Saturday, November 30, 2013

The New 52: Part One What Doesn't Work or The Man of Tomorrow Today


     Clark Kent stares out the window of the Daily Planet.  The paper he has devoted his life to is a thing of the past.  This new world has made the newspaper business obsolete.  We have turned to blogs, TV, and the internet for our news and information.  No one plops down a hard earned quarter or fifty cents for a copy.  He must look elsewhere now to ply his trade.  The good thing is Mr. Kent has a double life.

    Superman can still took to the air and fight crime.   He is a boy scout of the highest degree.  He will not kill, he will not break the law, he will live by a moral code embedded into him by his Earth parents the Kents.  Superman strives to be the best of humanity. The thing we all should be.  He is generous, kind, and never cruel.  He uses his powers for good and never truly toward his own selfish needs.  He is in all words the Man of Steel.

    Yet even in this he finds himself to be left behind.  Every one is no longer colored in black and whites anymore.  The shade of gray covers us all now.  Heroes are finding themselves morally challenged and subcumbing to their darker selves.  No one believes in his silly old mantra of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  He shouldn’t believe steadfastly in anything, he should challenge every thought.  This isn’t who he is, he is in all sense The Man of Steel.

    He stares out the window down on the street.  He sees the spot where the creature
killed him or so thought.  He thinks back on that day and his eventual resurrection.  He smiles as he thinks about this.  No one kill the Man of Steel.  In this he is correct no one can kill him.  One man however can kill in the things that he believes makes him the Man of Steel.  That man is Grant Morrison.  This is the world of The New 52.

    The New 52 has been in print for two years now.  Superman has been under the direction of this man Grant Morrison.  He only writes one of the titles in the Son of Krypton’s universe (Action Comics) but all other titles must reflect his.  So, he is in a way as the showrunner of the Superman universe.  

     Mr. Morrison has been writing comics for many years now.  He is not in any way a bad comic book writer.  I thoroughly enjoyed his work on The New X-Men for Marvel.  He also had a good little collection of Batman comics.  (This was of course before he sent Bruce Wayne time travelling)  Morrison has been knee deep in some far out ideas.  Most are played out for some good comics.  In some ways they have played for some pretty crappy comics.  This is most apparent on his New 52 run of Superman.


    The problems start for me in the character of Clark Kent.  Clark is the mask that Superman wears.  Clark in the past is always presented as clumsy but overall decent.  He is a man of impeccable character.  This however is quite different in the Grant Morrison version.  Here, he is brattish and self centered.  He treats people pretty shabbily.  He doesn’t lord over them, just sends out an air of superiority.  Clark reminds me of a whiny James Dean from Rebel Without a Cause.  I keep expecting him to shout, “you’re tearing me apart".  Clark doesn’t always do the right thing anymore.  He seems to have no moral compass.  I guess you could say that Morrison is showing his growing pains.  This however does not mean he has to be a total dick.  

     So, if Clark is an attitude prone jerk what does that mean for Superman.  He’s not much different at all really.  Again, Morrison kills the persona of the Superman we have come to love.  He seems to be fight crime out of boredom.  He doesn’t seem to have the sense of right taught to him not only by Pa Kent but by his own Father Jor-el.  As I said before this Superman only seems to care for himself.  

     I won’t complain about the artwork of Rags Morales.  He is a truly exceptional artist.  I think Superman art wise has never been better.  The things he has been asked to draw are the ugly part.  I’m not talking about the uniform.  The uniform is stupid make no mistake.  Not because it’s not the original it’s because it seems all the uniforms in the DC universe have to be similar now.  None of them can have the shorts and seem to resemble battle armor more than costumes.  Superman is the last hombre in need of armor.  When Supes starts out he does only wear jeans and a T-shirt.  Hell, in fact he pretty much wears the same thing when he’s Clark.  The only difference is he doesn’t have a big S on his shirt.

     Where things have gone wrong is they’re trying to make Superman be more in tune with the world.  This is a giant mistake.  Superman has always been more of a symbol than anything.  He is there to show us how good we can all be.   The Man of Steel strives to be good in all things.  He would never lower himself to the acts of a villain.  He would never kill a human being or any alien for that matter.  He will use violence to stop evil but never destroy the perpetrator of it.

