Review: Maggie

http://pubfilm.com/maggie-2015-full-hd-pubfilm-free.html

For Mother's Day, I got to pick our Saturday night viewing, so we shelled out a few bucks to watch the new indie zombie flick Maggie on OnDemand. Overall, the movie was strong. It was original and smart and it had a cohesive feel.

The first thing you notice when you're deciding to watch this movie is that it contains Arnold Schwarzenegger in an unexpected leading role. For a man who has spent his recent years picking up a pay check for somewhat blase action movies and, you know, governing one of the largest states in the country, doing a movie like Maggie seems like an odd choice. The movie has a limited theatrical release and feels like an indie movie at every turn. I was never a big Arnold fan, but I have to respect that he cares enough about the craft of acting to pick up a role like this that promises him nothing in the way of fame or fortune.

That said, I kind of wish he wasn't in it. It isn't that he doesn't do a good job acting--he does. Still, he's just so incredibly recognizable that he takes you out of it every once and a while because you're just like, "hey, that guy was the terminator...oh, right...pay attention to the zombie movie." Other than him, I was pretty impressed with the acting. Abigail Breslin was decent as his daughter who is slowly succumbing to a zombie virus with a 6-8 week incubation period. She looked and felt realistic in her processing of her depressing but inevitable fate. The best performance, however, was from Joely Richardson. I remember Richardson from The Patriot where her most notable achievements, let's be honest, were her wardrobe and her cleavage, but in this she really brings the story to life in a realistic way. Richardson plays Breslin's stepmother who sends her own children away to care for Breslin as the disease becomes more and more advanced. While you don't exactly "like" her character, you absolutely understand her choices. She seems realistic and complex in a very human and honest way.

http://bloody-disgusting.com/videos/3341777/look-zombie-eyes-maggie-clip/

Aside from the acting, one of the major strengths of this film is in the simplicity and tightness of the narrative. At first, some of the scenes seem unnecessary, but the filmmakers have weaved a simple and important story in which all the pieces of the puzzle are very important in the end. And in a genre that's so often about splashing zombie brains across the cement, we rarely get a story that's entirely focused on telling the other side of the story. This story reminds us that zombies are people, and that when they turn, they leave behind mothers and fathers and children who love them and often can't let them go. The movie is slow and is far more drama than anything else, but that's the beauty of it. It shows us 90 minutes of grieving. It takes us though the stages of grief through a few different character perspectives and makes the zombie genre feel real. It reminds us that, as much as we may think it from time to time, we really don't want the zombie apocalypse to be a real thing.

http://screenrant.com/schwarzenegger-maggie-movie-2015-release-date/

The apocalyptic landscape and art direction were spot on in this movie. Receiving marks for originality, this film depicts a world in which the disease affects not only humans but also possibly plant life, which presents additional apocalyptic problems. This aids the futile mood of the movie with shots of barren fields and burning crops. Overall, I just like the film's approach to the zombie infection. We've never seen a zombie virus with an incubation period like this. In some films, the turn is almost immediate, while in others it can take a few hours, but in this film the burn is slow but still inevitable. Bitten people last for 6-8 weeks which means that they are released back home for a sort of undead hospice care, and that's just eerie. Also, I like that, like in films like Contagion, this "apocalypse" is more realistic. The virus hasn't killed everyone. Society still exists, just not well. This is more honest to how devastating diseases like this have happened in human history.

https://mountainx.com/movies/reviews/maggie/

In the negative column, I had a little trouble believing that in a country that detained an Ebola nurse in a tent due to panicked fear of pandemic, the authorities would ever allow bitten people to return home to the care of their families until they were more advanced in the stages of the disease. The more the film went on, the more I bought into this piece of the storytelling, but it was definitely hard to swallow at first.

The writing was usually good, but it had the occasional trite line or conversation. Nothing major, but it could have been a little more original and authentic in some of the conversations. Still, the film thrives in its silences, just like The Dead, so a little bit of hackneyed dialogue or disorienting Arnold-ness does little to break the overall mood and meaning of the film.

Maggie is in theaters now and is also available on OnDemand. It's not really a "must see in theaters" film, not because it isn't really good, but more because it's not cinematically grandiose. It's a small, lovely little film about letting go and accepting the inevitable. It's a good allegory for terminal illness as well as the early days of AIDs, and it says a lot in ninety minutes that you don't typically get from the zombie genre. Find time for this movie.

Review: Dead Snow 2

www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Dead-Snow-2-UK-DVD-Sleeve.jpg

So tonight I wanted to watch me some zombie flick, and after looking at what options I had, I decided it would either be Dead Snow 2 or The Dead 2. I was honestly more excited about The Dead 2, but since it wasn't on Netflix, Dead Snow 2 it was.

