May 30, 2015

An interview with Maria Olsen

Just a relaxed midnight chat and interview with filmmaker Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66 including some stuff about "Percy Jackson and the Olympians", energy drinks, South African movies, vampire novels, remakes, indie movies, and crowdfunding campaigns, plus additional random banter.

I'm obviously not a very good "podcaster", I have no idea how to edit stuff with Audacity, and the Pulse Audio system on Ubuntu made my microphone all crackly and scratchy, but it is what it is. You might enjoy some of it.

Please also check out my review of Maria's latest movie "Live-In Fear", and keep up to date with further information by subscribing to the official MOnsterworks66 Facebook page.

May 27, 2015

Happy 93rd Birthday, Christopher Lee!

Christopher Lee as Lord Summerisle in "The Wicker Man" (1973).

Born May 27th, 1922. Can you believe it?

Once almost irreconcilably typecast as the vampire Count Dracula, Sir Christopher Lee's career has crossed multiple genres and spanned seven decades. With over 280 acting credits to his name, he is more than established as one of the world's greatest and most well known fantasy actors.

Thank you, Sir Christopher, for givng us a lifetime of entertainment. Many happy returns!

And let us never forget his fellow horror icons, Vincent Price (May 27th, 1911 – October 25th, 1993) and Peter Cushing (May 26th, 1913 – August 11th, 1994). Happy birthday and may they rest in peace.

Christopher Lee with Vincent Price and Peter Cushing
in "House of the Long Shadows" (1983).

It's also Hart Fisher's birthday, the owner of American Horrors. Happy birthday, Hart!

AMERICAN HORRORS is the new uncut horror TV channel owned and hosted by legendary horror creator, Hart D. Fisher. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you can watch for free on your ipod, ipad, iphone, or Android by downloading the FilmOn App!!!

May 23, 2015

Poltergeist (2015)

"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive."

Oh God, here we go with the unnecessary remakes again! 'Tis the season! Not that I'm opposed to every remake. Some of them have been better than the originals, particularly in nearly every case of the Asian horror movies which I once collected.

Yeah, some of those remakes are on the Ghost House Pictures label, the same company who are the producers of this movie, so you'd think that they would know what they were doing by now. You'd be wrong, of course. So very wrong.

Look, I'm sure that you know exactly what I'm going to say about "Poltergeist" before I even write it, so let's cut straight through the chase here.

The remake of "Poltergeist" is
complete and utter shite!

Print that on the eventual Blu-ray slipcase!

I don't feel the need to back this up with any reasons. It's already bad enough that I wasted my time and money by watching this soulless piece of crap, and I don't want to torture myself more by writing about it. And no, it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

I've always disliked the original 1982 version because it only has one scene in it which even resembles real poltergeist activity, i.e. the stacking chairs one, and thus even the title of the movie was a bait and switch con job. Fundamentally, the rest of "Poltergeist" is a padded and updated ripoff of the "Little Girl Lost" episode from "The Twilight Zone" TV series anyway.

I can't stand the dope-smoking parents, or the irritating kids, and jump scares don't work on me. On top of that, the smug ghosthunting team and that awful Tangina thing grip my shit. The only two things which I care to remember fondly from the whole ordeal are JoBeth Williams' beautiful shiny legs. That's it.

In my opinion, the original "Poltergeist" is a stupid but fairly harmless, family-friendly Spielberg fantasy in everything but the director's name. I have no idea if Tobe Hooper really directed it or not. I don't care. I simply don't like "Poltergeist". I'm not an American, I don't connect with the suburban situation or the characters, and I have absolutely no nostalgic feelings about it whatsoever. Just waves and waves of bitter disappointment that it isn't actually about poltergeists.

And you know what? I don't like the sequels either.

"Poltergeist II: The Other Side" (1986) seems like an inferior ripoff of John G. Jones' genuinely terrifying "The Amityville Horror Part II" (1982) novel to me, and "Poltergeist III" (1988) is nothing but a badly made final cash grab which isn't worth piss. Back in the day, I only got through that mess of a movie because I didn't want to completely waste the VHS rental fee. It then turned into a waste both of money and part of my life. Fuck that movie too!

