Psychological horror is often the best route to take for micro-budget films as it places more emphasis on creating an atmosphere of dread rather than elaborate set pieces. That being said, it can still be difficult to execute properly because without the gory spectacle to entertain viewers there is a greater importance placed upon the performances and the quality of the script to keep the audience engaged. The smaller the cast and fewer the locations the more important the acting and story become. So, does Flytrap, a film with one primary location and a very small cast have what it takes to provide an hour and a half of quality entertainment? Well, let’s discuss.

The story follows James Pond (Jeremy Crutchley) an English Astronomer who drives cross-country from New York City to California to take a teaching job at UCLA. He has nearly arrived when his car breaks down in the suburbs and with no cell signal to be found he is forced to knock on the nearest door and ask to use the phone. He is graciously welcomed in by the home’s beautiful but strange occupant Mary Ann (Ina-Alice Kopp) but soon finds leaving much more difficult as he becomes ensnared in a sinister plot that could effect the human race itself.

The first thing I want to say is that I think the concept itself is solid and there’s no reason that a great film couldn’t be made using it….but this is not that film. It starts off promisingly enough with an intriguing voice-over and great cinematography but after about five minutes the dialogue begins and the film takes a hard nosedive and never stops plummeting. I’d like to believe that given a better script and direction the actors here could be capable of decent performances but the writing is just so irredeemably poor that it’s honestly hard to tell. What we are left with is awkward, stilted performances that don’t portray anything resembling authentic characters and quickly become a chore to watch.

I do want to point out that I know that the performances are supposed to be somewhat off because Mary Ann and her comrades are in fact aliens disguised as humans. However, even for that, they severely missed the mark and Crutchley’s awkward performance makes him unintentionally come off as the most alien of all. What is clearly intended to come off as charmingly befuddled comes across as cringingly awkward and socially dense. Oh, and don’t worry, the extraterrestrial revelation isn’t a twist that I spoiled, it’s something that’s clumsily introduced very early in the film when Mary Ann blurts out that they’re from….(sigh) Venus. Okay, here’s a free tip for writer/director Stephen David Brooks; if you’re going to pick a home planet for aliens don’t pick one that we already fucking know can’t support life!

However, this may have been one of the film’s many failed attempts to inject comedy into the production, an ill-conceived move that proved to be the biggest detriment to it’s success by far. The attempts at humor are relentless and fall completely flat every time making for an unbearably irritating experience. Most baffling of all is the fact that so many of the “jokes” involve references to Gilligan’s Island (!). Apparently, Brooks thinks this target audience will be primarily made up of fans of bad sitcoms from half a century ago.

I also take issue with this film in any way even associating itself with the term “horror”. This is at best a weird comedy/drama with elements of a thriller that provides absolutely no tension or dread and primarily focuses on a Stockholm Syndrome induced romance between characters you will hate. And truly, this is a real shame because all this terrible, awkward dialogue is delivered in scenes that are surprisingly well lit and competently framed. This adds to the feeling that this was an enormous missed opportunity that could have had a very different outcome if Brooks had ditched the “comedy” and workshopped the script more before shooting.

I think it’s fitting that this film is posted after Romeo’s Distress on my site because they represent opposite ends of the spectrum for how a micro-budget film can turn out. I wasn’t given information on the budget of this one but it couldn’t possibly have been lower than the $2,500 spent on Romeo and that film managed to be fascinating, engrossing and highly watchable. In other words, the complete opposite of this, which can best be described as a really shitty version of Misery…..with aliens.

Romeo’s Distress is a film that isn’t easy to classify as it does not fit neatly into a single genre. It’s not horror but more of a drama that’s heavily laden with dread and intrigue but also does get into more horrifying territory as it approaches the climax. As with any micro-budget film it’s success is going to be dependent on the level of innovation and creativity it brings to the table rather than high production values. So, is this film that was made for the shockingly low price tag of approximately $2,500 and shot well outside the studio system in New York state create an experience worthy of devoting eighty minutes of your time to? Well, let’s discuss.

