Maggie (2015)

"A teenage girl in the Midwest becomes infected by an outbreak of a disease that slowly turns the infected into cannibalistic zombies. During her transformation, her loving father stays by her side."

It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for far too long about the continued decline of so-called "horror" movies. So behold, I'm writing an actual movie review for the first time in nearly two years, even though I honestly don't care about any of it anymore. Unless something as equally dire as this zombie crap comes up later (not including the inevitable remakes and sequels which loom before us), I don't think I'll write another horror movie review this year either. Horror is creatively dead, and there's no point.

I didn't write about the hypocrisy of all the "Twilight" haters who sucked up to "Spring" (2014), even though it's little more than one of those talky "Before" movies with a couple of minutes of monster, nor did I feel obliged to climb back into my online persona like a dog returning to its own vomit to comment on the softcore teen-porno known as "It Follows" (2014). So boring! But I've digressed. I have no beef with any of these people, even if their egos may cause them to manufacture one with me. I don't know any of them personally outside of how annoyingly they act on the internet, and really don't want to. We aren't friends, and we never will be. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

Let's get down to the subject in hand. In the case of "Maggie", it's yet another PG-13 "genre" film with no scares or any horror in it, indicating that the whole concept of "scary" has apparently been abandoned forever now. Just calling a movie "horror" is enough for some people, I guess, whether it bears any resemblence to the dictionary definition or not. Still jaded, I highly doubt that there will ever be a genuinely scary movie again from anyone.

Boasting the same horrible faux-handheld camerawork (with the everso slightly shakiness of such movies as "The Reaping") and a mostly washed-out colour palette, "Maggie" won't make you throw up with motion sickness but will fill you with nausea by utilising such a recognisable "shakycam" contrivance to add "realism". LOL (I never used to use acronyms in my reviews, but I have to this time). Realism in a zombie movie? Give me a break! Why even bother? It's all FICTION, geddit? I hate to break it to you, but zombies aren't real!

To say that everything about "Maggie" is predictable would be an understatement. Aside from the obvious outcome, there's much amusement to be had when Joely Richardson touches her neck to show anxiety JUST LIKE SHE DOES IN EVERY EPISODE OF NIP/TUCK! Get some range Joely, for the love of God! LOL She's still undeniably gorgeous but seems to be no longer capable of doing an American accent or even act anymore. Shame.

Look, I can't act worth a shit either, nor can I bake a cake, but that doesn't mean that I can't spot bad acting or know what I like to eat. For that reason, the less said about Arnie's dozen lines of anguished dialogue and constipated expression throughout, the better. I still like his previous work, I just wish he would actually learn to do some acting one day. I won't deny that there are some attempts at acting here, but it's not very convincing.

I don't really want to write anything about the girl who plays Maggie, but I will. I don't know her name, Abigail Something, and I can't be bothered to look it up on the IMDb either (oh, it's on the poster... Breslin). I think she was nominated for an Oscar once. I don't remember or care. The Oscars are total bollocks anyway. For someone who is supposedly dying, Maggie just behaves like a typical mopey teenager. Oh, so sad! She didn't even register on me, and she's supposed to be the lead! Superficial characterisation or generally bad writing? Who knows? LOL again. I found that I was more interested in how old Arnie looks now, the makeup, locations, and the sets than any of the dramatic performances.

It's true what Wes Vance often said on Deadpit Radio back in the day when I used to listen to it, "If you continuously feed people with a diet of shit, eventually shit doesn't taste so bad to them anymore." In fact, a lot of them now consider shit to be their staple diet and greedily gulp it down willingly.

"Maggie" really is another plateful of steaming turds which the hard of understanding and easily pleased will undoubtedly find very satisfying. The Aristotlean "art is best when hidden" rule is thrown out of the window like a Parisian chamber pot with this movie, and forget about any of this bland crap "causing emotion" or "the catharsis of such emotion". It's tropes, formulas, flat characters, and languid storytelling all the way. OMFG (sorry about another acronym which I would never use in real life), "Maggie" is utter shite!

Slow, boring as fuck, and with a shit ending, the "horror nasties" will undoutedly ADORE and LOVE "Maggie" (since it's impossible for any of them to merely LIKE a film with their affected and constantly gushing written style). They all write the same way and repeat each other ad nauseum. I bet they are all SUPER EXCITED about this too. Bahahahahaha! Fucking tools! I bet none of them will have the balls to admit that even "Contracted" (2013) has better effects and more emotion to it than "Maggie".

I would say that I can't wait to read their reviews to see my predictions proven right, but I'm not that interested enough to do so. Let's face it, you know that the "big names" (in reality, nothing but unemployable ex-students who write purple prose for less than a penny a word) and their asscrawlers will be praising the shit out of this because it gets them page views, reciprocal promotion, a quote on the DVD cover, and access. There's very little honesty among them, and there never has been. "It's all marketing" is their hackneyed excuse. Whatever. They are nothing but gaslighters and clickbait. Let them eat zombie cupcakes!

"Maggie" is vacuous rubbish of the highest order which is presumably aimed at younger teenagers who aren't allowed to watch "The Walking Dead" on TV. Entertainment-wise, this isn't for "horror buffs", traditional Arnie fans, or for anyone expecting lots of action. It's not even badly done enough to laugh at in a sneering way like so many scathing reviewers love to do.

Supposedly a character driven piece and an allegory about terminal illness, the dialogue is so lame and the execution so ploddingly dull that "Maggie" fails to deliver the goods there too. With or without the zombie gimmick, "Maggie" is simply null and void on all emotional levels.

For something more invigorating, I suggest that you go old school and watch some vintage Romero or Italian zombie movies instead. Vote with your wallets and give this one a miss unless you've exhausted everything else to watch.

