NO SHAME

This is too amazing.

From a review of The Asylum's Hansel & Gretel by Dread Central:

No doubt designed to capitalize on the big screen release of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, The Asylum’s Hansel & Gretel is a mockbuster in name only. A different beast altogether, a Texas Chainsaw fairy tale of sorts, in which two modern teenagers named Hansel and Gretel get trapped in cannibal witch Dee Wallace’s gingerbread house of horrors where innocent young people are turned into meat pies.

Hold on a sec!

Wait just a minute!

What’s that quote on the cover art?

I guess I don’t need to bother finishing this review since, according to the box art, I already did.

“PRETTY DAMN GOOD HORROR MOVIE” – DREADCENTRAL

I’m the only person on this website who has ever written about this film so I know it has to be my quote. In fact, here’s the quote:

"…it looks like it has the potential to be a pretty damn good horror movie judging by the preview."

That’s from a story I wrote about the Hansel & Gretel trailer back in October – not a review.

I guess that’s good enough.

That is a new low, The Asylum. I am in awe of how scummy a tactic that is.

Although it's still better than the unattributed, unquoted one-line praising statements that usually appear on your garbage,

REVIEW: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE

Whether they mean/meant to or not, zombie movies have been aping George A. Romero since 1968. Perhaps you've heard of his first film. It was about a night in which the living were dead, and the dead were living. What he created all those years ago (after borrowing a bit from Richard Matheson's "I Am Legend") is now taken for granted as official and legendary zombie mythology, and assumed to be thousands of years old. Actually, it's roughly only forty, and comes not from a Native American shaman or cave wall drawings, but some old hippie stoner from Pittsburgh.

Zombies are slow. They are dead. Only a blow to the brain will kill them. If one bites you, you will turn into one. Don't call them zombies (even though they are).

Zombie Apocalypse (with a '2012' crammed in for its video release) is a SyFy Channel original movie and produced by The Asylum. Are you running for the hills yet? I don't blame you. But seriously, folks...it ain't half bad.

Ramona (Taryn Manning of "Sons of Anarchy") has hit the post-outbreak zombified streets with two of her friends, Kevin and and Billy. Zombies happen, as do bite wounds, but another group of survivors come along and save their bacon. Kevin is left as zombie chew toys, but Ramona and Billy are "adopted" by the survivors, led by Mack, and co-opted by Julian, a literary author quoter, Cassie, a woman hoping to become reunited with her husband and mourning the death (?) of her son, and Henry (Ving Rhames, in his third zombie movie appearance). Together they will do what everyone else who has survived the zombie outbreak so far does: try to keep surviving. 

Honestly, Zombie Apocalypse is actually a decent little movie. The acting is competent, and magically, none of the actors ever come across as irritating. The characters aren't overflowing with development, as some receive a little more back story than others, but you will at least know a little about each person. You're definitely provided with enough to reciprocate a modicum of care, as I'll admit to being movie-concerned during a sequence in which two characters become isolated from the group and surrounded by the dead.

Speaking of the dead, I must absolutely give Z.A. credit for something which may sound trivial (and please correct me if I am wrong), but this is the first zombie film I've seen to not only contain both walking AND running zombies, but also provide an explanation as to why some walk and some run (the walkers have been dead longer; the runners are "fresher"). Even in Romero's films it's established that zombies are slow and shambly, but will occasionally and uncharacteristically rush at a victim with little regard for continuity.

The make-up effects are pretty effective, save for the few moments when patches of a zombie's skin are inadvertently captured and reveal no rot or marring of any kind. The kills are cool, and for once I can say I've seen new ways in which to off a zombie. That ice skate kill is as ridiculous as it is awesome.

The script is smart, and contains so many classic bits from the "what-if" conversations we've all shared with friends around a late-night diner booth. What if a zombie apocalypse were to happen? What weapons would you use? Would you drive, or hoof it? Would you use bikes? Flamethrowers? What about animals? Do you think they would turn? It honestly feels as if the film were conceived by genuine zombie enthusiasts, and not just by people who threw something together containing zombies since they are very much in the forefront of current entertainment.

But alas...because this is a SyFy Channel original...the usual nitpicks arise. I always give credit where credit is due in terms of scope and ambition, and the filmmakers were mostly able to pull off a post-apocalyptic setting with very little money, but much of the CGI utilized in the film is at best laughable. Scenes with zombified animals come off as especially cartoonish, but there is enough evident care behind the scenes to let this slide. 

In some scenes there is very little regard to exposition continuity. Meaning, it's noticeable when a character clarifies that to kill a zombie you need to destroy the brain, but then zombies are later brought down with shots/slices to the stomach, anyway. And it's also noticeable when a character says, "If you shoot an arrow at a zombie, retrieve the arrow if you can safely do so," then shoots a zombie with an arrow and runs right by it, not stopping to retrieve said arrow, even though it could have been done safely. 

There is some truly horrendous dialogue, ie, "Are there any humans in here?", which a character calls out not once but twice, and leads me to wonder: do zombies really need that clarification? If they're in an unseen room and eating some fingers, will they hear that this dude is demanding to see humans only, realize they aren't the requested demographic, and go back to eating? No, of course they won't. They want fresher fingers. 