The story follows James, (Anthony Malchar) an eccentric young man that spends his time taking pictures in graveyards, playing his ukulele and trying to dodge ass beatings from an angry jock named Bobby (Adam Stordy). When he isn’t going to court-mandated therapy or taking care of his senile grandmother, he gratefully escapes into his idyllic dreams of Jane (Kimberely Peterson) the girl he professes to love. Is he just a nice, misunderstood outsider….or is there something more sinister going on?

That’s about as much as I want to reveal of the plot because this is truly a film that is best viewed through fresh eyes. From very early on, writer/director Jeff Frumess establishes a sense of underlying menace and the feeling that there is much more to these characters than initially meets the eye. Indeed, the real fun here comes from seeing where the story will go as more and more information about who these people really are and the true nature of their relationships is slowly revealed.

Romeo also succeeds where many indie films fail by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t feel cheap. In fact, Frumess’ clever use of camera technique and color palette show an advanced sensibility and serve the story very well. The film is primarily shot in black and white with a few choice scenes, such as the dreams, bursting into vibrant color. Using black and white is certainly an artistic gamble but in this case it pays off beautifully and the film would not have worked nearly as well without it. The same can be said about the camerawork which utilizes close-ups and occasional high-contrast lighting to effectively give the film a tone that is subtly surreal.

Despite one or two weak links in the casting, the performances are generally very solid and well beyond what can normally be expected from a film of this budget. Malchar, for one, does an excellent job embodying a character that is quirky and eccentric while simultaneously being filled with sad desperation and rage. The real standout in this film however is Jeffrey Solomon who brings tremendous gravitas to the role of Jane’s father, Dale. He subtly and effectively communicates a genuine sense of menace and repressed emotional anguish that is simply mesmerizing to watch.

Now, despite the numerous positive aspects of this film, it does also have the unfortunate distinction of being one of those movies that continues past the point where it should have simply stopped. I of course won’t spoil it for you with the details but suffice to say the ending only works to the detriment of the overall story. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but if the film had simply faded out two minutes sooner it would have immensely strengthened the overall production. But don’t let that deter you because, if you can find it, this is a cinematic journey worth taking and an experience that is well worth your time.

“Are you ready for this? I’ve got a concept that’s going to blow your fucking minds! A bunch of attractive college kids go camping in the woods and then….get this….are killed by a deranged murderer! What’s that? It’s been done!? Impossible! What……how many times? Too many to count!? Well…..fuck it, let’s roll anyway!”

That’s how I like to imagine the conversation went down at Zell-Koj Studio when they decided to roll out the most well-worn concept in horror filmmaking as their debut feature. Okay, so obviously that’s not how it was but any time I hear that plot line being dusted off again it fills me with the same skepticism as when I hear someone is making another zombie film. But to be fair, there is a lot room within those basic structures to incorporate some very interesting and unique ideas. Films like Wyrmwood and You’re Next are a testament to that. So, does Dark Forest flex it’s creative muscles to bring us a fresh and interesting take on a tired subgenre or does it sink into a sea of mediocrity along with countless other forgotten slashers? Well, let’s discuss.

The story follows Emily (Laurel McArthur) who goes on a camping trip with her three friends to relax, reconnect and to temporarily escape from her abusive boyfriend Peter (Dennis Scullard). When Peter learns that she has gone away without him for an entire weekend he flies into a murderous rage and quickly heads off to the woods to exact his horrible revenge on Emily and her friends.

According to Zell-Koj Studio’s own press release, this was made as an 80’s inspired slasher but I take issue with low-budget horror films that simply try to co-opt that identity in order to justify campy acting and low production values. Even though the film employs the same plot devices that have been in use since Friday the 13^th, the rap/techno soundtrack, prevalence of smartphones and a music video style bikini montage give it a distinctly modern feel. Stranger Things this is not.