28 Days Later (2002)

"Four weeks after a mysterious, incurable virus spreads throughout the UK, a handful of survivors try to find sanctuary."

Okay, I've often said that I'd write a review of "28 Days Later" before now but never got round to it owing to the fact that it's one of my least favourite movies in the horror genre. Having rewatched it, let me tell you why I dislike the film so much.

Back in the 1970's, Terry Nation created the ultimate post-apocalyptic TV series for the BBC called "Survivors". I used to watch this show religiously as a child along with "Blake's 7". I can't say that I was ever really into Sci-Fi but Terry Nation was "the man" back in the day and everything he had a hand in became a hit.

"Survivors" was about the aftermath of a virus being accidentally unleashed which killed most of the world's population. It focused on a small group of British survivors (obviously) who were trying to rebuild civilisation against all the odds. It ran for four seasons.

In 1981, the BBC realised that people needed another post-apocalyptic survivors story and decided to make their own six part adaptation of John Wyndham's "The Day of the Triffids". Again, this was appointment television for me and I loved every minute of it.

As a teenager, my viewing habits turned from television to movies, and I filled-up on everything from "Night of the Living Dead" to "Night of the Comet". I think, by the end of the '80s, I was pretty much done with post-apocalyptic movies even though there was still something very appealing about wishing that something would wipe out most of the idiots on the planet but spare me so that I could play with all the toys they left behind. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thought like that otherwise none of these films would ever have been made.

I think you'll guess where I'm going with this.

When "28 Days Later" was released in 2002 (in Britain), I had already seen so many films and TV series dealing with the same subject matter that I wasn't overly impressed.

The start of "28 Days Later" reminded me far too much of "The Day of the Triffids" although little did I know that there was an American comic book being released at the same time which did exactly the same thing called "The Walking Dead" (which is now a TV series itself). Who copied who or if it was purely a coincidence, doesn't matter matter to me. As far as I'm concerned they both borrowed heavily from existing stories. The bottom line is that there was nothing original here.

Another reason why I didn't like "28 Days Later" was how it was filmed. Although I loved "This Life", the constantly moving camera technique was annoying and made the film feel cheap to me. Quick cuts during the action scenes almost threw me completely out of the story and I also could quite happily have done without ever seeing Cillian Murphy's little willy or bare backside. Even with the NHS being as bad as it is, I still don't believe that a coma patient would be left naked.

Basically, whenever I think of "28 Day Later" all I can think of is Cillian Murphy's bizarrely inconsistent character, Jim, and that, in spite of cleverly making Britain look as if a plague had completely destroyed civilisation, I can't get past how much it looks like a straight-to-video movie rather than a theatrical release.

Now, I'll give credit where it's due. Danny Boyle actually did a really good job with "28 Days Later" especially as he limited the special effects and focused more on the characters. For some people that might be boring and, to be honest, there are a couple of moments where you can feel the story lagging which is only to be expected considering the length of the film. Jump scares abound though so it's never entirely possible to relax even during the quieter scenes.

"28 Days Later" succeeds where so many other movies of its type fail because you are never allowed to forget that a fast-running Rage victim might suddenly pop-up out of nowhere and bite one of the people you are starting to care about.

One quite original touch was that it's not the whole world that has been destroyed by the Rage virus but just Britain. Yes, this is a spoiler but the twist, if you can describe it as such, is that Britain has been quarantined. The whole section with the soldiers at the end thus takes on a much more sinister aspect. I knew that that they weren't to be trusted right from the beginning but when the revelation came, I was quietly pleased by its cleverness.

But, even though the good points such as the acting, the familiar faces who have all been in or gone on to greater things since, and the setting itself make up considerably for the story's unoriginality, there's still one thing which bugs me about "28 Days Later". It isn't horrific enough.

I think by now you all know that I'm quite a sick puppy and I love to see as much splatter, torture and screaming for mercy as possible in the movies that I watch. This is where the subjective element comes in. For me, "28 Days Later" is very much a comic book adventure rather than real survival horror. Although there are undoubtedly some nicely visceral kills, I need to see more people getting ripped to shreds and crying for their mamas. It's all rather sparse.

There aren't any obvious displays of grief anywhere in this film either, even from the little girl whose father is shot to pieces in front of her, and I found that very unrealistic. Even if you argue that all the characters are in a state of shock and stay that way throughout their ordeal, I don't buy that for a second. It was simply bad writing. Cillian Murphy's character is so consistently inconsistent that he is an even weaker link than Christopher Ecclestone poshing up his accent and trying to portray a madman. Dialogue, character motivation, and basically any attempt at realistic responses are sadly lacking throughout the film.

I also have to say something about the "zombies". The Rage victims are, as stated in the film itself, just people. I know many people refer to them as zombies but, technically, they aren't. They are still alive until they starve to death which is something that George Romero's "ghouls" never seem to do. Their appearance is gruesome for sure and you wouldn't want to encounter one in real life but they aren't scary to me. There are no bits hanging out of them like the zombies you are used to and their red-eyes and spastic movements are almost comical if you look at it the wrong way. It's like a load of rioting football hooligans got unleashed on the world and there's nothing scary about that as long as you've got a baseball bat to beat them to death with.

I'm still torn over whether or not to include "28 Days Later" in the Vault as it just seems rather average to me. I know that the film has its fans (though there are less of them for the sequel) but I'm not one of them.

Objectively, judged on its own merits, "28 Days Later" is a very good film with enough to hold your attention all the way to the end but it still has major flaws. Also objectively, when compared to the other films that it borrows from, "28 Days Later" actually improves on their stories too without actually being all that different.