Plus, for a movie in which thousands of bullets are sent smashing through teems of ghoul faces, there isn't a single scene of anyone reloading. Just sayin'.

Curiously, certain events or allusiuons are placed throughout the film that suggest a resolution or explanation for them is right around the corner...but then no such explanation comes. There are several scenes in which characters declare the zombies are getting smarter, are learning, but this leads to no real pay off. And in a scene where it's explained that Cass' son is attacked by zombies but not definitely killed, there's an established fear that she may run into a zombified version of her son later down the road...which never happens.

I wonder why all that is. Were there hopes or plans for a Z.A. 2? Was this some kind of pilot for a television show (which is a highly dubious question)? If no to both, then why introduce these developments only for them never to pay off? 

Still, I dug this movie quite a bit. It's not perfect, comes nowhere close, and isn't trying to be. And for the sake of clarification, let me state this: had this been a theatrically released movie with a multi-million dollar budget, I would have ripped it a new asshole. It wouldn't come anywhere close to a watchable rating. It would endeavor to smell the fart fumes wafting off a simple rating of "terrible." But this was not that heavy weight. This was made for SyFy, people. SYFY. Have you seen their films? Of course you have. Your brain will forever be infected with much of their output. As such, because of its lineage, Z.A. deserves a lot of credit. It wasn't just run-of-the-mill garbage. 

 

Romero's films will always be looked at as cannon, and fledgling zombie filmmakers of the world have long made their peace with that. Every zombie movie that soon will be - one that contains flesh eating, brain destroying, and a contagious virus - will always and forever be a sequel to Romero's films, whether they like it or not. As it stands, Zombie Apocalypse happens to be one of the better ones.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES: AN INTERVIEW WITH CHRISTOPHER MARRONE

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies (review here) is just one of the latest films released by the infamously prolific Asylum Films. While the film isn't perfect, it is among the mini studio's best releases in their ten year history. 

The film, whose release preempts that of the bigger-budgeted Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter by almost a month, is a heavily inspired tale of our sixteenth president forced to fight legions of the undead. In this case, the film replaces one mythical creature with another – from vampires to zombies – who Lincoln decapitates with great vengeance and furious anger. It stars fan favorite Bill Oberst, Jr. in the title role, as well as a supporting cast of relative unknowns. Among the cast is Christopher Marrone, who sports a caterpillar mustache and Civil War-era garb to play Pat Garrett, historically famous for the assassination of outlaw William H. Bonney, better known as Billy the Kid. Chris was nice enough to share his experiences on the film, as well as his career, his views on the current state of horror, and what he has lined up in the future.

---

Was there a turning point in your life where you knew you wanted to be an actor? Was it a particular film or filmmaker? Or did you simply always have that desire?

I don’t know if there was a particular turning point exactly, because I was raised by two former actors. My father and mother met in New York while doing an off-Broadway play. I grew up with stories from both of them and knew at a young age that I wanted to be involved with the film business.

Were your parents involved in anything that might sound familiar to our readers? Did they take part in features or television, or did they strictly perform on the stage?

My mother was mainly a theater actor, her true love was the stage. I know she auditioned for film and TV, but with her voice and ability, she was meant for [the stage]. My father was also a theater actor, but he began to make his way into film and television. He was a big guy and worked as a security specialist for film executives and the talent, so it put him right in front of the people you'd want to meet. Being a talented actor and making healthy friendships with these people led to him working pretty consistently within TV/film. Some notable projects are Woody Allen's segment for New York Stories, "Miami Vice," and Men of Respect (starring John Turturro).

Because both of your parents are actors, how often does it turn into acting school at home? Do you all compare notes and swap advice? Have you ever dared critique a performance by either of them?

My parents were great about my upbringing when it came to the entertainment business, so it didn't turn into an acting school so much, but whenever we watched films and TV shows, they shared their input and commentary on the stronger talent in the project. I don't know if they knew at the time, but I believe subconsciously I was taking notes on who they talked about, and why they came across better on screen. I don't think that thought has ever crossed my mind until you brought it up.

Growing up, I was still able to see them perform on stage for some of my youth, and from what I remember they did a damn good job.

What was your first professional acting experience?

What I consider to be my FIRST professional experience was working on “Field of Vision” for NBC. I played a high school football player, which was amusing to me, because I had just gotten done playing college football… [and now I was] portraying a high school football player on screen.

You have spent time on both television and feature film productions. What would you say is the difference between the two, if any?

I feel like the difference is more with time. With television, usually one episode is 7-10 days of shooting, so there is this sense of pressure when the week is coming to an end. They obviously map it out in scheduling to work, but it still doesn't stop that feeling [of pressure]. With film, it’s not as “turn and burn,” so to speak, but more of a longer effort…but there's still a sense of urgency, as you only have the window of time to get what you can get during principal photography. I’m a fan of both styles of production, so if it’s strictly film for myself here on out I am fine with that, and if I land a re-occurring role on a TV show, I will be just as happy.

How did you come to be involved with The Asylum’s Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies?

