Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Zombies vs. Strippers (2012) and Humans vs. Zombies (2011)

With a few exceptions, I think it's safe to say that zombies have reached their saturation point. Sure, it was cool at first when zombie movies got wide theatrical releases, and that more of them were hitting the home video market. At this point though, it's something that's overdone. How many more times do we need another "zombie apocalypse" or "strippers vs. zombies" (or "strippers vs. anything") movie? It's been done to death (pardon the pun), and movies like "Zombies vs. Strippers" and "Humans vs. Zombies" aren't going to do anything for the dead.

"Zombies vs. Strippers" is about...well, what the title says. Spider (Circus-Szalewski-now that's a name) is upset that business isn't booming for his strip club the Tough Titty, and even his favorite TV character Ramboner (ugh-this character is like a weird mix of Binky the Clown from "Garfield and Friends", a racist Southerner and a conservative talk radio guy) can't bring him joy. Well, as a punk rocker Rudy (Jonathan-Erickson Eisley) and a biker gang lead by Red Wings (Brad Potts) will reveal, the zombie apocalypse has come.

I know that you shouldn't expect great art from a movie called "Zombies vs. Strippers", but for the love of God, must it be so boring? Apart from that and it's many other flaws (poor direction, nobody but Red Wings being interesting, bad comic relief, unconvincing and dull gore, a redundant "we ran out of cash" conclusion), the biggest problem with the movie is that it's almost never funny. Not even in a dumb way. The pot-head DJ makes bad jokes, the token black stripper says things like "Aw hell nah!", nearly everyone mugs for the camera, and everyone is too stupid to know the zombie apocalypse is happening until a little more than halfway through the movie. I know that dumb humor is a requisite for movies like this, but does it have to be so lazy? All that being said, their are a few amusing one liners and jokes, and at least one or two inspired moments. Still, this is worth little.

Better (but not good) is "Humans vs. Zombies." Here, a group of college kids must survive a viral outbreak that causes...ah fuck it.

If there's anything that does work here, it's that this movie is better directed than the last, and actually bothers with character development. Apart from Brad (the "fat guy whose more annoying than funny" character), these mostly feel like real people, and it helps that the actors are game and mostly good. Unfortunately, the whole thing is way too by the numbers to garner much interest. It also relies on the crutch of having to make nerdy references (video games, zombie books and comics) to try and garner some kind of geek cred without doing much to earn such a thing. I personally hate it when directors do this, and here it's not exception. Add a terrible conclusion and hit and miss humor, and you get something that almost gets it right, but ultimately doesn't.

At best, "Humans vs. Zombies" is worthy of a decent rental, but is nothing worth owning. "Zombies vs. Strippers" however, is only for the less discerning straight-to-video junkie.

Ratings:

Zombies vs. Strippers: 3/10
Humans vs. Zombies: 5/10

2 comments:

  1. I'll take 5/10. This is Frank (Frederic Doss) from HvZ. Funny thing, is there is actually a mock poster for a film called "Strippers Vs. Zombies" on Tommi's door in "Humans vs. Zombies" completely unrelated to the film you just reviewed. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the post. That's interesting BTW.

    ReplyDelete