For the most part though, the acting is serviceable for what it is and Scullard’s portrayal of the psychotic Peter does stand out as a highlight even though he isn’t given much to work with from a character standpoint. I am certainly willing to overlook a lot when it comes to the practical shortcomings of a micro-budget film but what is particularly aggravating in this case is that the film doesn’t even aspire to be anything more than a generic Hollywood slasher with a fraction of the budget. Nothing about the film even hints at attempting to be original and even a best case scenario version of this would have been nothing more than soulless entertainment.

Speaking of entertainment value, most of the kills are solid and appropriately bloody, even if the blood itself looks distractingly fake in some scenes. Unfortunately, they are presented without any suspense or tension as Peter seems to teleport around as required to kill off the expendable characters. Now, to it’s credit, the film is competently shot but then again so is Hollywood garbage like Transformers and Big Momma’s House. Competently shot should not be the single bar that a film aspires to clear.

My hope is that Zell-Koj will branch out into more innovative directions with future projects that at least attempt to break some kind of new ground. At a time when we have a virtually endless supply of genre films to watch, filmmakers need to bring something new to the table instead of just showing up with a pale version of something we are already tired of seeing.

Let me start by saying that The Laughing Mask is actually not a horror movie in the traditional sense, more of a dark thriller with horror elements. That being said, it is certainly an alternative, indie film that remains relatively obscure, like so many other micro-budget titles. So, the question is “Is this film a hidden gem that deserves to be uncovered or just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick drowning in a sea of it’s peers?” Well, let’s discuss.

The plot centers around the exploits of a mysterious vigilante killer known as “The Laughing Mask”. Jake Johnson (John Hardy) is a writer who’s wife was murdered and daughter abducted by said vigilante and has now written an inflammatory book on the subject in hopes of drawing him out into the open. Homicide detective Katherine O’Malley (Sheyenne Rivers) is also relentlessly pursuing the Mask in hopes of stopping his onslaught of murders as well as figuring out the deeper connection between them.

There are certainly a lot of things to like about this film. The Laughing Mask himself is an interesting character, a well-dressed psychopath with a creepy mask and a penchant for depression-era music. I also enjoyed his lair where he doled out his own brand of vigilante justice to guilty people who have skirted legal ramifications, via elaborate punishments based on their crimes. In addition, the use of creepy, old timey cartoons intercut into a few scenes actually works quite well as does the early twentieth century music that plays throughout. The film also doesn’t shy away from brutality and features numerous bloody kills.

Unfortunately, these positive elements are overshadowed by large, fundamental problems with the film itself. The most glaring issue here is the acting. Hardy actually stands out as the only one from the principal cast able to really deliver a believable performance. Most of the other actors sound like they are doing their first ever table read of a script and their stilted performances destroy any chance for the audience to suspend disbelief. This problem is only made worse by scenes where writer/director Michael Aguiar attempts to inject humor or snappy dialogue into the script, which inevitably fall flat. I also had some big issues with the flawed ending but going into further detail would require revealing major spoilers.

There is definitely some fun to be had with this film but ultimately with pacing that drags far more than it should and a lack of realistic characters to engage with, this film falls far short of what it might have been. With some more attention given to the script, as well as the casting, a very different outcome could have been produced. As it is, I don’t see The Laughing Mask breaking out of it’s obscurity to become a cult hit any time soon.

When creating a Christmas-themed horror film there are certainly a lot of different approaches you can take. Perhaps the most interesting and unconventional though, is the storyline for the Finnish film Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale, which goes far beyond the standard Santa-themed slasher to bring you a story that is relentlessly bizarre and incredibly engaging.

High in the Korvatunturi mountains a foreign company unearths the ancient, frozen body of the original Santa Claus. However, this creature is a far cry from the jolly, westernized version of the endlessly generous elf that we’ve all come to know. This Santa doesn’t just give presents, he also demands the blood of the children who have misbehaved and with his army of creepy elves at his command he’s sure to get it. Now, it’s up to a young boy (Onni Tommila) and a small band of reindeer hunters to try and save Christmas, and the world, from Santa Claus.