Darla Clarkson. That is how. Darla is a local casting director here in Atlanta. I had originally submitted for a film she was involved with about a month before Lincoln vs. Zombies came along. Darla and I met, which went really well, and she told me she would keep me at top of her list of actors. She was offered casting director by The Asylum for Lincoln vs. Zombies and then my phone rang. I wouldn’t have had the opportunity if it were not for her. Granted, I still had to audition, but for a casting director to be a fan of yours, it truly goes a long way in this business.

Over the years, The Asylum has developed a divisive, love-them-or-hate-them reputation across the Internet, inspired by their history of releasing what’s become known as “mockbusters.” Were you aware of this reputation before becoming involved with the film? If so, did that make you hesitant at all to join the production?

Prior to doing Lincoln vs. Zombies, I wasn’t fully aware of who The Asylum was...until I looked into the films they had done in the past; then I knew. I was not as much hesitant, but there was more of a “let me stop and think” mentality, as one should have with any project. I called up my family, I called up my mentor (Patrick 'P-nut' Monroe), and I called my agency. I wanted to take the role immediately, but knew I needed to think it out no matter what. Needless to say, I was happy with the decision I made, and am happy with how the film turned out.

How much research did you perform for your role as Pat Garrett, known as assassinating the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid? Did you learn anything about him that surprised you?

I did look into Pat Garrett the moment I found out I got the role. I had about a week prior to filming to research him. Much of the Pat Garrett we know is as a bad-ass lawman, and for his killing of Billy the Kid. That really allowed me to portray him in my own way – because I was a younger Pat Garrett – and not exactly emulate him based on history, or other actors who have played him, so I really enjoyed that. I did find pictures of a young Pat Garrett and I seriously believe that man had that mustache even when he left the womb.

What was it like to work with Bill Oberst Jr., who plays Lincoln in the film?

Bill Oberst, Jr. is an amazing actor, person, and a friend. The first day of filming with Bill was the scene with Garret and Lincoln’s “walk & talk.” We rehearsed the scene outside the room we were to film in, and the moment we got done rehearsing, the first thing out of his mouth was a compliment of my acting abilities. I was really humbled by that moment and he went over a few tips that have helped his performances come across a lot stronger, which I immediately made note of. I enjoyed every day on set with Bill and really hope to work with him again in the future.

In a recent interview with Oberst, Jr., he explained his approach to the role, in that Lincoln, when performed correctly, is and always will be Lincoln. Whether Lincoln’s on the moon, or wherever else, an actor must approach him as if he is the real Lincoln finding himself in an outlandish situation. He said: “I used to tour with first-person stage portrayals; Jesus Of Nazareth, Mark Twain, JFK… sometimes I’d be in a gym; sometimes on a huge stage; sometimes in a community center. But if the character is present, the historical anomalies don’t matter.” For this film, the Lincoln that history has always held was plucked down into this situation and we’re observing how Lincoln would have responded—in this case, to the walking dead. Was this mindframe something you experienced yourself when working alongside Oberst, Jr., and was this also something that made its way into your own performance?

Bill brought an element to that performance that I feel rubbed off on all of the cast that he shared screen time with. I took it upon myself after Day 1, doing our scene together, to pick his brain and see what wisdom I could gain from him. I made sure not to allow any distractions cloud my performance as much as I could. I am a huge gamer so working on Lincoln vs. Zombies was like a new land, in an RPG, and I walked away with a few points to add to my "Skill Tree of Acting Abilities."

How did you and the cast/crew approach the film, knowing it had been largely inspired by the better-known Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which releases this month?

The cast bonded quickly and knew we wanted to achieve something different for this film. The ability to compete with a multi-million dollar film was just not possible with the budget we had, so we knew not to approach it as a competition. Instead, the approach I felt on set from the cast was a “co-existing” mentality with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It’s like a heavyweight and a middleweight within the world of fighting—those two should never fight each other; yet, they are both still fighters, so they treat each other with that type of co-existing respect. That is, in my opinion, how these two films should be looked at: we fight in the same ring and fight the same fight…we just don't fight each other. So, let’s not say one is better than the other, but let’s say they both put up a great fight and deserve respect.

What was your overall experience on the film?

I really enjoyed working this movie and believe that doors will open for all of us involved. I made some life-long friends off this set and met some people who were able to share wisdom that I plan to utilize as I move forward with my career.

Was there ever a moment on set where you just kind of took in all your surroundings and laughed to yourself at the kind of movie you were making? If so, what was it that you saw, or heard, or experienced that made you realize the oddball movie you were making? 

There was that moment, yes. I don't believe the scene made it into the final cut, but there was a scene being filmed where Lincoln beheads a child zombie, and at that moment I was like, "That just happened." Then a couple days after that, one of the couples playing some zombies had their one-year-old with them. They actually asked if they could make their baby a zombie and have it crawling after Lincoln. This all happened in the make-up room, which I was in, and [this idea] was being considered. In the back of my mind I formulated this zombie-baby crawling after Lincoln with a finger in its mouth. I believe the zombie baby idea was considered, but ultimately not used. I do think about how funny that would have been to see on film.