As for this "Poltergeist" remake. I've said all that I want to. If you need further validation, I recommend that you read round the other independent reviewers rather than the "big name" sites carrying those enormous "Poltergeist" advertisements. We all feel much the same way. There's probably nothing different on any of the free blogs which I wouldn't have said about "Poltergeist" myself if I even gave two shits about it, but the most condemnation that the shill sites will dare to write is "Well, it's not bad for a remake..." Fuck that noise!

Just watch the IMDb score drop over the weekend as more people find out the truth for themselves. It's only on 5.8 now! The comments on the official Facebook page are hilariously illuminating too. "Poltergeist is bad, it's really bad. It's "A Nightmare on Elm Street" remake bad! It's too modern, truncated, the ending is rushed, the acting/characterisation is horrible, there's no chemistry, no emotion, it isn't scary... Oh, you nearly got me there. No, I'm not doing this anymore. No more negativity!!! I'm outta here!

If you're really that desperate for a "Poltergeist" remake, try "Grave Secrets: The Legacy of Hilltop Drive" (1992) or "Insidious" (2010) instead. I haven't reviewed them either.

May 21, 2015

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

"In a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, two rebels just might be able to restore order: Max, a man of action and of few words, and Furiosa, a woman of action who is looking to make it back to her childhood homeland."

Aw, fuck. Like many people, I was going to boycott "Mad Max: Fury Road" due to Mel Gibson not being in it, but curiosity got the better of me. And we all know what curiosity did to the cat, right?

Yeah, "Mad Mad: Fury Road" sucks and blows in so many ways that I can't even be bothered to type one of those "insightful" (the most overused word of the last two years on the internet, preceded by "egregious", and to a slightly lesser extent by "visceral") movie reviews which nobody expects from me anyway. I'm all about the bottom line, and so all I really have to say is that this movie lacks the most important aspect of any dramatic production—pathos.

What's the point of any movie where you don't care about any of the characters or what happens to them? There's absolutely none. For all of its spectacle, stunts, and explosive effects, "Mad Max Fury Road" doesn't have much of a story to tell and the characters are, ironically in a 3D movie, as flat as can be. It's so bad that I couldn't tell you any of their names, not that of the main bad guy or any of the good guys. If any of the "brides" in the movie actually have names, I don't remember hearing them mentioned. Even "Max" only says his name aloud once, presumably so we know that this is a real Mad Max movie rather than a clone.

Briefly, what we have here is a movie which looks the part of all the other Mad Max films but is ultimately a poor imitation of one. With so many years between "Mad Max Fury Road" and the previous sequel, it's not surprising. It's disappointing but definitely not surprising that this mess turned out the way it has. Yeah, it's like having your childhood shat on from a great height again, isn't it? It's not as bad as George Lucas taking a dump on "Indiana Jones" and "Star Wars", of course, nor is it as terrible as the plethora of lacklustre remakes which still keep happening, but this "revisiting" of Mad Max is certainly up there for people hellbent on wallowing in their own cesspit of rose-tinted nostalgia.

Without giving away too many spoilers (as if anyone cares), the story involves the new and even more laconic Max getting hooked up with a woman trying to take the leader of the bad guys' harem to a better "green place", only to discover that the place doesn't exist anymore and turn back again. Races, chases, guns, explosions, and PG-13 level violence, death, and blood abounds.

Faux Mel Gibson and some skinhead woman with a bionic arm made of Meccano.

"Mad Max Fury Road" is a very soft R-rated movie considering what might have been quite controversial subject matter, but punches are pulled in the usual ways, particularly in the confusing fight scenes where it's hard to tell who is doing what to who and there are never any satisfying pay-offs. Other than those scenes, the camerawork isn't bad at all, but as the stunts are the most important aspect, it's worth mentioning that the focus of the stunts is often lost amongst the "guzzoline punk" mayhem. In fairness, this is typical and stylistically equivalent to the classic Mad Max trilogy, except that the first movie only pulled its punches because of the budget.

Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson doesn't actually matter in the slightest when the movie is more focussed on as many automotive action sequences as can be crammed in than having a charismatic lead. Sparse as that role is, Mel would undoubtedly have made things a hundred times better and been a bigger name to sell the movie, but it's too late now. Added to this, Charlize Theron tends to steal what little show is on offer as Furiosa (whose character name I had to look up) by being yet another one of these "strong women" which I'm sure we'll keep on getting subjected to as long as filmmakers are swayed by the loudest whiners on the internet.

Let's be real here though, Tina Turner was a much stronger and more iconic character as Aunti Entity in "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" (1985), and whatever Furiosa is meant to embody (or "empower") is instantly forgettable. She's certainly no Ripley from the Alien movies. Oh, but Furiosa only has one arm, so let's get all the "ableist" arguments going to, shall we? Let's not. It's not worth it. "Mad Max Fury Road" is a big budget heap of nothing which simply isn't worth getting upset about one way or another.

I will just mention one thing to please the progressive-liberals and SJWs. I did notice that there weren't any black characters, unless I blinked and missed them. There are hordes of ultra white and sickly-looking "war boys" (who seem to have escaped from Derek Jarman's "Sebastiane"), however, but as I'm supposedly a "privileged white male" (or whatever the fuck that bullshit label is meant to mean for someone as poor as me with no welfare benefits available), I don't care about them either. Tina Turner was the best part of "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", so shut the fuck up!

Since "Mad Max Fury Road" was written and directed by George Miller, I suppose I'll have to live with the fact that it really is a legitimate continuation of the Mad Max story whether I liked it or not. Having said that, I'll certainly never buy it on Blu-ray or ever watch it again. Right now, I wish I hadn't watched it in the first place.

May 19, 2015

The Human Centipede III: Final Sequence (2015)

"Taking inspiration from The Human Centipede films, the warden of a notorious and troubled prison looks to create a 500-person human centipede as a solution to his problems."

Featuring extended cameos by Robert LaSardo (best known for playing Escobar Gallardo in "Nip/Tuck"), Eric Roberts (who clearly is not likely to be remembered for anything apart from being Julia Roberts' brother), and director Tom Six himself, this final entry in the now worn-out but once hilarious Human Centipede joke is undoubtedly on most people's "must see" list. Hell, it beats watching the dubious "Poltergeist" remake or the equally crappy-looking "We Are Still Here" this weekend, doesn't it?

Even more political incorrect (it kind of says so on the poster) than the previous installments, "The Human Centipede III" certainly does not disappoint. From the opening scene where Dieter Laser (playing the insane prison warden Bill Boss) fingers sexy Bree Olson (as Daisy, Bill Boss' beautiful personal assistant and sex toy) in front of Laurence Harvey (Dwight Butler now rather than Martin), you know that things can only get better. Or worse. It all depends on your point of view. Normal people will laugh at it, Right-wingers will laugh with it, and Lefties just shouldn't ever watch this movie without adult supervision because it will make them cry like the entitled little babies they are all over the internet forever and ever amen.

"You're a sadistic, vile, asshole!"

As a "meta" movie, "The Human Centipede III" often strays too far up its own arse (pun self-consciously intended) to actually be "in-joke" funny, but with decent production values (not unlike those of Full Moon) and a cast who know that they are supposed to be chewing the scenery (another pun there) as much as possible, it's quite amusing. Standouts are obviously the maniacal double-act of Dieter Laser and Laurence Harvey, but you know, that's exactly why they are in this movie in the first place.

Of course, it's all as predictable and as offensive as can be, but that's the point. There's racism, sexism, patriotism, and all the other "isms" that drive those irritating progressive-liberals batshit crazy. Plus there's more than one blatant attempt at injecting some damning condemnation of the American prison system into this satire. It doesn't entirely work (since everything about the justice system in America is constantly mocked by the rest of the civilised world), but Tom Six is a goddamned genius-troll with these things, and you just have to admire him for it. I wish he could direct an episode of "Orange is the New Black" in the same style.