The flick was a lot like the first installment, filled with pretty big positives and a fair number of negatives, but overall a fun way to spend 90 minutes on a Saturday night. Just like the first film, it's zombie gore at its very best and bloodiest, and the film possesses a tone that doesn't take itself too seriously.

Of course, like most sequels, it's not quite as good as the original. I think the main difference is that it doesn't have the darkness to it that the first film had. The first film was solidly in the black comedy genre, with a number of moments that were truly terrifying or disturbing. The second film tries, but it's really just a straight up comedy, even as the film is killing off children, the elderly, priests, etc.

The killing actually was my major complaint. Maybe I'm just getting old and boring, but I felt like the film was trying too hard to be "edgy" by killing off children in a sandbox, two people in wheelchairs, and two women with their infants in strollers. At first it was kind of funny that they were not holding anything back. A scene early on depicts a young boy being killed in a way that is legitimately both awful and completely hilarious, but from there some of the kills just seem like they're trying way too hard to be "shocking", and it distracts from the film.

http://fantasticfest-site.s3.amazonaws.com/films/40313/dead_snow_2__large.jpg

That said, the gore was visually very strong. For a movie that doesn't have an enormously large budget, they do a good job of being inventive with their gore and also making things look realistic. Like in the first film, most of the characters are bathed in a delightful coat of blood and dirt for the majority of the film which gives the film a strong aesthetic. You can't hate too much on a movie in which a Nazi zombie uses a dead man's intestines to siphon gas out of a tour bus and into a World War 2 era tank. I mean...that's just damn good cinema.

http://crypticrock.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dead-snow-2-red-vs-dead01.jpg

The acting is probably a little better in this sequel than in the original, but it's hard to compare the two since the sequel is in English and the original has subtitles. I was worried about this decision, but it was fine. Much like the original film, however, the actors were all kind of strangely cast. I feel like many of the characters were too old for the characters they were portraying, and the two female American zombie nerds seemed extremely fake and were honestly pretty annoying. I love Star Wars as much as the next girl, but the one character's constant references to Star Wars seemed out of place, inauthentic, and distracted from the rest of the film. The local gay guy in the film was funny and endearing, but they made too big of a deal about him being gay. Maybe it's a bigger deal to be gay in Norway, but him trying to hide it seems a little silly and played for a film released in 2014.

Other than that though, the writing was probably one of the major strengths of the film. There are some witty moments, and the plot is interesting and original. Most of the characters have entertaining lines and deliver them well. The cinematography, like the original, is also pretty good and enhances the comedy of a lot of the scenes.

http://geekz.444.hu/assets/sites/24/2014/07/dead5.jpg

The ending of the film is a bit rushed, but the final battle is well executed and fulfilling. The very last moments of the film are kind of bizarre, but not horrible, especially considering how poorly most movies seem to end nowadays.

So, should you watch it? Totally. Don't expect to be laughing out loud, but it will give you some genuine chuckles and will keep you engaged for an hour and a half. Go in just expecting a fun little indie movie, and you'll be pleased. Just remember that, like the original, this is film is very loosely defined as a zombie flick. These zombies talk and use weapons. They're more like corporeal ghosts in a lot of ways except that their look is very "zombie", so if you are a zombie purist, I suggest that you stay away.

Speculation: Who are the "Wolves"?

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2015/03/

In the second half of The Walking Dead's fifth season, we've been seeing a number of ominous signs of a person or group that may be lurking behind the scenes. The main sign is the increasing prevalence of zombies with a "W" carved into their foreheads. Why would someone do this? Is it pure brutality or does it serve a purpose? Is this person/group a threat? From a narrative standpoint, this seems like a pretty obvious "duh". The increasing appearance of these "W" dead seems to be pretty clear foreshadowing of some sort of looming, imminent threat, but what is it? Many speculations have been circulating, so below are a summary of those thoughts and my opinions on them.

Possibility #1: The Wolves are the Whisperers
In the comic, there is a group of survivors who walk the world among the dead wearing the zombie skins as protection and blending in among the walkers. They could be the ones carving the "W" symbol into the dead and could be lurking around unseen, just waiting to make an appearance.