Would you consider yourself a fan of horror? If so, what are your favorites?

I am very much a fan of horror films. I always find myself watching a horror film frequently throughout the week right before I go to bed. Some of my favorites would have to be Insidious, Saw, Fire in the Sky, The Thing, Jaws, The Ring, and there are many more to go along with that list.

Are there any particular “new” horror filmmakers you’re especially enthusiastic about?

I am a fan of James Wan and the horror films he has made. I am a big fan of Insidious and Saw and what he did with those films. I think he is only getting better at his craft and would love to work with him some time.

I would agree. I think Insidious especially shows that James Wan is capable of providing genuine scares and creating genuinely creepy imagery – it’s so opposite of Saw, which was/is a very visceral and graphic experience. Another filmmaker with a similar agenda is Ti West. He’s a master at slow burn horror, a style that can sometimes turn off more the hardened, Saw-obsessed horror fan. Have you seen his previous films, The Innkeepers, or before that, House of the Devil?

I agree completely. I am all about the build up, as it really adds to the intensity one feels... not knowing when the scares are going to happen. I have not gotten a chance to see The Innkeepers yet, but I remember the trailer very clearly and that trailer freaked me out. Ti West did an amazing job scaring my ass with House of the Devil, so I am sure The Innkeepers will do the same. I know he was involved with The ABCs of Death, which is funny because I participated in a short film that was up for the competition for the letter T. Unfortunately we weren't selected, but was a fun time.

Horror comes in stages. There are always crazes that sustain the genre before the genre strangles it to death. Halloween gave us the slasher craze in the late 70s/ and most of the 80s; Scream gave us the self-aware, WB-starring, pop culture-quoting teens in the 90s; in the new millennium, Saw gave us what has been termed “torture porn,” and the remake craze seems to be finally be dying a slow death. We now seem to be in the very beginning stages of the “historical mash-up.” Do you think this is a stage that will last? If not, what do you think is next for the genre?

Hmm, that is a good question. I think the idea of an "Alternate History" is a great way for people to come up with various renditions of what could have happened. There are plenty of conspiracies out there and unexplained/undocumented time in our world's past, so the door is technically open for interpretation.

I can't put my finger on where I think the genre is moving, but I will say that films like Insidious, The Woman in Black, and I am sure The Innkeepers are showing the industry that we (the audience) can still be scared like they were during the Psycho, Jaws, and Alien days. We don't need all the gore and graphic violence. I think the real effect is when the viewer goes home from the theater and does the "not- look- into- the- room- but- move- their- hand- along- the- wall- to- find- the- light- switch" routine before entering the room. That's the real scare.

In a pre-Internet time twenty years ago, a mini studio like The Asylum would have great difficulty enjoying the kind of modest success it is currently enjoying. Do you think the Internet has changed the face of marketing low budget films? Where do you see the trend of small, grassroots marketing going into the future?

The Internet has, without a doubt, changed the face of marketing for filmmaking. The ability you have today to fund a film through sources like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, as well as promote your idea through Youtube, with the possibility of someone taking notice and wanting to put money into it…it’s phenomenal. I am a fan of the underdog, so when someone has the drive to make a film at a low budget and they are able to pull it off; well, you should, at the very least, applaud them for doing that.

How did you come to be involved in Lawless (formerly The Wettest County in the World)? Could you tell us about your role in the film?

Right before I was to work “Field of Vision,” I was speaking with my dad, getting some advice on what could I do to help myself before going into my first major role. He told me to find some work for any position, if I could, on a major motion picture that was filming in the area. When I saw that Lawless was looking for people – for crew and extras – I decided to send my stuff in to see what it would do. I got called in to work as Tom Hardy’s double, which was great because I was on set each day and able to watch the director, crew, and talent work. Also by working Lawless,  I was able to meet Patrick ‘P-Nut’ Monroe, who has become a very strong influence on my career/life and is like my other big brother.

What was your experience working with director John Hillcoat?

Working as Tom Hardy’s double put me in the same room as John Hillcoat the whole time I was on set. John Hillcoat is an amazing director and knows what he wants out of his scenes. His D.P., Benoit Delhomme, is his P.I.C (Partner In Crime) and they work very well together. Hillcoat would tell Benoit what he wanted, and Benoit would immediately come up with how to make it look beautiful on camera. It was probably one of the best parts of working on that film: watching the both of them work together.

Did you have much interaction with the primary cast?

I did, actually. There seems to be this “unwritten” rule of not talking to the cast while on set—at least that is what I was advised not to do. Now, being raised in a home like I was, there was no such thing as being “starstruck” to me, so when I was around the talent I talked to them; not much else to do when crew is setting up a shot. The cool thing was when they got to find out that I had just gotten done playing football at the University of Georgia, it opened up avenues of communication other than film talk, and knew I was just speaking to them as a normal human being. I felt like I had a very good standing with all of them: Shia LaBeouf is a real cool dude and very funny; his sense of humor is much like mine. Tom Hardy was laid back and easy to speak to, especially when it came to video games. Jason Clarke, who has a thick Australian accent, by the way, did an amazing Southern accent; it was fun to watch him perform. Jessica Chastain was one of the sweetest actresses I have met on a project; completely humble, super talented. She really loved her “Words with Friends” while on set. There was this one actor whose name I wasn’t familiar with at the time – Lew Temple – but once I got to know him while I saw him on set, [I found out] that man is one class act and an extremely down-to-earth guy. It was a pleasure getting to know him.