Orange is the New Centipede.

As usual, I'm not going to give any major spoilers. This blog is only supposed to a free "guide" rather than a collection of moral essays after all. Another reason is that, hard as it may be to do so, "The Human Centipede III" is best viewed with as little prior knowledge as possible. There are a few gruesome shocks but much less gore than in its predecessors, and of course, things turn out very badly indeed for everyone involved. Highlighting every fart that goes to fair about how and why will absolutely ruin it for you.

Although never likely to be talked about as much as "The Human Centipede", nor quite as disturbing as "The Human Centipede II", "The Human Centipede III" is good wholesome family entertainment which should keep everyone amused on this Memorial Day (also known as just another barbecue day) weekend.

Highly recommended to Tom Six fans and sick fucks with a sense of humour everywhere.

May 18, 2015

Live-In Fear (2014)

"In the snowy Utah mountains, an ancient being terrorizes four friends as they try to survive."

There aren't many independent horror movies which I've waited over two years to see (or even cared about for that matter), but Brandon Scullion's "Live-In Fear" is one of them. In fact, it was way back on Friday, October 26th, 2012, that I first mentioned this movie, and earlier today, thanks to Maria Olsen from MOnsterworks66, I finally got to watch the HD screener.

Is "Live-In Fear" all that I expected it to be? Well, yes and no. I was mostly looking forward to the wintery setting, "The Shining"-style madness, and of course, the performances by Maria Olsen, Arielle Brachfeld, and the equally lovely Sarah Greyson. There's undoubtedly nothing to disappoint anyone too badly with these three actresses involved, but—and there's always a but with these things—the "cabin in the woods" (or rather "lodge in the snow") story itself is a tad confusing in places.

The good news is that this movie now exists and it won "Best Grindhouse Feature" at the 2014 Los Angeles RIP Horror Film Festival. Fans of Arielle Brachfeld (from "The Haunting of Whaley House") will also be pleased to learn that she won "Best Actress" for her role as Mallory at the same festival.

The bad news is that "Live-In Fear" is still another C-grade indie horror which isn't for everyone's tastes. You can't compare something like this with a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, and so I'm not going to be foolish enough to try. However, when despite the best efforts of everyone involved, the story ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense, there's always room for criticism.

Nice retro poster. It reminds me of the '70s.

I was fine with everything (sort of) for the first 53 minutes. "Scooby Doo"-style villains and "Cassanda" tropes aside, each of the characters has dark secrets which are revealed in due course. Coupled with the usual low-budget horror bloodshed, this makes for some decent entertainment overall.

Admittedly, I found myself distracted by the scenery and ogling Sarah Greyson (whom, I have recently been informed, was in the "Road Rules" TV show) as Becca with her Bettie Page hair, but the camerawork is competent enough for the most part, and the sound has some unnerving ambient additions which first made me wonder if there was something wrong with my speakers and then caused me to worry that I was hearing things which weren't supposed to be there. Trust me, you'll notice these things too, and many more.

Written and directed by Brandon Scullion, "Live-In Fear" is a co-production between Brandon's Iodine Sky Productions and Maria Olsen's MOnsterworks66.

Maria Olsen is very attractive in her earlier scenes (and a bit scary later) as Seth's mother, and she definitely gives the younger actresses a run for their money, even if the aforementioned Arielle Brachfeld as Mallory is the one who is meant to stand out the most. Aiding and abetting them is David Lautman as Seth and Chris Dorman as Eric, neither of whose characters I warmed to, and with good reason considering the reveals.

The supporting cast of Geoffrey Gould, Myles Cranford, Charlene Geisler, and Nancy Wolfe are okay-ish, but Nancy Wolfe (who played Susan Atkins in the original 1976 "Helter Skelter") is the obvious stand-out here. None of them have very much screen time.

