stock in London Ontario next month to promote their newest release DEAD ALL NIGHT. So if you are attending Shock Stock the weekend of April 12th, stop by their booth and pick up a copy, maybe we’ll see you there!

We encountered some great horror themed toys- Freddys, Jasons, and my personal fave was a Chucky doll that I had never encountered before. Some die hard HELLRAISER fans made off with prints of Matthew T.’s Pinhead. Since there was such a great response to his art, Matt has made some prints available on etsy: http://www.etsy.com/shop/TherrienIllustration 

All in all it was a great day and we plan on attending future Toycons down the road and maybe organizing another panel since it was so much fun. Photo coverage of the event was done by our friends at GeekChicElite.com. Check out their photos, event coverage and their interview with Casper Van Dien! (Featured image provided by Marc Daniel Photography/GeekChicElite)

237

Room 237

Directed by: Rodney Ascher
Documentary featuring archive footage from THE SHINING and various interviews
Media Reviewed: Screening
Rating: skullskullskullskull

How much symbolism is buried in a film? And how much is this the director’s intention? Do we, as theorists, fans, fanatics, etc., choose to see certain symbols, a thrill of excitement running through us when we think we’ve cracked a film’s code? The new film, Room 237, might be the ultimate example of this type of fanboy private investigation.

Its title referring to the forbidden hotel room in Stanley Kubrick’s massively popular film The Shining, Room 237 is a new documentary that lays out several theories as to what mysteries and meanings the perfectionist director hid within each shot of his1980 horror classic. The documentary’s director, Rodney Ascher, is aided by several obsessives who all speak defiantly about their own views of what they think Kubrick was attempting to say with the film. From crackpot ideas to rather convincing bits of proof, Room 237 is pretty much a feast for the mind for anyone who considers her or himself a film buff or puzzle lover. Happily, I am both.

The setup for the documentary is pretty straightforward. We are introduced to this panel of theorists, each arguing a major theme or communicating a devout interest in the film’s symbolism. Smartly, Ascher chooses not to show any “talking heads” throughout Room 237. He knows the audience is here for one thing, and it’s to watch The Shining through a new set of eyes. Any glimpse of what these people look like is unneeded and takes away from the Kubrick study period we all signed up for. Ascher also matches visual cues from other Kubrick films to specific lines in the various voiceovers as a sort of narrative motivator and way to add his own attempts at symbolism. At times they can feel a bit on the nose and uneven, but he also knows that any fan of the mysteries of The Shining is at least a devotee to another Kubrick work; glimpses of 2001: A Space Odyssey or A Clockwork Orange aren’t necessarily a bad thing. The music is also a bit distracting at times, the volume threatening to overwhelm the theorists, but the synth-like builds it contains, along with the blue interspersed titles, add an almost cult-like devotion to the source film that really plays home the idea that this documentary was created by a fan at heart.

So does the dissolve from one shot where there is a large pile of suitcases in the background to another shot where, in their place, stands a group of people, mean Kubrick was symbolizing the extermination of the Jews in World War II, the victims’ luggage strewn aside as they were shipped to the concentration camps by the Nazis? Or how about the famous blood gushing from the elevator’s closed doors, actually coming from the Native Americans buried deep beneath the Overlook Hotel, the closure of the doors representing our present need to repress the atrocities committed by our ancestors who massacred the First Nations people hundreds of years ago? Or does Danny’s space rocket sweater and Wendy’s inability to talk to Jack about his work both refer to Stanley Kubrick’s own secretive participation in the filming of the first moon landing? Room 237 never chooses one theory over another, but it does a marvelous job at giving each one a shot, examining The Shining frame by frame (and with the use of an incredible digital map of the Overlook). I have only seen The Shining twice, but more than anything, Room 237 has stirred up a great appreciation and awe for a director who was meticulous, artistic and detailed enough in his craft to create a mystery that will have many of us pondering, without a definitive answer, for a long time to come.

 

evildead2

Evil Dead (2013)

I’m an extremely open horror fan. I will watch anything and everything and I will never look away from the screen… unless I fall asleep, which is probably a bad sign as it means that what is happening in my head is far more entertaining. I will sit through the remakes and the reboots, but I try to do so with an open mind. The fact of the matter is that we are not living in the 70′s/80′s anymore. Every new generation of filmmaker contains fans of the films that came before them, if they weren’t fans they wouldn’t be attempting to make movies for a living (You don’t voluntarily live a life of unstable uncertainty unless you love the shit out of it – ask any drug addict!) My point is that times change. Society is different, the technology is different and we are different. You can try and make a film as spot on to the original as you can but it will never be close enough.