      DC  is afraid that we won’t understand or find him lame.  This could not be any more false.  We love Superman because he so whole these truths to be dear.  He is a man of principle and has a true north on his moral compass.  The other heroes always made fun of him for his beliefs.  That did not change who the man was.  He wasn’t going to change because he was thought to be uncool.  That was who he was raised to be.  Ma and Pa Kent weren’t perfect but they were good souls.  They helped implant these morals into him.  The problem isn’t that Superman is out of date it’s that we are losing what makes us good.  Superman shouldn’t reflect us, he should be the bar we set ourselves to.
     Now in the scheme in relation to other comics has been atrocious.  The editors of the Superman universe relied on Morrison in the beginning.  He would set the tone and history that the other writers would follow.  George Perez a titan of the industry was the writer and artist of the Superman comic.  He was regularly coming against deadlines because he didn’t know what was going on.  He would ask the editors if he could use Ma or Pa Kent or were they dead.  They could not answer these quandaries because Morrison had not told them.  This became a regular problem and soon he just resigned.  Perez is known the industry as a gentleman and true professional.  If he can’t possibly be bothered with answers to important issues than who can be.

      Morrison himself left the comic after nineteen issues.  He was supposed to be replace by Andy Diggle.  Diggle is probably best known for his series The Losers.  He wrote one issue of Action Comics and then quit.  He will be replaced by Scott Lobdell.  This issue of writers and artists either being fired or quitting plagues the whole 52 universe.  Clark and Superman have paid the price dearly though.

      So, in summation what are the problems.  Grant Morrison being tight lipped and not sharing his plans.  Plans that affect how every other Superman universe comic is affected.  Editors who do not know how to treat their talent.  They have the worst turnaround that I have seen in years.  They’ve even gone as far to fire Gail Simone and rehire her the next day to fan outcry.

        The biggest problem though is Superman is more like us.  He is a spoiled brat.  He is a mightier than thou asshole.  He is immature.  He is just not Superman.  He is our shining reflection.  I miss the Superman I grew up with.  I know kids growing up now won’t care because this Superman will be their Superman.  He isn’t for me and my generation anymore I guess.  He should be for every generation .  We shouldn’t look at Superman and see who we are but who we should be.  I’m an old man who’s slowly seeing the world he knows change.  I can accept it, it’s the way it should be.  I’ll just say I’ll always believe in Truth, Justice and the American Way.  Even if Superman doesn’t.



Thursday, November 28, 2013

Throwback Review: Hostel is another throwback review!  Yes!  We really are writing brand new material!  I swear!  This one first appeared 2/6/06.  Looking back at this review, it looks like I thought the movie was ok after I first saw it.  I haven't seen it since.  Enjoy!

Well...this ones about a month late! Deal with it!

Hmmmm....What are people saying about Eli Roth's new movie Hostel? I went and asked some random people on the street. I was astonished at some of the responses. Some made me laugh. Some made me cry. Others made me ponder the meaning of life. Here is one...just a random pick here...

"A moving tender story with scenes of great majesty. It left me sad, yet at the same time I had one of those wonderful feelings of joy and happiness. If only some people would watch this film and take to heart the love that is shown in this movie and realize their sad look on life. God made us all. God loves us all."





Wow! What a movie Hostel is! Such raw emotion there! As you can see from the above quotes, some people were moved to tears by Hostel. I can't say that I blame them. I went through a box of tissues myself!

What's it about? Ok! I'll tell ya! Hostel is the tender tale of an American medical student who is on vacation in Europe with two of his good friends. While there, he meets and falls deeply in love with some Italian chick. Alas! Alack! Their love is complicated by the hurtful fact that she sells him to be tortured. Play the weepy music now..."near far...where ever you are...I know that in time my heart will go on!" Why did she do that to him? I won't tell. You'll have to see for yourself. Hostel is the perfect date movie guys. It's a modern day Greek tragedy. It will profoundly scratch at your heart. Some chicks dig it when their man cries. This movie will make grown men weep. So get her some flowers and drag her along to this intensely moving "chick flick"

Eli Roth does a pretty good job with the material here. His other movie, Cabin Fever, was utter crap! It was a horror movie and we all know horror movies are all the same and they all suck! That may be why I enjoyed Hostel. Oh don't get me wrong. The torture scenes are intense and shocking. Only because of the love story that came before. Roth does some of those tricks where he will cut away and not show what piece of the body is being mutilated. That is cool because you always imagine that what is being mutilated is worse than what they show you.

The opening is especially sentimental. A hardworking man cleans up some severed body parts and cleans a broken heart off the floor. women are always breaking our hearts! Masterful piece of filmmaking that! The guy is probably thinking about all the times some chick said no to a date and laughed at him behind his back. After that scene, I knew I was in for a different kind of "chick flick" this was going to be a special heartwarming movie going experience. That is when I shed the first of many tears while watching Hostel.

