It's hard to believe that Zombieland is nearly four years old. At the time of the film's release I thought it felt a lot like a movie that would grow a cult following, and these days I feel like it's almost underrated in the realm of horror comedies. Cruel irony has humanity still ruling the Earth while the lead character's beloved Twinkies have gone extinct, but the movie still holds up surprisingly well thanks to a smart script and one heck of a cast.
Since its release two of the four primary cast members - Jesse Eisenberg and Emma Stone - have gone on to bigger and better things (by my estimation, Stone will make that Anne Hathaway-ish leap to critical darling within the next two years and Eisenberg still has miles left on his tires, especially if he stays in David Fincher's good graces), while Woody Harrelson continues to be Woody Harrelson and Abigail Breslin looks like she just might survive the transition from child star to legitimate young actress. The film had a perfect storm of a cast, and the stars seemed to mesh perfectly with director Ruben Fleischer who, surprisingly to me, has been at the helm of a couple of duds (30 Minutes or Less and Gangster Squad) since this one.
With the cast drawing so much attention and Fleischer getting a lot of credit for his work, Zombieland writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick were the relatively unsung heroes of the hit film. And here they are, four years later, milking the premise into an online pilot for Zombieland: The Series. Presented by Amazon as part of their attempt to bring original shows to their always expanding website, Zombieland now exists as the template for an R-rated, thirty-minute-long sitcom.
The premise picks up where the film left off, if not in plot then at least in tone. The same four lead characters are back, but they're played by a relatively unknown cast who do their best to mimic the famous folks they're replacing. This is probably the biggest struggle for a fan of the film like me, because - in case you didn't notice - that cast was sooooooo bloody perfect. It's kind of like that time when I wanted to go see the local theater troupe do Arsenic and Old Lace, until I realized that Cary Grant and Raymond Massey (or, better yet, Boris Karloff!) wouldn't be walking through that door.
That said, this cast isn't bad entirely. Kirk Ward has a young Rick Ducommon thing (and I mean that in the nicest way) going on as he fills the Woody role, while Maiara Walsh and Izabela Vidovic serviceable in the female roles. My biggest quibble is with Tyler Ross filling in for Eisenberg, because a) his tone seems a little too annoying, even in an already annoying role, and b) he seems to have taken the character in a more socially awkward direction than Eiseneberg did. Maybe this is what the writers wanted all along - it's their barbecue, they can flavor it however they like - but it's off-putting to a fan of the film.
The biggest concern with the show, from where I sit is I'm just not sure it can keep its legs under it. Despite all its charms, the film was a bit of a one-trick pony and I'm not sure the sarcastic and self-referential script would have worked without the cast and the film's manic pace. Watching a 29 minute introduction to the characters doesn't give me anything more than a feeling of "Oh wow, they're really milking those 'rules' for all they're worth and really hammering us over the head with blatant comedy." I guess that's what sitcoms do, but it still left me with little reason to come back to the show. There's no hook that grabs your interest, just the promise of more senseless violence and inappropriate jokes.
If you really want more of Zombieland, I guess the show might tickle your fancy. It's hard to draw a conclusion from one episode, but I can't really see the point of watching this when the movie's already out there.
Thankfully, you can decide for yourself if you like. The pilot is available for free viewing on Amazon, where they're taking feedback regarding which of several pilots they should produce. Take a look for yourself, if you dare. And keep your copy of the movie on hand, because you'll probably feel like watching it instead by the time Episode Two premieres.
Once I got through the books that my parents gave me to test my awesomeness, I was ready for the real gift to children of the '80s and '90s - the television. And though most of my youth was spent with a combination of Transformers/G.I. Joe/Masters of the Universe/Thundercats/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (OMG, there were so many awesome things!) on the tele, there were a few things scattered into the mix that helped push me toward my budding affection for the dark and dreary side of entertainment.
Like the books I listed in Volume One, these are some pretty common picks for folks my age - but that doesn't mean they didn't pack a lot of punch for little The Mike. So let's take a look.