While the idea of Santa as a demonic, otherworldly creature that rewards good children and severely punishes the bad may seem strange to many American moviegoers it certainly wasn’t created in a vacuum. The film itself was actually preceded by two shorts by writer/director Jalmari Helander Rare Exports Inc. (2003) and The Official Rare Exports Inc. Safety Instructions (2005). It also draws inspiration from classic figures of European Christmas mythology such as Joulupukki and Krampus.

Right from the opening scene it’s clear that this is a well-made film. Despite the very modest budget of 1.8 million Euros it boasts gorgeous cinematography, flawless performances and high production values. As the wonderfully strange story unfolds, Helander immerses the audience in the bizarre and surreal world he has created with well-defined, unconventional characters and an unpredictable plot that will hold your attention throughout. This is a clear example of an artist-driven project that was created without the kind studio tampering so prevalent in Hollywood films, which is why this is far more entertaining than the cheap clutter that litters much of the American box offices year after year.

Now, I should mention that this is by no means a straight horror film but rather a bloody, genre-blending mix of horror, fantasy, thriller and comedy elements that make for a unique experience that is well worth the time. So, strap on your kengät and put the Reikäleipä in the oven because it’s time to indulge in some quality entertainment from the land of reindeer. A rare export indeed.

When it comes to generating controversy, you’re unlikely to see a Christmas-themed horror film that ever stirs up as much as Silent Night, Deadly Night did upon it’s 1984 release. Despite the fact that a very similar film, Christmas Evil, had come out just four years earlier with little fanfare, groups of self-imposed arbitrators of morality fought hard to get this Santa-themed slasher pulled from theaters as quickly as possible. Even though they were successful at this and the film was removed shortly after it’s release, that didn’t stop it from crushing the box office while it was there. Despite the controversy, or more likely because of it, the film saw profits that more than tripled the original budget, even outmatching the seminal slasher A Nightmare on Elm St which was released the same week. Ya know, the film where a disfigured man’s restless spirit murders teen in their sleep with his razor-fingers. Apparently that was far less shocking to some than a killer with a fake beard and a red suit.

The plot follows the sad, tragic life of Billy Chapman who is put into an orphanage after witnessing his parents’ murder on Christmas Eve by a criminal in a Santa suit when he was five. As he grows up with the memory of that horrifying event repressed deep inside him, his trauma is further exacerbated by the abuse he suffers in the orphanage at the hands of the stern Mother Superior. Although he is able to hold on to his sanity through his late teens, a series of events finally trigger his psychotic break causing him to go on a murderous rampage dressed as Saint Nick.

Even though the plot may sound a bit silly out of context, the film plays it surprisingly straight. One of the things I was most impressed with is how well it sets up and justifies events in the story. In situations where lesser movies would simply throw an event in to move the story along SNDN really goes the extra mile to make sure that actions are logically grounded and explained. For instance, the original Santa killer doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, he is established in a previous scene as are the series of events that lead to Billy’s mental snap.

The film also takes a very interesting and unusual perspective in the way it is presented, which undoubtedly added to the controversy. Rather than having the killer be the mysterious antagonist hiding in the shadows to strike at unsuspecting teens, he is front and center as the protagonist which is a perspective that makes audiences far more uncomfortable. In addition, he is also a very sympathetic victim of horrible circumstances and the scenes of his tragic childhood are truly sad and upsetting. However, rather than dwelling on long scenes of exposition SNDN provides just enough information to build the story to it’s inevitable outcome and doesn’t get bogged down in filler that slows the momentum.

The film also gives you a great sense of the characters who all feel like real, fleshed-out people rather than two-dimensional stereotypes, regardless of the size of their roles. This adds more dramatic weight to the kills when they occur and keeps the story far more interesting. Also, the kills themselves are brutal and pulled off incredibly well, especially the classic antler-impalement scene that is not only iconic, but chillingly beautiful in it’s execution.