The look of the film is especially pleasing. It is dark and moody like the human heart. This really takes off right before his chick sells him to be tortured. I could sense that there was a tension between the two...some dark brooding secret. She didn't want to do it. These complications must have been painful to them. Joy and pain intermixed in nearly equal measure. This is really felt when he stops to talk to a stranger (who happens to be played by one of the most interesting filmmakers working anywhere in the world today...Takashi Miike) He tells the dude to be can spend all your money in there. He points to the building the chick is leading him to. What's inside? It's a mystery! I'm not telling!

Ya...ya...this article has been half jest and half truth! Did I fool anyone? I did enjoy Hostel. It's not a great film...but it is tons better than Cabin Fever and that crappy Saw 2.

I cannot recommend that you (whoever you are) see it. I am trying to only recommend utter trash this year. Avoid all the good ones...that means any movie you are interested in seeing.

Oh more thing about Hostel. If you ever travel around Europe, have enough money to stay in Hotels...not Hostels! Do you see the spelling difference? You don't want to fall in love with some chick and be sold for torture do you?! DO YOU?!

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Throwback Review: Brokeback Mountain

Here is Jesse's tender review of Brokeback Mountain.  It first appeared on 2/10/06.  It appears here as it first appeared on the old blog.  I are waiting for that new stuff we promised!  Soon now...soon.  Until then enjoy Jesse's romantically touching review!

My girlfriend (who I love dearly) wanted to see this movie. I being the loving boyfriend I am was glad to take her. I won't lie I really didn't want to see a movie about two gay cowboys and their undying love. Too be honest with you I wouldn't want to see a love story involving any of the sexes. I'm just not a love story kind of guy. Yet I gathered her up and took her to see it. I was in for a bit of a surprise.


Let's start off with the very simple plot. Two cowboys are hired to spend six months in the mountains with sheep. One will sleep with the sheep the other at the camp. These two cowboys are Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal). While on the mountain they develop a relationship. They fall in love but both agree no one can know. They come off the mountain and go to live seperate lives. Every once in a while the two will get together and go camping on Brokeback Mountain. Ennis's wife (Michelle Williams) grows knowledgable of what they do fishing. This sets up some complications to these men's love story. Jack goes on too marry a woman (Anne Hathaway). Both of them have children but Jack isn't able to cope with the seperation from Ennis. He wants the two of them to start a ranch together. Ennis can not do this as he doesn't want to seperate from his children. So the two can only spend time when they meet on Brokeback Mountain for their trips. There is more plot then this but I don't want give to much away.

First let's talk about the acting in this film. Heath Ledger does give a superb performance as Ennis. Ennis is a very quiet man and doesn't speak a whole lot. His emotions are hidden deep within him. The only true emotions he expresses in the movie are too Jack. This exchange of dialogue says it all about his character.

Jack: You know that's the most you've said in two weeks.

Ennis: Hell, that's the most I said in two years.

And when he says it you absolutely believe he hasn't. Ennis is an introvert and Jack an extrovert. So, Heath gets a less showy role but he tells the entire story of his character with his movements and facial gestures. Ennis has a lot of anger in him and when it explodes he can't reign it in. He never takes it out in his wife or loved ones, just random people who rile him up. Heath deserves his nomination (we all know he'll get it) but I don't think he deserves victory. He does deserves kudos for his performance (and I won't use the word brave with as much money as they get paid it kills all claims to it). Jake on the other hand is a good actor but his character is a total fuckhead. He is very self centered and his only concern is his own happiness and nothing else. Jake does his best to show this as him being so much in love but it comes off wrong and I blame that more on the writing. The two actresses in the movie Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams are both really good in this film. Michelle gets the more kudos. Her character is so in love with Ennis that it tears her up when she finds out. She sticks with him though even having sex with him after that (even though he likes to fuck her in the ass). She does her best to hold onto her man and her family. After a while she knows this to be a futile attempt. She is strong and one of the best written female characters in a while. Hathaway is good but her character starts off nice then turns into a cold hearted bitch. Anne does her best with the role but again the writing failed her.