It’s easy to blame it on the writing/directing/producing/acting, but the real fault lies in the evolution of filmmaking as a whole. Maybe it’s due to a production value that is far too advanced to capture the gritty quality of the original, no matter how many post production filters are used; maybe it’s not the actor’s abilities, but rather the simple fact that they are too well known in an industry that is over-saturated with on screen talent; it could be the use of CG FX vs the old school practical effects that used to get us excited no matter how fake or ridiculous it looked; or maybe it’s the fact that certain films seem factory made, stripping us of our sense of nostalgia. We are no longer experiencing history in the making, we are sitting on a conveyor belt looking at the same product pass us by over and over, blending in with no discernible quality to set them apart from the rest. Years later when asked if you remember a scene in one of these films, will you? I already don’t. The remakes of Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre all looked the same, felt the same, and I couldn’t tell you damn thing that happened in anyone of them. I admit this as someone who was curious and excited upon their release, paid money to see them, and didn’t totally hate any of them.

Is it common for two queens to reign over the same territory? No. So why do we have so many "Scream Queens?" THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE HIGLANDER! Or in this case, Jamie Lee Curtis.

Is it common for two queens to reign over the same territory? No. So why do we have so many “Scream Queens?” THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE HIGLANDER! Or in this case, Jamie Lee Curtis.

Horror fans know who Marilyn Burns is, but the average Joe would refer to her as “the chick from Texas Chainsaw”. So hypothetically, if TCM had nothing else going for it, at least it would have a stand out factor like that. Unfortunately we don’t create and destroy careers as easily in modern times (unless the actor is willing to do it themselves in front of cameras). We don’t give unknowns a chance anymore because hiring a well-known actor is better for business, but is it really better for the film? Are we adding an important title to that star’s ever growing list of credits, or burying it under a pile of films that actor will always be better known for?

When it comes to remakes the fans of the original are always gonna be pissed over one thing or another; but like I said, this is a different time, and that means a different audience. The new generation of movie goers just reaching the cusp of the R rated market is a new ball game. These barely legal adults may not have had the pleasure of experiencing the original films the way we did. They also grew up in a time where sex, violence and coarse language have become the norm in prime time television. They will receive it differently, and remember it as we remembered the originals. There are also movie goers such as myself who will attend with an open mind, regardless of our dedication to the original, and just take in the enjoyment of the audience experience (might as well before we get old and start complaining that it’s too bright and too loud). I may not hate the films, but I can recognize a flawed and a failed attempt. Regardless, who am I to say that a film is bad if it has given at least one human a single shred of enjoyment.

The films we are now remaking originated in a time where that generation’s filmmakers were remaking the classics. Do you think they were well received? No horror film has really ever been well received outside the horror community until more recent times (with the exception of The Exorcist). The only differences lie in the fact that before everyone complained that it was all too much, and now we’re complaining that it’s just not enough. We’ve gone above and beyond what our horror forefathers had ever hoped we could achieve. We can show what we want and how we want to anyone that is willing to sit in front of that screen. So maybe we can all just shut up and be thankful that we have come into a time when genre films can top the box offices alongside the big boys.

Oh right, Evil Dead…

D'aww

D’aww

There was no shortage of blood in this film. The beauty of it shooting off the chainsaw in rapid-fire pellets was an image that made the entire experience worth it to me. No it’s not the same. People will say it took itself too seriously, but guess what, so did the original. The camp wasn’t intentional and wasn’t embraced until the second film. On the other side of the spectrum you will have people saying it didn’t take itself seriously enough. That’s just bullshit. I liked this remake. If you’re going to do one, this is the way to do it. It wasn’t a total disappointment and it got people talking. Not all remakes blend together into an unrecognizable mush; certainly Dawn of the Dead and The Hills Have Eyes have earned their horror acclaim, and I think Evil Dead displayed the right attitude to secure its place in the same graduating class. The shots were fantastic, the atmosphere was bang on and the possessions were disturbing. There were times I laughed when I wasn’t supposed to, but come on, it’s because I was having fun. When the girlfriend says “We need to get her to the hospital”, my response was “You’ve had two lines in this film, we don’t take orders from you!”. The only thing that bothered me is a common mistake any film could make: it showed a scene in the preview that wasn’t included in the film. The one totally creepy draw-in was demon Mia lifting the floorboard and saying a rhyme direct to camera. Where the eff was that in the movie?! Otherwise, I liked it. So deal.

hemlock

Hemlock Grove

Netflix sure has come a long way over the years; in March of 2013, it was estimated that over 33 million people currently subscribe to their service. As video stores seemingly fall by the wayside, the popularity and reign of Netflix only continues to rise. Given their power position, It’s really no surprise that projects began developing with the intention of being Netflix exclusive.

Enter: Hemlock Grove; a thirteen episode series made specifically for Netflix. When the initial trailer began to surface, I’ll admit I had no idea what to expect. On the surface it appeared to be another “Anytown U.S.A. has a dark secret” type of stories — but what caught my attention was a name: Eli Roth. The man responsible for bringing us such graphic delicacies as HOSTEL and (my personal favourite) CABIN FEVER. In addition to serving as executive producer, Roth also acted as director of the premiere episode. If a guy with such a solid track record was attaching his name to the project, how could it be bad? At the very least we could surely expect disgusting, cringe-worthy traditional effects… couldn’t we?