Most kids love Scooby Doo (I do too) and loathe the many knock-offs of the show that occurred later in Scooby's run. I agree with most of them - because, let's face it, NO ONE EVER liked Scrappy or that weird white version of Scooby with the goatee - but yet there was something about A Pup Named Scooby Doo that just enamored The Mike from day one. I guess it's kind of the Army of Darkness to the original Scooby's Evil Dead. And I'm OK with that.
Perhaps the thing that made me laugh most about A Pup Named Scooby Doo - and I did laugh at it often, still do on occasion - is the ridiculous monsters put forth on screen. I'm not saying they were great, but I still love to draw my version of the "Totem Pole Monster" (which is LITERALLY the only thing I know how to draw) and can still sing the "Cheese Monster" song. (Because any song with the lyrics "Mozzarella...nasty fella....here comes the Chhhhhheeeeeeeesssssseeee monster!" is worth singing.) Was it a cheesy show? Absolutely, and literally at times. Did they introduce a character named Red Herring who was always accused but was only once the monster? Yes they did. Did it make little me smile and make me want to watch more monster mysteries? You betcha.
Disney's DTV Monster Hits
This thing was something special.
A one-time-only presentation that aired sometime in October of 1987, this one hour (with commercials) special featured Jeffrey "Mr. Rooney" Jones as the magic mirror on the wall that hosted a collection of animated music videos featuring some awesome music and plenty of Disney's favorite characters. There was Michael Jackson's Thriller, Monster Mash, Ghostbusters, and plenty of other great tunes. Even today, I still picture images from this special whenever I hear Stevie Wonder's Superstition or the Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams - which was definitely the most bizarre and engrossing segment of the show.
Luckily for little me, my grandmother happened to tape this special when it aired, which means I watched it as many times as I could when I was at her house. Sure, I could have watched any of the other videos she had - and there was one that I'll cover when we get to movies later this month - but this was the "scary" movie of the bunch. So I sat, and I stared at the old Disney images, which had been matched up perfectly with pop music - and I loved every second of it.
And, like all good things, you can now watch it on You Tube. Ain't life grand?
Count Floyd
Horror hosts were a big deal a lot of places in the '80s, but little The Mike didn't get to see a lot of them. I certainly knew who Elvira was, mostly because her breasts face were all over the place, but I never was up late enough to see her show. No, the first horror host I really knew was the undeniable Count Floyd - and I'm still pretty excited to have viewed him.
Though the character originated on the sketch comedy bonanza SCTV, my experience with Count Floyd was due to Joe Flaherty's appearances on the animated spin-off The Completely Mental Misadventures of Ed Grimley. On most episodes, Count Floyd would promise a "real scary story", though his show-within-a-show never seemed to turn out the way he wanted it too. Count Floyd didn't necessarily teach me anything about horror - but it's another one of those things that kept horror in my mind and made me smile.
OK, now we're getting to the real stuff.
What, you're telling me a Nickelodeon show isn't the "real stuff" when it comes to horror? Boy, you're missing out.
It was a much simpler time in my life when SNICK was destination television for The Mike and family. There was Ren and Stimpy that got me in the door, but then there was Are You Afraid of the Dark. And this show, to those of us where were 9-11 years old, was basically The Twilight Zone with awesome early '90s kids telling the stories.
Unfortunately, Are You Afraid of the Dark has been a hard show to find on home video, so my memory of the show is pretty bare at this point. But I remember the excitement, mostly that joyous feeling that seemed to run through the house every Saturday night as we sat down to watch the horror show that was completely OK for us to watch. I'm not sure that I've been that excited about a TV show since then.
I don't think I'm overstating myself when I say that Unsolved Mysteries might have had the biggest impact on my sense of wonder than anything else I watched as a child. If you don't believe me, talk to the counselor that I had to talk to after I emphatically claimed I saw a UFO at a high school football game. In retrospect, I may have been a spaz. But I was not afraid to believe.
And so it came to pass that I hid out in my childhood bedroom with a 13 inch black-and-white TV, listening to Robert Stack tell me about terrible true stories and fantastic tales from people that belonged in looney bins. I was in awe of this show, and I - because I was about 8 or 9 years old when I started devouring every episode - kind of let myself believe everything I saw. Seriously, I think this show is about 90% responsible for how insane I am now. And I kind of love that about it. Robert Stack, you complete me.