Now let's talk about the writing if we could. The script was written by Larry McMurty and Diana Osama based on the short story by Anne E. Proulx. This story is write up McMurty's alley. He loves writing about cowboys in the modern age. They always come across as men who don't belong. So, it's even more perfect that they are cowboys who would be rejected by other cowboys. He does a nice job on the script in places. He and Diana created a wonderful character in Ennis Del Mar. They write him pitch perfect. They know that decent men like him put family in front of everything else. They know they are willing to sacrifice everything to put their kids first. They also know that Ennis wouldn't be able to communicate to his kids. No matter how much love he has for them the gap would always be there. Now where they fail is with Jack. Jack is the complete opposite of Ennis. Now this is just textbook writing but the problem is he has no redeeming value at all. They should of done one more rewrite to get him right. Do they deserve an Oscar? No, but they did a good job on it.

The director of this film is Ang Lee. Ang Lee is one of the best directors alive. He has directed such classics as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Ice Storm, and my personal favorite Ride With The Devil. He brings his style to this movie with much a plumb. The visuals in this movie are beautiful. He captures the scenery like Ansel Adams would of if he directed. Every shot is set up to perfection. The Mountain is almost as important a character as the people involved. Ang also doesn't shy away from nothing he captures everything in it's rawest forms. Ang Lee does a masterful job with okay material.

All right so you know some of my complaints here are a few more. While watching the movie I noticed one thing. During the first of the movie we see the two work and actually begin to talk to each other. Then one night Ennis too drunk to ride up to the sheep sleeps at the camp. Shivering in the night Jack tells him to get in the tent. Ennis agrees. He lies down next to Jack. After he falls asleep Jack grabs his arm and wraps it around his own body. Ennis wakes up and the grab each other violently. Two seconds later with no kissing or anticipation Ennis has bent him over and inserted. I saw this and one thought hit my mind, "that's not very romantic."

Through the whole movie the two of them kiss violently. There is no romance whatsoever to their love story. It looked more like they should be beating the shit out of each other and not have relations. My other problem is this the movie is a tad too long. We could of spent a little more time cutting out the fat not needed. Maybe some of those scenes showing Jack to be a jerk would of been nice.

Now fellas I know what your thinking why should I see a film about two gay men. Well for one there are two gorgeous chicks in it. They also both take of their tops and share their lucious boobs with us. So, there you go you male bimbos. Now I haven't forgot you ladies. Both men (regrettably) can't seem to keep their clothes on and there will be plenty for you to see. Now a warning for those of you with a weak stomach. There is some graphic violence in the movie. We see an old man's body after his penis has been torn off (strangely a very important scene to the movie). There is also a sheep that has it's insides torn out by a coyote that we seen in graphic detail. Both scenes were a bit squeamish and really grossed out my girlfriend. So be prepared for these eventualities.

So what's the final verdict. The movie was nothing more then okay. It was good to watch once. If you do see it it has to be on the big screen so you can appreciate the scenery. It won't be on either of my best or worst list. It's too good to be on any worst list. My final thought was it was better than Star Wars Revenge of the Sith which was a gay love story that didn't work.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Throwback Review: Blade: Trinity...Blade 3...or All Ryan Reynolds' Fault

Here is the very first review I wrote.  It appears here unaltered.  Wow...where is that new material promised?  It's on its way!  In the meantime enjoy this Blade Trinity review!

Well...I've seen Blade: Trinity twice now. My first impressions were that it was the weakest of the Blade films. I stand by that. It is the weakest of the Blade films. There is too much wrong with it.

The first thing is Ryan Reynolds. I've read reviews where they say he steals the show. How about...he sinks the ship! Wesley Snipes still dominates the screen as Blade and no weasely, little wisecracking, idiot boy can take that from him! That's almost like saying..."Ron Howard stole every scene from John Wayne in the Shootist!" Ryan Reynolds tries to crack jokes all through the film. They all fall flat. They're not funny and, I think, inappropriate in a Blade movie. I wanted Blade to either, chop off his head, or let him hold his sword.

The next thing is Dracula. They just call him Drake. Why is it, it seems, that every vampire movie now wants Dracula to be the first vampire? The fellow that played Drake was ok...he didn't leave an impression...he was just there. Not a good thing for a bad-ass vampire. I think he should have taken charge...and yes killed all the wiener vampires surrounding him. Drake is supposed to be the most powerful vampire...fooled me! I should mention that Drake went into hibernation. They woke him up to kill Blade. Drake didn't seem to care about Blade...or the other vampires...either way. He seemed to want to go back into hibernation. He should have.

The last thing is David Goyer. Yes he is the director. Also, he is the writer of all three Blade films. I liked the first two very much...this third one is disappointing. I hope it is due to Goyer's inexperience as a director. I think he is a very good writer. I hope he grows into a better director over the years. The action scenes were well staged. I think Goyer just needs more directing under his belt.