All in all, an excellent addition to any horror fan’s Christmas list and well deserving of annual viewing to really get you in the mood for the season of mall Santas and commercial excess.

A lot of movies take place on particular holidays but a true ‘Holiday Movie’ really steeps itself in every aspect of the day it’s representing. In general I find that Christmas movies are the best example of this as they are so often packed to the gills with festive imagery and (gag) “heartwarming” sentiment. Well, for those of you looking for a film that honors a darker holiday with the same level of detail and enthusiasm you’d be hard pressed to find one that does it better than Trick ‘r Treat.

The movie consists of four interwoven stories that all occur in the same suburban town on Halloween night: A murderous school principal (Dylan Baker) struggles to hide his victim’s body; A young woman (Anna Paquin) tries to find the perfect guy for her “first time”; A group of kids explore the site of a child massacre and a grouchy old man (Brian Cox) contends with a very unusual trick ‘r treater.

There are certainly different ways to present an anthology film but if you are going to have interconnected stories this is the way to do it. The stories flow into each other seamlessly as opposed to feeling awkwardly forced together like in some anthologies. The characters also cross over into each others’ stories in significant ways rather than just with token appearances.

This fluidity can be largely attributed to the fact that Michael Dougherty wrote and directed the entire film instead of giving each segment to a different director. While I do like the collaborative nature of anthologies made by multiple artists, it can also backfire when the styles are too at odds with each other. In this case, Dougherty’s slick, cohesive production is proof positive that he was up to handling the task solo.

But cohesion aside, without a solid story, a film has no chance of holding your interest. Luckily, Trick ‘r Treat easily delivers in that aspect as well with a storyline that is fun, engaging and surprisingly dark. The film certainly doesn’t shy away from violence or disturbing subject matter and will keep you on your toes with an unpredictable plot where no one is guaranteed to make it out alive. In addition, the film delivers on some solid moments of black comedy (especially from the principal, that wacky child murderer) that add levity without bringing you out of the world of the film.

The entire production also feels incredibly professional with solid acting across the board and a sleek, polished look. In essence, a film that has the production value of a Hollywood movie with an unconventional indie storyline, which is the combination you’re always hoping for but rarely get. When you toss in the fact that the film is packed with wall to wall Halloween imagery, you get a movie that not only properly honors the occasion but deserves to be put on the annual viewing list with other holiday classics.

As someone who loves horror anthology films, I’ve been glad to see that they have become far more commonplace recently. From films like The ABCs of Death and V/H/S (which have both spawned sequels) to stand-alone titles like The Theatre Bizarre, Trick ‘r Treat and others, the past decade has seen a resurgence in such anthologies. But they aren’t just more plentiful, they are in fact better than ever and the short film format allows filmmakers the freedom to take even more creative risks than they would in a feature and can make for some very interesting watching. So, in keeping with this month’s Halloween-themed reviews I figured what better time than now to break out Tales of Halloween and see how it stacks up against the other anthologies.

Any time you have a collection of shorts there is bound to be a variation in quality but the important question is “does the overall experience work?” In the case of Tales of Halloween, there are ten short films all from different directors and there are certainly highs and lows to be found throughout. Some segments like ‘Ding Dong’, which is a contemporary spin of sorts on the Hansel and Gretel mythology, simply fall flat and come off as far too cartoony to be scary or engaging. On the other hand, the segment ‘Trick’ in which a group of adult friends are terrorized by a gang of violent trick ‘r treaters is not only delightfully gruesome but also features the most genuinely shocking twist in the anthology and is without a doubt the darkest entry. Also on a positive note, the segment ‘Friday the 31^st‘ really goes for the throat with a gruesome, balls-out entry that features aliens, a deformed killer and a whole lotta wonderful carnage.

