Review: Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse

Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse
Cert: 15 / 93 mins / Dir. Christopher Landon / Trailer



Take a good look at that poster, there. It may not be quite at Drew Struzan's level, but it's painstakingly executed in a classical style, and tells you everything you need to know about the tone of the film and the visual markers you'll get along the way. It's a bloody good one-sheet.
I imagine it also took more hours to bring to completion than the screenplay…

Okay, I should really try not to be too hard on Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse, as it's clearly been made on a restrictive budget. Then again, the effects, filming and general production values of the movie aren't the problem; that dubious honour belongs to the first-draft of a script stuffed to the gills with everyone else's stuff, and which appears to have been cast with the actors who agreed to the roles in the shortest time. Ploughing full-tilt into the 'horror-comedy' sub genre, the film can't decide which side of the fence it's based on, and the result is that it's not convincingly both, but neither.

As comedies go, it's broad and sloppy; but as a horror-flick, it's an outright mess. Equally in stylistic debt to Superbad and Shaun of the Dead, the film ropes in a couple of From Dusk Till Dawn's beats just to keep things moving. And as amiable as most of the movie is, SGttZA's not as funny, clever or heartwarming as its obvious influences, and it has nothing else to bring to the party to make up for that. It's as satisfyingly predicable as a greatest-hits album, but a one which is also being performed by a cover-band. There's also a definite air of "Oh, it's got Champ Kind from Anchorman in it! I guess that's where the budget went…"

Admittedly, my other main problem (and more tellingly, I think) is that I'm a massive, unashamed snob when it comes to zombie movies. I think they're very difficult to do 'right', and more to the point I'm glad that that's the case. There'll always be room in the market for schlocky knock-offs, where the "wouldn't it be cool if…" moments are more important than the craft. But if you're going to successfully navigate the land of the dead, you're going to need more than swagger, luck and an overworked knob-gag. This film wants to be Zombieland, but it's not even Cockneys vs Zombies. The comedy/horror (or horror/comedy) sub0genre isn't an overcrowded graveyard, but it's a one littered with failures and also-rans which should serve as a warning to all who fancy their chances.

But, credit where it's due: I smirked, I smiled and at one point I guffawed out loud. But I also rolled my eyes and winced more than I should have. When the film's on-form it's a perfectly enjoyable 'DVD with a few beers', but that's not a consistent state and there are a few scenes which shouldn't have made it into the shooting script, never mind the editing suite (to put it delicately*¹, the film earns its 15 certificate more by poor-taste than actual gore).

Ultimately, Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalpyse isn't awful, it's just a transparent attempt by a studio to pick up any audience that isn't currently wanting to see James Bond.

You can't blame Paramount for trying, although in this case you can certainly blame them for not trying…

In case you hadn't gathered, no.



Either a rental or £3 when it's on the bargain-shelf in Asda.



From the cast-members I've seen before? No.
From the ones I haven't? I hope not.



Even with its low ambitions, not quite.



Oddly, no.



I didn't hear one, but there's a lot of wailing and shrieking going on. It's entirely possible that there's a Wilhelm mixed in there somewhere, but if that's the case then it's the only subtle thing about this film.



SGttZA stars Tye Sheridan, who's due to appear as Cyclops in X-Men: Apocalypse; a film which also features Rose 'Dormé' Byrne and the voice of Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.







*¹ Which is more delicate than anything the film does. Let's just say that stabbing a naked woman in the head with a broken bottle seemed less awkward when Nicholas Hoult did it, somehow..?
Oh, and how come if the old-lady-zombie can't bite Carter's arse because she hasn't got her false teeth in, the 'eating out' zombie manages to chomp away on his victim despite not having a lower-jaw? Answer: Because they're both incredibly cheap jokes which say more about the scriptwriting process than the film's actual dialogue.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Would You Rather

Would You Rather
Cert: tbc / 93 mins / Dir. David Guy Levy




2012's Would You Rather*¹ is a compact 93 minute horror/thriller that plays out like a cross between James Wan's Saw and Clive Barker's Dread, with a sprinkling of a murder-mystery weekend. Whereas in Agatha Christie's world the guests of a dinner party start murdering each other and are assembled around a dinner table to weed out the perpetrator, in this film they're assembled so they can begin the proceedings…

There's a distinctly indie feeling to the film, partly from the modest (but wisely used) budget and tight-zoom exterior shots, but also from a screenplay clinically divided into three thirty minute acts. The script is clunky for the first third, intriguing for the second, and effectively functional for the third.

Like all the best horror (physical and psychological), the film's real strength lies in its voyeurism and making the audience feel uncomfortably complicit*² in what they're witnessing. The overall diversity of assembled participants in the film's game is just broad enough to make the tasks they're assigned genuinely tense, even though we've all guessed what 'elimination' entails. The director, David Levy, doesn't linger over the gory details in the way of Hostel, but by focusing on the reaction of the other contestants, the punishments which are meted out are just as severe.

While Would You Rather is definitely one for the horror-crowd, the lack of outright gore might leave some of the hardcore frustrated; although it's not quite as cerebral as it'd like you to think it is. It's a captivating film, and one I'd like to see expanded out to the two-hour mark, if only to flesh out some of the characters whose deaths mean little as we barely get to know them.

Would You Rather is available as a hard copy from Amazon, or digitally from iTunes. If neither of those float your boat, the internet is your oyster.

Oh, and not that I'm an expert or anything, but bleeding out from a stab-wound doesn't happen that quickly, neatly or quietly. And neither does a heart-attack. Just sayin'.



In a nutshell, yes.



Pretty much, yes.



Almost, almost.



Pay to rent if it's your bag, if not avoid altogether.



No.



At some point.



There ain't.

I can't be the only one who said "Hey, Crab-man!" at least once during the film, can I?

*¹ I watched this on the recommendation of @graygrrrl, who doesn't review anywhere as often as she should, but it's worth it when she does.
*² Although, like the good viewer I am, I was audibly cheering at least a couple of the stabs. Sue me.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.