Well...I really wanted to like Blade 3 more. I even watched it twice to see if I my first impression was wrong. It's sad that this will be Wesley Snipes' last outing as Blade. It should have ended stronger. The scary thing is, there is talk of a movie featuring the Nightstalkers from this film. I hope Ryan Reynolds is not cast as Hannibal King again. He is just not right for the part. Blade 3 was better than Underworld and Van Helsing(two of the worst vampire films to hit the big screen!) that still is not saying much. I still think you should go see Blade 3 for yourself. Who may think I'm insane(which I don't pretend not to be!) or you may think I'm right on...either way go see it for yourself as Blade rides off into the sunrise.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Throwback Movie Review! Land of the Dead

Hey everybody Joe Diesel here!  Welcome to the new blog for the Half Hour of Power!  To get things started, I'll put up some posts I did from my old blog!  I know you are bursting with joy and delight!  Don't worry we will get some new material up here momentarily!

Here is the review I wrote for Land of the Dead.  I first posted this on 7/5/05.  It appears unaltered and exactly as it did the day I first posted it.  This one got some fun comments that I may share in a later post.


It looks like we have to wait for The Devils Rejects to see a good horror movie! I can describe Land of the Dead in one word...disappointing. Like everyone else, I was waiting for another Romero zombie picture. I am a big fan of horror movies. They are my favorite kind of movie. So...when I heard that Romero finally got the backing to make his fourth zombie film, I was excited. I thought, "Romero will show 'em how it's done!" Alas! Alack! It was not to be!

The movie sounds good enough. A group of humans who survived the zombie holocaust have fortified a portion of a city trying to get back to some kind of normal life. They've been keeping the zombies out so far. At night, the humans go to the surrounding towns and gather supplies. Sounds good enough? Yea...that plot of the movie is fine. The execution is lackluster. The script needed more work. I think the movie is too short...with a running time of about 100min.

The June edition of Fangoria magazine has a great story about Land of the Dead. What!? You don't read Fangoria? If you are a horror movie fan, you should read Fangoria! Now...Fangoria gives what they call the Fango Seal of Approval. Almost every time I have watched a movie that sported the Fango Seal of Approval, the movie was either good or outstanding. The June issue has articles on two movies that get the seal...The Devils Rejects...and a Japanese horror film called Premonition. If you like horror films, you can safely put money down that you will most likely find these films good or outstanding. I bring this up because suspiciously absent from the Land of the Dead article is a seal of approval. Fangoria has covered Romero's career since the magazine first began in the late seventies. You would think that a new Romero zombie movie would have no trouble getting a Fango Seal of Approval. "What does this have to do with the movie?" you ask...let's look at the article and the movie side by side.

One of my big problems with the movie is the Big Daddy zombie. He is played by Eugene Clark. He says about Big Daddy, "He's a bad dude. He just don't take no stuff...You know what I'm sayin'? You come to my territory and mess with my people. Everybody's my people, you understand? So they come to town and do what they got to do. They gonna take care of bidness. That's all I gotta say. Don't mess with Big Daddy's people." You're a zombie! You have no people! He sounds so uppity and pretentious here I can't take it! But...wait...there's more! "I see Big Daddy as a man, a zombie, an entity who is evolving, and who realizes, 'This is wrong!' All right? You come into our territory, we eat you. You don't come into our territory, we don't eat you-we leave you alone. You come in, you cause mayhem, and it's wrong. So...civil rights? I don't think there are any civil rights. It's zombie rights. Leave us alone!" Again...You're a zombie! Mr. Clark sounds like he hasn't seen any of Romero's previous zombie films. Zombies have no territory! They wonder around aimlessly and will follow you and eat you even if you have never killed a zombie! All of the scenes with Big Daddy are painful to watch. Here's one where he holds a severed zombie head. He looks at it and seems to weep. He throws it down and smashes it under his boot. Then he lets out a mighty roar. I cringed at how stupid that was.