Did you have any interaction with the film’s screenwriter Nick Cave?

From what I remember, Nick Cave was on set for one of the days I was and he was playing a gangster who was all shot up in a vehicle. There wasn’t much interaction other than that.

What’s next for you?

Next I begin working on a new horror film, Plus One, directed by Dennis Iliadis (the Last House on the Left remake) this month. Ron Ogden, a good friend I made while working on Lincoln vs. Zombies, was also cast as one of the main roles. (That’s definitely going to be another fun time on set.) I have another film, which is about the most lawmen ever killed in the line of duty, with a leading role as Jennings Young, one of the cop killers. Then later this year I will be one of the leads in another horror film, about the spirit of a witch coming back to take her revenge on a town for her gruesome murder. There are some I can’t speak about yet, but once I am free to, I will share, and hopefully some more projects will be added to the rest of the year.

What would you consider your dream job as an actor?

I am a huge Punisher comic book fan, and if one day I got the opportunity to be Frank Castle, I would do it in a heartbeat. Other than that, every day on set is a dream come true.

If you found yourself surrounded by an army of the undead, would you want Lincoln by your side, or is there perhaps another former president who you think could kick some serious ass?

I think Lincoln would hold his own; that man could probably wrestle some of those zombies to death. Honestly, I would love to have Kennedy and Reagan. With their WWII experience and my zombie-video-game experience, we would decimate that zombie horde!

TEOS thanks Chris for his time. Fans can follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies is now on video from Asylum Films.

REVIEW: ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS. ZOMBIES

Someone fetch Lincoln his parcel. He’s got some ghoul heads to chop off.

Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies just might be the boldest move from The Asylum to date (though perhaps not as bold as their 9/11 movie, but, you know). The Asylum has received some pretty substantial hate over the years for their shameless direct-to-video rip-offs of big budget and theatrical horror remakes. (Depending on where the lawsuit stands, they may or may not currently have American Battleship on shelves while the “real” Battleship is currently sinking in theaters.) The Asylum’s defense of this tactic has always been that they were/are merely doing the same thing big Hollywood was doing – giving audiences a movie they’ve already seen, but with a similar sounding title.

Using that argument, there really is no excuse for Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies, their take on the bigger-budgeted Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer, hitting theaters soon. To rip off such an absurd concept and title…that goes above and beyond simply pointing and laughing at a major studio-produced remake. But so far they’ve somehow gotten away scot-free, and with this latest release they’ve added just one more film to their ever-growing archives. Their business model seems a successful one: their casts have gone from complete unknowns to recognizable actors who are either in on the joke or desperate for work.

With that said, Lincoln Vs. Zombies is the best film from The Asylum's hovering-somewhere-over-100-film archive. I’ve seen a lot of The Asylum’s films, and they’ve all left me in various levels of coma. But this one, however…it was pretty watchable. I don’t think I was left injured at all.

The title should more than clue you in what it's about, but the year is 1863, and we find Lincoln dealing not just with the confederacy, but a growing army of the undead. And he’s not the only one fighting the battle. Joining Lincoln are General Stonewall Jackson (leader of the confederate army), Pat Garret (infamous assassin of Billy the Kid) and even a very young and completely unnecessary Teddy Roosevelt, among others whose names the more learned of you should recognize.

When word reaches Lincoln that soldiers “infected” with some kind of disease are all over Fort Pulaski, eating faces and committing all sorts of zombtrocities, he dispatches a group of 12 men (with him at the helm) to visit the fort and see what’s the what. Well, they see what’s the what, all right. GHOULS. Wearing old-fashioned Civil War-era garb and huge bow ties.

As the 12 men begin to die off, one of them begins to doubt Lincoln’s tactics. He thinks the problem could be better taken care of. He’s an actor, you see…with a great big bushy mustache and a small, wooden Derringer. If you stayed awake for five minutes during your American history class, you can see where this is going.

Lincoln vs. Zombies is perfectly disposable entertainment. After seeing the promotional materials for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer (you know, the “real” Lincoln movie), I will say this: Bill Oberst Jr. plays a far more convincing Lincoln than that nine-year-old kid they found for the Tim Burton-produced film (although with The Asylum's proven relationship with genre legend Lance Henriksen, why the hell didn't they call him??). While he's forced to spit out some cheesy dialogue, his performance is rather straight forward and feels quite genuine. He approaches the "character" as if he were in a more legitimate project. It doesn't stray too far from all the other Lincolns we've seen over the years, but it shouldn't have to. Plus it’s genuinely fun seeing him lop off heads with his switchblade scythe, which impossibly fits into and disappears within the confines of his suit jacket as if we were in a cartoon. And I guess we are.