Some entries start off one way and finish on an entirely different note. ‘The Night Billy Raised Hell’ about a kid in a devil costume meeting the devil himself feels a bit too silly throughout but then is saved by a solid twist at the end. Conversely the entry ‘Grim Grinning Ghost’ about a young woman stalked by a malevolent ghost as she walks at night does an amazing job building tension and dread throughout but is undercut by a weak final reveal. The rest of the segments fall somewhere in the middle but overall are fun, entertaining and bloody enough to keep you watching.

Now, if you are having trouble figuring out the title of the particular short you are watching or even differentiating one from the next, don’t be surprised because aside from the opening title sequence there is absolutely no information given about the name of the segment that’s playing. At first this seemed a bit odd for an anthology but then it became clear that they were doing the film in the same style as Trick ‘r Treat where the separate stories all flow together into one cohesive narrative. However, this film was less successful in that regard and it still feels like isolated stories that occasionally feature cameos from other segments but don’t really flow together as one solid piece. If they had kept them more clearly separated like The ABCs of Death it would have been more successful.

In the end, there are certainly differences between the stories but they all to play at about the same tone. Unlike The Theatre Bizarre which would sometimes delve into territory that was hopelessly dark and dismal (my favorite parts of course) Tales of Halloween stays relatively light-hearted and doesn’t really push the envelope far enough to be genuinely horrifying. That being said, the reoccurring theme of children being abducted that plays throughout many of the stories is itself a very horrifying concept, even if it is mostly played for laughs in this film. Bottom line, this is an entertaining collection that may have some flaws but is certainly a worthwhile way to pass the time as you crack open a few seasonal beers.

In this review, the underground film production company Ungovernable Films takes it to the streets with their Punk exploitation film The Ungovernable Force. Being that this is the same company that created films with titles like Honky Holocaust and Gay Jesus you have a pretty good idea what kind of film experience you are in for if you are at all familiar with their other work. So the question is “Does this Troma-style film capture the gleeful, grotesque magic of movies like Father’s Day or is it simply an hour and a half of boobs, cheap but explicit violence and porn-level dialogue?” Well, I guess there’s only one way for you punks to find out!

The film follows the exploits of Sal Purgatory (Jake Vaughan) a porn store employee who reconnects with his punk friends after being dumped by his girlfriend. His broken heart is quickly mended, however, once he’s finally able to work up the courage to talk to mysterious punk girl Louisa (Lindsay Winne) who he keeps seeing around town and becomes instantly infatuated with. When they stumble upon the body of a raped and murdered homeless woman, it sets them and their rag-tag group of punks off on a twisted adventure full of Nazis, corrupt cops, bum armies, strange chemicals and a whole lotta fucking.

First of all, I do want to point out that this is not a horror movie, although it does contain a lot of horrifying imagery and is without a doubt an Alternative Film. I feel fairly confident it will be a cold day in Hell before mainstream films start featuring unsimulated scenes of masturbation, shitting on the floor and a guy driving a nail through his tattooed cock(!).  And yes, I do mean for real.

These are some prime examples of the kind of Punk Rock, Anarchist energy writer/director Paul McAlarney is clearly trying to capture for this film, and in some ways he does. An early scene at a Punk show effectively embodies this feeling as McAlarney infuses it with the kind of kinetic energy and authenticity of someone who clearly knows the culture. In addition to this, a solid Punk soundtrack plays throughout the film and clothing and set design both feel incredibly legit.

That being said though, a film is only as good as the story it is telling and unfortunately, this is where The Ungovernable Force comes up painfully short. At an hour and forty minutes, the film’s I-don’t-give-a-fuck style of film-making quickly wears thin and without a solid relationship to the characters or the story, it becomes less and less compelling to watch. Much like underground Punk films such as Threat and Mod Fuck Explosion, this is an example of a movie that effectively captures the look and feel of the subculture but lacks the competent storytelling and technical proficiency to be a successful film.