Why this idea makes sense:

http://i.imgur.com/tDP9igV.png

• Whatever the threat is, it seems to be pretty hidden and has gone unnoticed by both the Alexandria community and by the members of Shirewilt (before they were killed). The Whisperers would be easily overlooked since they blend in with the dead that no one thinks to examine any closer.
• Kirkman is notorious for screwing with the audience. No one would be expecting for him to shuffle the deck of upcoming "big bads", so to jump right to a plotline that is still unfolding in the comics would be a great way to keep comic readers on their toes.
• Enid fits this storyline perfectly. In the comics, Carl falls for a young member of the Whisperers who has seemingly defected. We don't know much about Enid's past, but what we do know makes perfect sense with the concept of her being a Whisperer. First, she didn't talk for a month when she first came to the society, a trait that matches up well with the entire philosophy of the Whisperers. Second, her romantic storyline with Carl seems to be following the same line. Furthermore, we have yet to see her kill a zombie, which might indicate that she doesn't view them in the same way that the other survivors do. This is further strengthened by her comment of "It's their world: we're just living in it", which is a very Whisperer-y thing to say. Also, Enid is very good at moving through the landscape undetected, which matches with someone who had lived among the dead for a prolonged period of time. Lastly, she seems pretty terse when mentioning her mother (or her entire back story, really). She doesn't say that her mom is dead, so could her mother be the mysterious Alpha of the Whisperers that made an appearance in the last issue of the comic?

  

  http://www.craveonline.com/tv/reviews/838201-the-walking-dead-5-15-try-recap

• The Whisperers have a legitimate reason to mark Walkers. Since they seem to move within them, marking them to keep their group together and tag the hoards they are moving within would at least make some logistical sense. It's probably the only explanation that matches with any real purpose other than intimidation and brutality. The same goes for collecting torsos. Since the Whisperers wear zombie skin, they would have a reason to collect flesh from the torso and face since it would be the most easily applied to their own flesh for the purposes of concealment.
• If they go the way of Enid being a Whisperer, they could easily replicate the "prisoner trade" that happens in the comics by capturing Daryl, Aaron, or even Morgan, who are all outside of the walls.



http://k32.kn3.net/taringa/C/4/3/D/B/D/terrynova/528.png

• The name "Wolves" makes sense with the Whisperers if you think about the phrase "A wolf in sheep's clothing".

Why it makes no sense:

• This storyline isn't finished in the comics and jumping ahead of the comics could get very muddled and confusing for Kirkman.
• A prisoner swap between Morgan and Enid would not be as obvious a decision as it is in the comics because Enid has been in Alexandria for a longer period of time, and no one in Alexandria besides Michonne and Rick even know whom Morgan is.
• This storyline might be too time consuming. They may need something brief to kill time until they get to Negan, and the Whisperers aren't that. In order to do the Whisperer storyline justice, they would have to delay Negan's appearance for at least a season, and while they've made it clear that that's certainly a possibility, I doubt they will given that it's one of the most dynamic plots of the comic and people are already salivating awaiting it.
• It looked like the citizens of Shirewilt were attacked by humans. While the Whisperers are "technically" human, they don't necessarily fight or attack like them.
• This plot line doesn't do enough to give Rick a hero moment. Without that hero moment, Deanna has no reason to not boot him out on his ass.

Possbility #2: The DC Scavengers are the Wolves

http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/The_Scavengers

It's been awhile since I read this part of the comics, but before Negan arrives, a group of savage scavengers attack and almost destroy Alexandria, resulting in multiple deaths and the loss of Carl's right eye. Could they be the Wolves, out to destroy and overrun?

Why it makes sense... 

• The way in which Shirewilt was attacked seems very much like the way the Scavengers attack and destroy Alexandria in the comics, and clearly that attack was undertaken by these "wolves".
• Their timeline matches up with where we are in the comics. If Kirkman follows his original narrative, it's their time to appear in the small space before Negan's men start causing havoc. 
• Their brutality makes sense with some of the actions that we've seen, namely the tied up naked woman in the woods. They seem like the kind of guys who might hack up other survivors, overrun a town, tie up and abandon a woman. 
• Marking the walkers could be an intimidation tactic, and they're the kind of guys who would think of something like that. 
• Sasha being in the tower is a great setup for this since she's quickly becoming Andrea from the comic, and Andrea in the tower was a part of the Scavenger plot line. (If I'm remembering properly)
• Protecting Alexandria from the Scavengers would save Rick from the inevitable exile that awaits him after his little blood-splattered monologue this week.

 Why it makes no sense...

http://www.twdenthusiasts.com/2015/02/walking-dead-comic-spoilers-wolves/

• Why would they take the torsos and heads? It seems like a silly thing to be carrying around and to my recollection the Scavengers didn't have a very developed base camp. Furthermore, there's just no motivation to do it. Dismembering is congruent with simple brutality and a desire to intimidate those who might happen upon a scene afterwards, but if that's the goal, then what's the point in taking the torsos?
• This is what people are expecting, and Kirkman likes to keep people on their toes.
• They may be too similar to Gareth's group in the idea of them just being messed up, selfish, vengeful humans. The show's producers might want a little more variety.