Some of LvsZ might make you groan. Even though the film’s concept is as subtle as a sledgehammer to a bucket of testicles, Lincoln handing young Roosevelt a shovel and telling him to “speak softly and carry a big stick,” or swinging a scythe at a ghoul head and bellowing “emancipate this!” is still obnoxiously on the nose. If your audience is groaning during a movie with this as your concept, you may have gone too far.

The zombie's make up effects are fairly simple, but effective. The gore effects are fun, if perhaps limited in scope. The gushing blood and flying heads are CGI, and there’s plenty of both.

The last act of the film is shot in the real Fort Pulaski, located in Savannah, and this touch of real history is appreciated, so I'll ignore the fact that the structure clearly showcases all two hundred of its years, and not the thirty it would have been at that time. And I can't say I blame them for not "touching up" any of their surroundings, as I'm sure such a thing would have been forbidden by the National Parks Service. It's a minor complaint, really, given the fort's beauty.

I will definitely say this: LvsZ doesn't end in a way that's indicative of the kind of film it is, or of the kinds of film The Asylum makes. In fact, it's a rather poignant ending that makes you look at the real-life assassination of Abraham Lincoln in a different way. It's certainly not the way I expected an otherwise silly and over-the-top film to end. I suppose there are folks out there who will lambaste the film's plot, calling it disrespectful to the memory of one of our country's greatest leaders, but the ending chosen allows Lincoln some dignity. Not bad for a movie that has something like 50 severed heads and some truly horrendous fake beards.

Sic semper Asylum.

But here is my main gripe:

Historical Figure + Monsters = a really cheap and stupid concept for a movie, regardless of who is producing it. I’m not in too big of a hurry to see the “real” Lincoln movie, but I will say this: its concept is so daringly stupid that it demands a certain kind of respect from the audience. Filmmakers rip off Halloween or Paranormal Activity over and over again, and no one (beyond their annoyance) can muster the enthusiasm to care. And they will continue to be ripped off from now until the end of time because their concepts are (now) very basic. But a former dead president re-imagined as an undead-killing vigilante, stupid as the concept may be, is "special," and as such it does feel a little cheap that it's been re-appropriated in a sort of "ha ha, we're first"-type move. (Although the more films out there bringing exposure to Abraham Lincoln, wildly inaccurate and ludicrous as they may be, the better. I say this because “these kids” today are so massively unaware that they thought Titanic was just a movie, and not based on something that actually happened, so here’s hoping they're aware Lincoln was, ya know, a real dude).

The Asylum’s films have been getting better…in terms of their production levels, cast, and even their ability to produce original (scream!) concepts. I hear they might even be prepping their first theatrical release.

If you're not familiar with The Asylum's repertoire, watch Lincoln vs. Zombies on streaming if you can, or make it a one-night rental from Redbox. If you consider yourself a fan of the mini (mini mini) studio, you'll have a good time with this one. It doesn't ask a lot of you, nor should you of it.

THE AMITYVILLE HAUNTING (2011)

Holy shit.

What's that expression? Something about putting a bunch of monkeys and typewriters into a locked room and eventually they'll write Shakespeare?

Sixty-five films in, the monkeys over at mini distributor The Asylum are still hurling turds.

The Amityville Haunting portrays, found-footagely, the Benson family moving into 112 Ocean Avenue. There's Doug (the angry Marine father), Virginia (professional wife and mother), Lori (the generic bitchy teen daughter who spends the entire movie texting), Tyler (the shaggy-haired middle child/our cameraman), and Melanie (the generic youngest daughter who communicates with the ghosts while simultaneously doing nothing to dispel the stereotype of the shitty child actor). They move in, last five days, test your patience, and then die. (Spoiler.)

For those of you who don't know about The Asylum, they are an ultra low-budget production and distribution house that primarily support the horror genre. They've been in the business for over ten years, and in that time, they've developed a reputation for producing "mockbusters," which are rip-offs of more popular—and generally better—mainstream films. And when I say rip-off, I don't mean that Apollo 18 is a rip-off of Paranormal Activity. I mean that in the same year Sony released Battle: Los Angeles and The Da Vinci Code, The Asylum released Battle IN Los Angeles and The Da Vinci Treasure. When Marvel Films released Thor, suddenly Almighty Thor existed.

The Asylum even produced a movie with this log line:  

A race of alien robots has conquered the Earth and forced humanity underground. After three hundred years of domination, a small group of humans develop a plan to defeat the mechanical invaders in the ultimate battle between man and machine. 

It is so very shamelessly called Transmorphers.

There are numerous other examples, but I believe you get the point. The Asylum have built a business from these "mockbusters," which began once they claimed to have grown disillusioned by Hollywood going creatively bankrupt and remaking every IP under the sun they either owned or licensed. While I can't say I disagree with that assessment, I will say one thing: creatively bankrupt remakes and reboots aside, those studios at least had legal ownership to make those movies in the first place. The Asylum, obviously, do not, which is why they've been sued a couple times but also not nearly enough. 