The basic premise of Hemlock Grove is simple enough: when a series of brutal murders begin, it becomes a race to discover the culprit before he (or it) continues their spree of destruction. From the very beginning we’re tossed into the simply bizarre universe of Hemlock Grove; a town so weird and dysfunctional that the savage murders almost seem to pale in comparison. There’s a girl convinced she was impregnated by an angel; a boy with a blood-fetish who has seemingly mastered the old Jedi mindtrick; his giant, blue-glowing, eye-deformed medical experiment of a sister; their sadistic, manipulative, and sex-starved creature of a mother… and the list goes on, and on, and on.

I kid you not: everything in Hemlock Grove is a mystery to which there is never an answer; it is a perpetual “…” that leaves you hanging until the series reaches its end, still leaving you strung up and waiting for a proper resolution. And to make it worse, the entire time the writers treat you as if you already know why everything is happening. I understand it was influenced heavily by Twin Peaks — of that there’s no doubt — but even Twin Peaks was easier and more satisfying to follow! At least the absurd was expected, and even served a purpose in the story.

Writing and story aside, I did thoroughly enjoy the cast. Famke Janssen, Bill Skarsgård, Landon Liboiron… the performances were all well done. The up-and-coming Freya Tingley handled some tense, mature scenes brilliantly, and Kaniehtiio Horn was particularly effective in her possession scenes. If the material they had been given was as good as their acting I would no doubt be writing a very different review.

But let’s talk effects, because again, with Eli Roth’s name front and centre we’re surely expecting an emphasis on practical, old-school guts and grue. Did it deliver? Yes and no. At the very heart of it, this is a werewolf story. No matter what else happens in a werewolf story, the most important scene is the transformation, and over the years special effects gurus (like Rick Baker) have elevated these scenes to an art. I don’t think we were necessarily expecting Hemlock Grove to top the beauty of, say, An American Werewolf in London… but I also don’t think we were expecting to see the majority of it achieved through CGI. Where the concept succeeded, the execution failed.

No matter how much I wanted to like the show, I just couldn’t get into it. And that’s disappointing to me since I legitimately dig Eli Roth and everything he’s attached his name to.

When all is said and done, the series suffered from a bad story and an under-developed script more than anything else. On the plus side, if you ever lay awake at night and wondered what would happen if they blended True Blood, Twilight, and Twin Peaks together? At least now you have your answer:

Welcome to Hemlock Grove.

notldlive

Night of the Living Dead Live

“They’re coming to get you, Barbra!”

In 1968 a young filmmaker named George Romero made a low-budget picture that explored a single premise: what would happen if the dead returned to life? His film painted a bleak, realistic, and unflattering portrait of humanity, and was responsible for not only launching his career, but also elevating him to the legendary status he possesses today: the grandfather of the zombie genre.

The influence of Romero’s Night of the Living Dead is undeniable; it shaped our modern understanding of the undead, and can be seen throughout the last forty-five years of cinema. And while filmmakers and artists have subtly paid homage to the master of horror in their own small ways, truly there can be no better compliment than to transform and adapt a beloved story into a new and exciting medium: in the case of NotLD, to lift it from celluloid and to place it on stage.

On a beautiful May evening, myself and co-editor Ali had the opportunity to visit the Theatre Passe Muraille in downtown Toronto to see a production of Night of the Living Dead Live. It’s difficult to walk into a re-enactment of a classic and beloved film without wondering “will they really be able to pull this off?” but my mind was set at ease when I opened the programme and saw that it had been written and directed by Christopher Bond, the brilliant mind who brought us Evil Dead: The Musical. Mr. Bond has proven in his previous endeavours that he is a horror fan through and through, and one that can also remain respectful and true to the original source material.

Upon entering the modest-sized theatre the viewer is immediately thrown back in time; retro, black-and-white parody ads are projected onto the stage while mock-vintage radio broadcasts play overtop, setting the tone and preparing you to enter Pittsburgh, 1968. The dim, open stage displays the living room of the infamous farmhouse — the set beautifully constructed and painted in subtle shades of black and white. Before we knew it, the room darkened, and the show began…

…and what a show it was! Divided into two acts, the first presents a faithful and well-adapted version of the original film. The performances were wonderful, and truly the work of talented and charismatic actors. Sound and lighting cues were particularly effective in recreating key moments from the film; the production overall was incredibly cinematic, no doubt influenced by the fact that Christopher Bond is also an accomplished screenwriter (A Little Bit Zombie). The second act deviated, and presented a barrage of hypothetical scenarios in an effort to discover what the group should have done in order to successfully survive the night; its tongue-in-cheek approach, coupled with fantastic comedic timing and smart writing led to a wonderful (and extremely memorable) production. The finale itself is worth going for!

When Mr. Romero himself calls it “terrific!”, who are we to argue? Don’t miss your chance to catch Night of the Living Dead Live during its Toronto run. You’ll never forgive yourself for missing a show this good.

Night of the Living Dead is directed and co-written by Christopher Bond, and features the talent of: Darryl Hinds, Mike “Nug” Nahrgang, Dale Boyer, Trevor Martin, Gwynne Phillips, and Andrew Fleming. It runs April 26th to May 19th.

Find tickets and showtimes here: http://nightofthelivingdeadlive.com/tickets/