Possibility #3: It isn't a "W"...it's an upside down "M".

http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Morgan_Jones_%28TV_Series%29

My least favorite theory and by far the most implausible, but worth a brief mention, is that the "W" is actually an "M" for Morgan. Is Morgan really as crazy as he seems at times, running around the woods and marking up walkers? He certainly seems to have a predilection for getting fixated on one phrase or symbol (aka: Clear), but is that really possible for one man to pull off?

Why it makes sense:

• We have ample evidence to support that Morgan is unwell, and a lot of the signs we have about this group seem to indicate that they're not exactly winning the mental health of the year award.
• What if he still has Duane? Okay, this is far fetched, but hear me out. In the comics, Morgan keeps Duane alive as a zombie and feeds him the remains of survivors that he captures and kills. What if Morgan is still dragging Duane along with him? That would support why the girl was tied up and devoured in the woods--food for his undead son. This would also be (sort of) a reason to dismember corpses so that their flesh is easier to feed to Duane and to carry along with Morgan for later feedings. Also, we have very few wide shots of Morgan, so Duane being on a rope behind him is not entirely impossible.

  

  http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Duane_Jones_%28Comic_Series%29

• It would honestly be easier to carve a letter upside down on a head if the body was on the ground, rather than having to lean over the torso and dangerous jaw of the ghoul to tattoo it with your symbol.
• Morgan has to make an appearance somehow.

Why it makes no sense:

• Unless Morgan found a last minute flight from Alexandria to Richmond, there's no way he could've beat the group across four states since they were driving and he was walking. They haven't been in Alexandria long enough for him to catch up, let alone catch up and already make his presence this known.
• He just has no reason to.
• The damage inflicted by the Wolves is too great for one man.
• We want to like Morgan...and we don't like these people.
• He may already be dead and a victim of the Wolves. Some have observed that the dismembered arms at the campsite that Daryl and Aaron found are wearing the same color shirt as Morgan, the hands belong to a black man, the wedding band is the same, and a pair of sunglasses are nearby. Personally, I think this is typical Kirkman misdirection, but hey...it's possible.

So...your thoughts? I guess we'll probably find out in five days, but until then...it's an excellent use of time to kick around some theories. 

News & Review: iZombie going from Panel to Screen

http://enewsi.com/television/191-26026.html

God, I hate the CW. Obviously, I'm not their intended audience, and that's fine, but would they stop touching my things? Seriously? All my life, my nerd fascinations have somehow found their way to the popular culture. I was obsessed with the Titanic, so much so that I knew the type of wood in the 1st class dining room, and then BOOM! James Cameron makes the hideous piece of garbage called Titanic. I was in to pirates, so much so that I would read nonfiction pirate history books during Saturday detention and then BOOM! Pirates of the Caribbean. I was into vampires, so much so that I looked into how you'd get your teeth filed into fangs, and then BOOM! Twilight makes the genre into a freaking joke for girly girls. And then one of the great loves of my life, zombies. Sigh. Oh CW. Can't you just make another show about spoiled human girls in an upper middle class suburb who can't seem to stop sleeping with each other's boyfriends?

But I have jumped ahead. This isn't supposed to be a rant. It's supposed to be a review and news piece. Let me refocus.

http://www.biblecomix.com/?p=2253

So about four years ago, my friend was in town and wanted to give me a gift for hosting her. She got me the first trade paperback in the "iZombie" series. Good friends know you well. Anyway, I neglected it and let it sit on my shelf for nearly half a decade until today. Having just read it cover to cover, I can say that I really did enjoy it by the end. It was rough getting started because there are a fair number of characters and it's sometimes difficult to connect the thought and talking bubbles to the correct character. You definitely have to take it slowly and reread in places at first, but it does get easier. It's just that there are a lot of characters of various supernatural afflictions (zombies, ghosts, vampires, and even a "wereterrior"), and it takes you brain a minute to process and categorize all of that.