Tales From The Crypt
Like Stephen King was in my post on books, this was kind of my graduation from being a kid with horror. My parents might not know it, but I was up way later than they thought on most Saturday nights during my teenage years. But unlike others in the family - *cough*my sister*cough* - I wasn't out partying and missing curfew. I was laying in bed and watching syndicated episodes of Tales from its first few seasons on network television.
By the time I got around to Tales From the Crypt I had already seen a lot of horror cinema - more on that next week - but there was something about the Cryptkeeper that made me feel like an official horror freak every time I watched Tales. Did I still change the channel every time he unleashed his blood-curdling laugh in the opening? Well....I'm going to plead the fifth on that one. I'm not going to tell you that I was a giant scaredy cat who was tucked safely under the covers with his feet nowhere near the edge of the bed. That would be too much incriminating information. I'm not saying it.
But it might have happened. ---------------------------------------------------------
Television played a big part in leading me to horror, even if there was a heavy dose of comedy and plenty of cheese involved. It wasn't the biggest piece of my horror fandom, but these shows definitely filled some of the gaps and reminded me how much I loved the spooky and macabre in my entertainment. But movies were always where I felt horror lived....which means we can talk about them next week.
As always, join in the comments and let me know what kind of TV shows inspired your love of horror. Next week I'll talk more about my horror birth via movies. I promise you'll be a little surprised by what you learn. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm watching some Are You Afraid of the Dark.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Buffy The Vampire Slayer the movie because a) I love it, and b) I was watching a bunch of it. And that's pretty much where I'm still at. I think I'm in "I'm late to the party so I better hurry up and get as much partying in as I can before some drunk person makes everything awkward and things crash to an uncomfortable halt" mode. I was about halfway through Season Three when I did that, and I had things to say that were kind of like this...
After powerhousing through the vastly improved season two (and now about
half of season three) in recent weeks, I've certainly changed my
position on television's Buffy. I still struggle with some of the
characters and it seems like there are more episodes where Buffy slays
non-vampires than vampires, but it's got the same balance between goofy
fun and serious drama (that refuses to be affected by an outlandish
premise) that I've come to expect from the other things I've seen from
Whedon. Sometimes I think that the way to tell if a TV show is great is
to see whether or not you will continue to be addicted to the show when
you wish the writers would change the characters' decisions or
relationships. For example, when you have to deal with Casey and Dana
never working out on Sports Night or when Veronica Mars
continues to choose the stupidest boyfriends ever (and manages to get
roofied approximately 27 times) - but you stick with them anyway. The
Buffy Show passes that test with flying colors, because there are so
many moments - particularly so far in season three - where I find myself
thinking "Oh Buffy! What you doin' girl?!" or "Man, Xander just needs
to never open his mouth again!". I think these things, but I'm still
desperate to see where the show goes next and am already ready to
forgive the characters as soon as they do something to totally redeem
themselves.
Seriously, I wrote all of that in a review of something that wasn't what I was talking about...and now I have more to say. I'm almost done with Season Five of Buffy and Season Two of Angel - and boy, do I have things to say about Angel - so here's the first Midnight Top Five I've put together in a long while. It might even end up with a Part 2 some day.
Top Five Things I've Learned From Buffy and Angel
It's OK for the Hero to NOT be Super Perfect
When Kristy Swanson was Buffy (which I will henceforth refer to as "Buffy 1.0"), the character was a flawed hero. But she wasn't a serious flawed hero, she was comically flawed. It was all "Oh ha! She cares too much about her hair and says what if!" imperfections, and the movie worked as a comedy because of it. But the question I had as I dove into more Buffy - I still have next to no memory of Season 1, which might say something about Season 1 - I kept asking myself how a "serious" take on the teenage girl turned slayer could work while keeping Buffy acting like a "Buffy". (Is there an Urban Dictionary definition for a Buffy? I probably don't want to know if there is, but to me the name - pre-Slayer - equates to aloofness.)