The Amityville Haunting was announced not too long after another, more legitimate project was announced called The Amityville Horror: The Lost Tapes. What was supposed to serve as a quasi-sequel to the 2005 Ryan Reynolds-starring Amityville Horror remake was put into turnaround soon after its initial announcement, I believe due to the then-financial woes of MGM. The Asylum snapped up this concept and shot their own version...and from the looks of things, in a single battery charge. Aping what was obviously going to be the concept, we have The Amityville Horror meets Paranormal Activity.

While it suffers from the same ailments that plague most low budget horror films (terrible acting, a terrible script, terrible pacing, and a rudimentary attempt to jazz up the execution in hopes to cover the bad odor of those three previous terrible things), I freely admit that I became genuinely freaked during the movie for reasons I'll get into later. No bullshit—that happened.

As previously mentioned, your host is unfortunately a very precocious child named Tyler. His camera-handling skills are about as adept as a dead man's ability to jazzercise. Numerous times during the film he defends his decision to film everything with the excuse, "It's for my documentary," with nary an explanation as to what his stupid fucking documentary could possibly be about besides the inside of his new house. He also says "I hate it when no one believes me!" at least three times to himself while padding around his stupid house in his stupid socks. Over the course of five days, he never changes his clothes. Not a single time.

"I'm gonna mumble about ghosts for thirty minutes while
someone plays video games loudly in the background and my
mother makes dinner. Then I'm gonna put this on Youtube and
people are gonna care for some reason and turn me into a millionaire."

When the Benson family first tours the Amityville house and decide to buy it, the realtor goes outside and is immediately killed. Man, I knew the current real estate market was hurting, but I didn't think it was full-on murder!

Click me!

Tyler tells us the realtor has died of an "anerism," but still, "it's really weird!" Later, he overhears a conversation between the parents about the house's history—namely the 1974 DeFeo murders that started this whole mess in the first place—and decides the house must be haunted. While tempting to commend the filmmakers for setting this film outside of the Amityville universe we all know and loathe, meaning the eight films, and having it be "the real house" in which the DeFeo murders took place, you'll soon realize that a legal loophole allowed them to make this movie since it's based on an historical event (and hence, not trademarked) without having their asses sued off by franchise-owner MGM. I should also mention that the house where the movie takes place is clearly nowhere near the same shape, size, or in the same location as the “real” Amityville house.

The Amityville Haunting goes to great lengths to establish that much horror has occurred at 112 Ocean Avenue, first in the form of a nervous realtor and later a suspicious detective who later shows up and really wants to know why the hell the family would choose to live in such a terrible house. Despite this, when Tyler asks three moving men in the beginning of the film about the "Amityville house" and its legend, the three men laugh, never having heard of such a thing. The black mover even makes a joke about black people dying first in horror movies. One of the other movers responds, "You better watch out, then!" even though the black guy just made the same goddamn joke.

The Amityville Haunting desperately tries to ape the Paranormal Activity formula while failing miserably. Paranormal Activity features escalating levels of creep and leads to a final-act death of a lead character. It's a subtle film that takes its time, and effectively so. The Amityville Haunting, however, kills six people within the first fifteen minutes (one of whom is enigmatically named Reddit), and yet you still manage to stop caring about anything happening in the film almost immediately. 

Many of the events are excruciatingly dull, and those that aren't manage to be interesting only because of the pedestrian manner in which they are executed. At no point do the ghosts look like actual ghosts, but rather bored actors in thrift store suits with a splash of blood across their faces. The one ghost that Melanie interacts with the entire movie, whose name alternates between John Matthews and John Matthew, is just some random kid who sits on the floor, or at the table, and wears very modern clothes. No blood—not even white powder slapped across his face to make him appear the least bit unnatural. He's just...some kid.

Realtor, this is one of my annoying children.

And that's my other annoying child, but in boy form.

Based on how the characters interact, I can only assume a very loose script was used, allowing actors to bounce dialogue off each other and improvise in the moment—and by this I mean they randomly speak over each other's lines so most of the dialogue never sounds genuine.

For instance:

Mother: (pointing out son who is filming) Don't mind him, he thinks he's the next Steven Spielberg. He films everything.

Realtor: Oh, don't we all?

My personal favorite exchange comes during the second act when the father discovers his teen daughter, Lori, has been sneaking out late at night to see a boy from the neighborhood. Sitting at the table with a police officer, this masterful wordplay ensues:

Father: My daughter has been sneaking out with...this kid.

Cop: I bet it was that kid!

- "It was that kid, right?"
- "It was that kid!"
- "That fucking kid!"
- "That...fucking...kid."

At one point, Tyler has Melanie ask the ghost what it wants. The ghost then tells Melanie, who tells her brother, "he wants you, Mommy, and Daddy to leave, and he wants me to stay here forever." Quite a burn for Lori, who is apparently destined for neither leaving the house, nor staying. Have you ever tried being nowhere? It's really hard.

As you can imagine, the scary events in the house escalate, leading to a terrifying conclusion. Now see, I said "you can imagine" because you'd have to, as that doesn't actually happen here. Things remain painfully dull up until the last second, in which each family member is murdered in completely unimaginative (and off-screen) ways.