Ok...what else...In the beginning of the movie when the humans are raiding the town for supplies...Cholo (John Leguizamo) is showing a kid the ropes. They sit on a motorcycle and watch the others take out some zombies. The kid says, "I thought it was going to be a battle. It's a fucking massacre!" Cholo does not react to this as if he agrees! Whose side are you on kid?! Again...THEY ARE ZOMBIES! That line is sooo idiotic and out of place! Land of the Dead, the zombies are supposed to be evolving and becoming more aware. An example...they begin to use tools. For those who don't know...this is not new! The zombies have done that in every Romero zombie movie! In fact, within the first few minutes of Night of the Living Dead, the zombie picks up a rock and smashes the car window to get to Barbara! Also, Big Daddy is supposed to "lead" the zombies to the city. This is also not new! In Dawn of the Dead the Steven zombie "led" the zombies down the hallway, up the stairs, and into the secret hideaway! Everything the zombies do in Land of the Dead, the zombies could have done without the Big Daddy zombie! Bub figured out how tro use a gun in Day of the Dead! I just could not get Mr. Clark's asinine comments out of my head while watching the movie! You are playing a zombie!

Ok...for some reason, that I can't begin to comprehend, Romero wants us to feel sympathy for these zombies. I have no sympathy for zombies! You can't exploit a zombie! You can't massacre a zombie! You can't abuse a zombie! You can't torture a zombie! You can't negotiate with a zombie to stay out of your territory!(to use Mr. Clark's words!) I named one of those scenes above. Another is when Big Daddy and his zombie horde reach the outskirts of the city. he shows a zombie carrying a butcher knife how to use it. He cuts through a board. Big Daddy peers through it. Oh my! He sees zombies hung upside down apparently used for target practice! brutal! How dare those filthy humans brutalize us poor defenseless zombies! Big Daddy lets out a mighty roar. "This is wrong he screams! Don't mess with my people!" Eat shit Big Daddy zombie you are the stupidest zombie ever to grace the silver screen! You dirty son-of-a...

My bad! I almost got off track!

Ok..another stupid sympathy the end of the movie, our hero Riley(Simon Baker) is about to leave town. Someone in his party is about to blow up a bridge that the Bid Daddy zombie just happens to be walking across with a bunch of other zombies. Riley stops 'em, "No. They're just looking for a place to go just like us." WHAT! At the risk of sounding like a broken record, THEY ARE ZOMBIES! BLOW THEM TO HELL! Riley is going to get all the humans killed with an attitude like that!

Ok..."What did Romero say about the movie?" You asking me? Let's check the Fangoria..."I tried to relate [this movie] to post 9/11 America. Living with terrorism, with the idea of this suddenly being a real threat." He goes on...but that is not relevant to this review. This is not new to any Romero zombie movie. All his zombie movies had something to say about society and the world around us. This didn't bother me...nor did it surprise me. I was accused of not liking it by Whitechocoricecrispyspaceapplejacks because of this commentary on politics and society. That is not the case. I think I have made that point quite clear.

I can go on with some more more...Kaufman(Dennis Hopper...the evil human...also not new to Romero zombie movies...evil humans I mean) is on his way out to escape. He gets in his car but his driver ran off with the keys. The car is in an underground parking garage. Who wanders in? That's right Big Daddy. It should be stated that in life, Big Daddy worked at a gas station. Kaufman sits in the car while Big Daddy takes a gas pump that is next to the car and shoves it through the windshield. Gas fills Kaufman's car. Big Daddy walks off. Big Daddy was all alone Kaufman could have killed Big Daddy with zero problem! Stupid human! The other reason I bring up this scene is, zombies wonder around and repeat what they did in life. This is the second time I bring this I need to expand the point? Zombies are not territorial and do not deserve sympathy from the humans or the audience. I've never seen Romero try so hard at trying to get the audience to feel sympathy for a zombie that will eat you...that will rip you limb from limb!

Ok...what did I like about it? The KNB boys handled the make up effects very well. The zombies look as good as they ever have. It was also good to see Tom Savini make a cameo as a zombie. It was good to see Asia Argento in this movie. She is a talented actress. I hope to see her in more of her father's (Dario Argento) movies and maybe some more good American movies.

That really is about it. All you waiting for a real horror movie go see The Devil's Rejects. That should wash the bad taste of this mediocre movie out of your mouth. For all it's flaws, I think Day of the Dead is a better more watchable zombie movie. Romero is capable of making another great zombie movie. When he does, I'll be the first in line...and the first to say job well done.

I can't resist. I hope to inflict some DEEP HURTING...DEEP HURTING on you with these parting thoughts from my favorite zombie and yours Eugene Clark playing the part of Big Daddy, "And when Big Daddy sees people dying, and people being slaughtered, it pains him...His world has been torn apart, his people-zombies-are being destroyed, and it's being caused by irresponsible people, and it has to stop. The challenge for me at times is, how do I keep my sanity?" How indeed...