The story follows the life of a girl who has turned zombie. In order to keep herself from turning into a shambling, rotting mess, she has to eat a brain every month, but doing so floods her with the memories of that dead person. As a gravedigger, the people she eats often have unfinished business, namely their murders, which she is then compelled to solve because their voice is in her head. That's the basic premise, but there's a lot more going on here. We have the normal awkwardness of a bunch of people in the upper teens/young twenties, but we also have the battles between the evil forces of the supernatural, the good forces of the supernatural, and the monster hunters who often can't tell the difference. This story really finds its stride when it moves beyond the CSI plot of Gwen solving murders and attacks more important subject matter like the idea of a soul and the decisions to take a life.

http://io9.com/rob-thomas-explains-why-izombie-is-more-like-buffy-than-1614649263

And that's where I get concerned. iZombie is, ostensibly at least, the source material for CW's new show premiering in 2015 of the same name. CW's iZombie already shows a number of differences, however. First, they feel compelled to change of heroine's name for some reason, calling her Liv rather than Gwen. Next, she's a coroner rather than a gravedigger. I guess they thought that was sexier? I think it changes the tone of the plot though. It makes it more official. It also seems like she's helping the police, which is something that doesn't happen, at least not in the first trade of the four part iZombie series. The preview shows basically no sign of her other supernaturally inclined friends, and has instead replaced them with stock standard Law and Order types. While watching the preview, I just kept thinking of the spoof trailers in Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

Maybe it will be good, but I have many doubts. I'm not sure how they'll preserve the internal monologue of the protagonist, which is an important element of the comics. Honestly, I'm sure they won't. The preview already seems to suggest that they're honoring the source material in name only. It'll be closer than World War Z was, but not by much I'd guess. I'll read the other three trades first, and then maybe give the show one or two episodes. It's from the people who made Veronica Mars and nerdy people seemed to like that, so maybe there's hope. Read the comic though; it was a good time. And if you want to laugh at how silly the CW is, check out the preview for the iZombie TV show below. Let me know your thoughts!

News: Walking Dead Spinoff Coming into Focus

http://undeadwalking.com/2015/01/21/companion-show-called-fear-walking-dead/

So for a while we've known that Kirkman and crew were working on a spinoff series for The Walking Dead, working titled of "Cobalt", but only in the last few months have the details become clearer. First, the announcement came just before Christmas that the spinoff would be located in Los Angeles, rather than the Atlanta area setting of the original series. As a Chicagoan, I'm always disappointed when shows and movies take the typical route and chose NYC or LA as a setting, but I'll give it a shot. I'm glad that they're shaking it up though. As much as I love TWD, it would be pretty silly to just make a carbon copy of the same show simply to get more advertising revenue. Setting it in LA presents new challenges for the characters and a new range of opportunities for the writers.

But the setting is not the only shake up we'll see in the new spinoff series. According to some unverified reports in the past couple of days, the spinoff is supposedly going to start off at the beginning of the outbreak. This will enable Kirkman to show us the month that we missed while Rick was in his coma. This is bold, in my opinion. If you look at many zombie flicks and fiction, they often jump into the future to avoid having to deal with the logistics of how the infection began. It's difficult to show the full extent of the outbreak and fall of society in a way that comes across as believable. The best example I can think of was BBC's Survivors (which wasn't a zombie show, but involved a pandemic). They executed this very well, so hopefully the spinoff will follow their lead.

We also have some news on who our new characters are. We know they're a family, but a family with a few problems that predated the dead walking the earth. So what exactly does that mean? Some sources have reported that the mom is divorced and has two teenage kids, one of whom has a drug problem, and that those three teams up with her divorced male colleague.  I'm a little worried; I'll be honest, as all of that sound a little like the plot of a SyFy original movie. Also, The Walking Dead got very lucky with their younger actors--Chandler Riggs is a solid young actor--but let's face it: sometimes having a bunch of teenagers running around on a show makes it more suited for the WB than for AMC. Of course, I'm a total hypocrite because I write YA zombie fiction that I don't find to be cheesy. I guess my real concern is in them finding the right actors who can effectively pull this off. They have some very big, very talented shoes to fill.

http://www.purebreak.com/media/photo-the-walking-dead-cliff-curtis-sera-le-362564.html

One of the people they've casted is Alycia Debnam Carey. She was one of the better things about the disappointment that was Into the Storm, so maybe that's not such a bad sign. And Frank Dillane, who I'm assuming is playing her older brother, was Tom Riddle in Harry Potter, so that's not a bad sign either. The other announced cast thus far are Kim Dickens (Gone Girl, Treme) and Cliff Curtis (Training Day, Three Kings). Cliff Curtis's character also has a teenage son (I smell love connection with the teenage girl...), but he has yet to be announced in terms of casting.

Whether or not they are able to pull this off, you have to applaud these actors for getting a great gig, and you have to applaud AMC for giving it a shot. They should be in filming now or soon, with a 2015 air date for the pilot. My guess is that they'll want to run it over the summer to fill the empty space when TWD is gone, but that's purely my speculation. Fingers crossed, this will be quality stuff.