The movie ends with close-ups of "coroner's investigation reports" for each family member killed. An official cause of death for one of the family members reads: heart and lung “separtion."

Foolishly, I really wanted to give The Asylum the benefit of the doubt. First of all, at the end of the day, they manage to make movies. That's something most of us wish we could do, and for those of us that have, we know it's not a terribly easy thing to accomplish. Not to mention that The Asylum's usual budgets are never that big, which doesn't make things easier for them. Regardless, they sometimes manage to attract people worth a damn (Lance Henriksen, for instance). I was hoping that the ability for them to spend even less on a movie by making a found footage flick would, in turn, allow them to focus more on the script and telling a good story. Sadly, I was wrong. Not only is the movie incompetently made in almost every general sense, I am really starting to feel like we’re all being had. I feel contempt from these filmmakers. I feel like they are laughing at us all in some Andy Kauffman-esque way. Why won’t they try? Why won’t they attempt to make something that’s good? Just by odds alone, that should have happened by now.

Oh, right. The thing I mentioned earlier that completely freaked me out? During the movie, I went into the other room and one of my flameless LED candles had turned on by itself!

How did it DO that??

Terrible.

FILTERED REALITY

Found footage movies, especially in the horror genre, are very polarizing to both general movie audiences and the hardcore genre niche as well. Some people love the format (I’m one of them), and others hate it—and for a variety of reasons. Some cite the shaky nature of the camera as too nauseating to endure; others find the (sometimes) lack of a tangible and visible antagonist boring and anticlimactic (though these are actually the people who long ago abandoned the concept of using their own imagination).

My favorite argument: the filmmakers go through the trouble of making it look real, but we all know it’s not real, because it’s a movie.

Seriously?

I recall going to see The Blair Witch Project in theaters, and the crowd was quiet the entire running time, which in this day and age is almost unheard of. No one at my screening, at the film's conclusion, walked out complaining—in fact, everyone walked out quietly, as if in a daze. It was a movie I would end up loving and revisiting several times at home, along with the equally creepy and interesting Curse of the Blair Witch, a fake television special/documentary created to enhance the myth which established the foundation of the The Blair Witch Project.

And then it happened.

The inevitable.

The backlash.

The first people out of the theater doors (and probably well aware of the marketing approach) proclaimed The Blair Witch Project to be terrifying and utterly realistic. "The scariest movie since The Exorcist!" the TV spots would boast.

People, being people, reacted in the way that people do: if someone tells you something is scary, you must not only see it, but prove them wrong. "That wasn't scary! It was stupid! You don't know me! You don't know what scares me! Because NOTHING can!"

The last thing we as people like to be is predictable. This extends to every facet of our life—up to and including film as a medium.

And so we return to that one generic complaint people have about found footage movies in general: the common knowledge that what they are seeing isn't real, despite the filmmakers breaking their backs for their films to appear as such.

When The Blair Witch Project first came out, the Internet was booming—and not just for nerds in garages, but for regular, blue-collar folks like you and me. The Internet hoax was yet to be realized...until a brilliant marketing strategy from now-defunct Artisan Entertainment, the mini-studio that would go on to release the film.

Their marketing? 

Everything in The Blair Witch Project was 100% real. And those kids in the film? They weren't actors, but real students. And up to that time, they were still missing. At that point, everyone had visited the Blair Witch website, which unbeknownst to them, was secretly promoting the film, all the while seeming to instead serve as a sounding board for the missing students' heartsick parents. We all remember the photos of Heather's mom hanging up "missing" photos. We all saw the testimonies from the students' friends and families begging anyone with information to come forward.

And most people bought it like the suckers they are.

I didn't, however; and not because of my supreme intelligence or superiority over the hoi polloi, but because of my basic concept of common sense and my love for Fangoria Magazine. Yes, I knew walking into that theater that the movie was fake—yet I still managed to adore the film.

So why didn't people feel the same way?  Why—once the cast started making the rounds, and they each appeared on the covers for both Time and Newsweek, and Heather suddenly showed up on Jay Leno—did audiences suddenly feel cheated?

"We thought it was real!" they cried. "If it never happened, it's stupid!"

The irony that they had bought the lie and thought the movie was real—the intention behind Artisan's marketing—was lost, not to mention dripping with the subtle and creepy inference that audiences were disappointed to learn those kids in the film were actually quite alive and well. Audiences wanted them dead...strewn about in bloody bits and turned into witch hats. Especially Heather.

And since then, found footage movies have received lukewarm receptions by movie goers. Whatever steam had been established, up to the release of The Blair Witch Project, had suddenly dissipated.

None of it was real, you see. And that sucked.

But almost ten years later came a rebirth of the sub-genre, thanks to the recent success of Cloverfield and The Last Exorcism, movies which proved that money is to be made, and critics are to be wowed.

And so the found footage is back in a big way.

As I write this, there are more than 30 found footage movies (and probably more, considering my half-hearted Google attempt) either in production or waiting to be released. They range from low budget indies with casts of unknowns to crews of A-list talent (and Barry Levinson). Some of these films have already enjoyed film festival screenings, or await major wide releases, but regardless, they're coming. 

Break out the Dramamine.