Sarah Michelle Gellar's "Buffy 2.0" definitely lacks the "Valley Girl" tendencies of her predecessor. Sure, there are passing references to her shopping days and that weird moment when she wants to be Homecoming Queen, but this version of the Buffster is much smarter, darker, and more emotional than her precursor. And yet, she remains decidedly imperfect.
The catch is that this Buffy, like I alluded to in the quoted article, makes some really dumb decisions. I don't mean this in the "horror movie character running up the stairs or dropping the knife" sense of dumb, I mean this in an interpersonal sense of dumb. The thing is, this show is almost entirely about the interactions between the characters, and almost all of them are allowed to make plenty of mistakes by the writers. We've got couples who cheat on each other, secrets being kept, and hidden powers, and no one on the show seems to be less-than-truthful more often Than Buffy.
When I commented that I sometimes wished the characters would change their decisions or relationships, I was thinking particularly of Buffy. There are so many moments when I find myself looking at the screen and thinking 'Dammit Buffy, you're messing everything up again and being totally selfish" - like that time when she spent half a season obsessed with sexing a doofus or that time when she completely ignored Giles forever - and yet I recognize that her errors are incredibly human ones. When I made an off-hand comment about Buffy's selfishness one time, I was immediately redirected that "she's earned" the chance to make some mistakes. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - there are times when she still lacks decency - but the show goes a long way to allow her flaws to be a part of the character arc. It's really fantastic to see a show give a heroic character so many inadequacies.
You Don't Have To Follow Monster Stereotypes
As a horror addict, it's easy to become a purist. One of the things we struggle with the most is when someone changes the mythology or look or actions of one of our precious monsters. Buffy and Angel balance on a fine line in this regard, using the "Chinese buffet" strategy with horror mythology- they take what they want and leave the rest.
For example, vampire staples are present throughout the Buffyverse. Vamps can't enter homes without permission (and MAN, they use this as often as they can), wooden stakes through the heart kill them, and - obviously - they drink blood and can turn others into vampires. But these vamps take on a lot of new forms, most notably the crinkled brow form as shown above, and the shows rarely feel like they're borrowing from things we've seen before.
The "other" creatures - ranging from demons to ghosts to werewolves and more - that we encounter in the land of Buffy and Angel also seem to have new twists on old formulas. There are still moments that make me cringe - the first werewolf transformation we see had me muttering 'Well, we all can't be Rick Baker" sarcastically - but both shows manage to keep things fresh by peppering in different takes on common monsters as they need to. One fantastic example is "Adam", who takes on a lead role in Season 4, a
sort of Frankenstein with a deep, yet reasonable voice, and a very
unique look and skill set. Despite the floppy disk drive - one of the
rare things that really shows the series' age - he's a neat twist on
horror standards.
That Spike Character is Really Quite Something
Considering the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer seemed to exist as one of those teenage girl shows when it came out - one could argue that it had the exact same intentions as Twilight with none of the terrible incompetence - and I was a teenage boy when the show came out, a character who looked like Spike was part of the reason I didn't watch the show at time. There was football to be played and nacho cheese to be eaten, and I was just not going to go out of my way to watch a show about a teenage girl (even if it is a teenage girl I had a MAJOR teenage crush on) be wooed by vampires with bleached hair in leather jackets. Yes, that's more the fault of the other guy I'm getting ready to talk about, but Spike's image seemed to sell the fact that Buffy was not for me to that younger and more "we must beat our chests and watch large men fight while being manly" than I am now.
But now that I'm an adult, it's come to my attention that Spike is the best thing about whichever show he's on 97% of the time. James Marsters brings so much to the show every time he shows up, and I actually find myself rooting for more Spike every time I turn on Buffy. The chip - an incredibly contrived idea that the writers continue to run with - was seriously the best thing to happen to Spike, because the writers suddenly have the ability to put the character into a crossover role that exists somewhere between being in the "Scooby Gang" and being the "Big Bad". Spike is one of the more fluid television characters I know of, and the comedic stylings of Marsters - which start with the disconnect between his British accent and his stupid blonde hair - help make Spike completely entertaining in his role.