Sadly, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very scary movie, and it kind of takes itself too seriously for what it is. I actually prefer the latter element in a horror genre movie rather than everything being played for laughs (although I know other people don't feel the same way), so that's another point in its favour.

There's some nice blood and gore in places, which we all like, but there could have been more. Practical effects of various qualities appear throughout, several of which are unintentionally comical, but I can't say any more without spoiling them for you.

Eric is not a very nice man.

The only thing which threw me right out of my willing suspension of disbelief was what can only be described as a "WTF moment" around the 54 minute mark. Something far too weird happens with a younger version of Mallory (played by Charlene Geisler) which had me puzzled for the 4 minute duration of the scene. It makes absolutely no sense even with a second viewing, so I'll generously put it down to padding. The scene could be excised with no great loss, although with a running time of only an hour and 20 minutes, "Live-In Fear" isn't a very long movie anyway. It also has, in my opinion, an unnecessary and unsatisfying "Epilogue".

"Live-In Fear" did not quite live up to my expections, and I highly doubt that it's truly "the most disturbing film you'll see in your lifetime" (as the voiceover in the trailer suggests), but it certainly left me shaking my head and wondering, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

I recommend "Live-In Fear" for fans of this subgenre of indie horror movies, but it isn't good for anyone with mainstream tastes. It's hardly "The Evil Dead" despite some superficial similarities, but then again, it doesn't try to be either.

Having said that, "Live-In Fear" is likely to be one of the best micro-budget indie horrors that you'll see this year. Give or take a plethora of unrealistic situations and responses (which abound in all horror movies), I enjoyed it.

May 16, 2015

Ex Machina (2015)

"A young programmer is selected to participate in a breakthrough experiment in artificial intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a breathtaking female A.I."

If you are looking for a really talky but R-rated version of Steven Spielberg's "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" (2001), or just want to see Kike Maíllo's far superior "Eva" (2011) rehashed with a couple of different twists, "Ex Machina" is for you.

It's not that "Ex Machina" is a bad movie per se, since the camerawork is great, the sets and effects are perfect, and the acting is totally convincing. It's just that there isn't really a lot to this extremely slow-moving sci-fi, and there isn't enough of anything apart from some brief nudity and a nifty disco-dancing routine to make it memorable. It's definitely more of a drama than anything else, and like "Maggie", it makes you wonder if the story and its tropes couldn't have been played out on a purely human level without any gimmicks.

Why make the robot a beautiful girl? Why make her sexual? All that is explained in the dialogue at some length, and it's important to the plot, but I'm sure that the fauxminists will still bitch and whine about this aspect to get pageviews. Good luck to them. Nobody cares. It's only another movie with no deep and meaningful political agenda unless someone wants to make more out of it than they should. And sadly, with over 300 external reviews of "Ex Machina" currently posted on the IMDb, I know that at least one person already has done. Pathetic.

Obviously, Alicia Vikander almost steals the show as the beautiful robot Ava, but it's fair to say that Domhnall Gleeson (as Caleb) and Oscar Isaac (as Nathan) hold up well against her. In fact, the double-twist makes the whole ménage à trois (albeit with some minor characters) worthwhile. It's very predictable in the the way that you kind of expect what happens to happen but not in the way it does, and most people probably won't see the ending coming. In that respect, the story is very well played indeed.

Directed and written by Alex Garland (of "28 Days Later" and "Dredd" fame), what "Ex Machina" lacks in originality, it makes up for in uncluttered calmness and downplayed spectacle. There's even a bit of sexual tension here and there but not too much. Kids could watch this. They won't understand most of it, of course, but an R-rating seems unnecessarily harsh. Oh wait, it's America, so healthy nudity is the most heinous evil ever and violent death is perfectly acceptable. I get it now.

In short, "Ex Machina" is another robot with artificial intelligence movie but is none the worse for that. The better robot movie is still "Eva", and "Bicentennial Man" (1999) is arguably the emotional best, but "Ex Machina" is a competent addition to the sci-fi genre.

Recommended for a rainy Sci-Fi Saturday night.

May 9, 2015

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.