Now About That Angel Character...
I find Spike entertaining because of the freedom that his character is allowed. Angel, on the other hand, is a character that I find completely fascinating because of his character's arc. I started watching Angel - the show - as an afterthought, because I really didn't care that much about Angel - the character - while he was a love interest for Buffy. There were moments when I was really in to the character (most of which seemed to occur while he was in vampire mode) during his Buffy run, but the whole dynamic between Buffy and him seriously derailed the show sometimes. I think that was probably intentional and probably what I was supposed to care about, but I often found myself in "stop with the Romeo and Juliet and get back to fighting demons and showing off Eliza Dushku's hotness" mode instead.
When the switch to Angel the show happened, however, I was surprised to find myself completely trapped in his spin-off show. David Boreanaz, like Marsters, shows the most range of anyone in the cast. He plays both sides of the equation well: his uncomfortable good guy is humorous and relatable, while his vampiric bad side is imposing and effective. The good guy side is part of what really drew me in to season one of Angel - basically, Boreanaz is allowed to be an introvert superhero, something introverts like me can definitely smile at - and the twists with his character so far in season two - including a fantastic moment where he is thought to be "something different" by his opponents - do a lot for the show. Buffy still seems like the more complete show so far - the "family" relationships between the characters elevate it to a special place - but I've found myself incredibly interested in most episodes of Angel thus far.
(Not one of the Five things, but I'd be a fool to not mention how much Charisma Carpenter's Cordelia brings to each show as well. She has gone from vain gal to comic relief to soul-of-the-show thus far, and I've really enjoyed what I thought was first a throwaway high school stereotype character. It's safe to say that the three characters that really draw me in to these shows - Spike, Angel, and Cordelia - are the three who have kept me most interested in their changing paths through their journey.)
By The Way...You Don't Need a R Rating to do Horror
I already knew this, but it bears repeating. You simply do not need to be a gory, nudity-filled, and foul-mouthed thing to be an effective piece of horror. Both Buffy and Angel are simply TV-14 - the television equivalent of PG-13 that's one louder - but they manage to be decidedly adult with their themes at times. Buffy has lots of sexual scenes (many of which feed into that title character's flaws) that push the boundaries of what can be shown on TV, while the writing of Joss Whedon and pals always seems to find inventive ways to hurl insults and exclaim curses without actually using curse words.
And then there's the violence. Sure, the shows both needed to cut a few corners to stay on network television, but they manage to show the things they need to show. Blood flows from wounds often and dismemberments are a common theme. There are some subtle and fantastic effects - one character in season two of Angel shows off an awesomely floppy neck wound that reminds me of Griffin Dunne in An American Werewolf in London. And - most impressive to me - there's a kill near the end of season two of Buffy that is one of the coolest and most memorable I've ever seen. The camera actually cuts back from the brisk moment of vampire violence (if you've seen the show, you might have guessed I'm talking about the moment pictured above - especially since I posted the picture), but the moment is presented beautifully. The movement of the actors, the lighting, the sound effects and music - all of it just comes together brilliantly. This is a completely perfect horror kill - it's abrupt and shocking, even though we can see it coming - and it doesn't bother with blood or a close up of the damage. It doesn't have to show us these things directly, because we're emotionally invested in the moment and don't even need the details. More horror tales should follow its lead.
Obligatory image of evil Willow.
I could probably go on and on about things I've dug in these shows so far. But I'll let you add to the discussion instead. In case you're a vampire, I'll make it clear - I invite you to hit up the comments below and talk to me about your Buffy/Angel experiences.
While you do that....I'm gonna go finish up season five of Buffy. See you next time Midnight Warriors!
Oh, and I for some reason seriously love the Angel theme. Am I emo now? Does this make me emo?
If you have questions or suggestions not regarding a specific review, or would like to recommend a movie to The Mike, feel free to email him at frommidnightwithlove(at)gmail(dot)com!
Also, please leave feedback at the bottom of reviews by checking one of the boxes, or by leaving a comment! Any feedback that can help improve the site or reviews is much appreciated!
Posts