This is most evident in the forces of antagonism, or lack thereof, within the story. I know this is a purposely campy film with a virtually all-punk cast but regardless of the kind of unhinged feel you want a movie to have, you have to take some aspects of it seriously or the story simply won’t work. For instance, if you want to have an anti-authoritarian feel, then it’s not the best idea to have a cop with neck tattoos and a fake mustache acting like an over-the-top clown. It would have been far more subversive to play the cops straight and corrupt which would not only establish a feeling of genuine disgust for them from the audience but also give credibility to the struggles of the protagonists against them. As it is, it’s far too silly to make you care at all what happens and the times when the film does actually ask you to take it seriously, you simply can’t.

I find it ironic that despite the rebellious, counter-culture feel McAlarney is trying to achieve, the actual viewing experience itself becomes very similar to watching a sanitized Hollywood blockbuster. In both cases you are viewing films where you can’t take the characters or the plot seriously, so are not invested in either and are simply watching for the visual stimulation. The fact that that stimulation is nudity, cheap violence and gross-out gags rather than top-notch special effects doesn’t change the fact that it is mindless, escapist entertainment.

I also have to talk about the acting in this film. I’m not going to mince words here, it’s bad….really bad. To be fair, the occasional actor here or there was able to drum up a passable performance but for the most part the acting was unwatchably awful. I’m sure this was largely due to the fact that a lot of the primary cast seemed to be made up of non-actors or newcomers, save a few cameos from several (somewhat) recognizable actors. I’m not sure whether McAlarney wanted non-actors for a more authentic feel or if that was simply all he could get, but either way, having people who are unable to effectively create a suspension of disbelief makes the experience feel less authentic, not more.

Overall, I did enjoy the more fucked-up aspects of this film and the general look and style of it. If McAlarney had actually included a cohesive and interesting story and put some effort into at least trying to make the characters feel fleshed out and realistic, this could perhaps have been an effective film. As it is though, it looks more like something a bunch of college kids got together and shot over a weekend, using a loose outline instead of a script and paying the actors in beer.

For this review I’m doing something a little different and I will actually be reviewing issue #1 of the comic book adaptation of Lucio Fulci’s Zombie. Since comics are such a different medium than films I felt it didn’t make sense to use the same star rating system I typically use for films. So for this review I will be omitting that entirely and simply letting the review speak for itself.

Most Horror fans are already well acquainted with Fulci’s classic film and those of you who aren’t should become so in a hurry. Issue #1 covers about the first quarter or so of the film’s storyline which, for the uninitiated, is as follows: A seemingly abandoned sailboat floats into a New York City harbor and before long it’s lone zombie passenger begins spreading the infection to others. Meanwhile, Ann Bowels, the adult daughter of the ship’s conspicuously absent owner, teams up with investigative journalist Peter West to solve the mystery of what really happened to her father.

The comic stays quite true to the source material but this is by no means a shot-for-shot retelling and some adjustments were certainly made from the original film. However, that is not meant as a criticism because the tweaks and adjustments that were made, most of which minor, work entirely to the benefit of the story.

The largest change is undoubtedly the Voodoo-themed opening which does not appear at all in the film but does a fantastic job of setting the delightfully gruesome tone for the comic. In addition it also establishes the importance of the Voodoo mythology as a central theme and integral part of the story. Writer/editor Stephen Romano keeps the pacing tight with a storyline that pays appropriate homage to the film while also moving the plot along effectively. By virtue of the medium, the comic is also able to delve into the thoughts and backstories of the characters a bit, thereby adding a layer of depth to their experiences.

As with any form of zombie art, the gore is a key element. I knew going into this that it would be a determining factor in deciding if this was a worthy adaptation or not. While the effects of the original film may seem somewhat dated by today’s standards, there is no denying their visceral brutality as Fulci took them to gloriously graphic levels. Well, I am happy to report that the comic does not disappoint and gleefully soaks the pages in waves of crimson brutality. The art is well-rendered and visceral and perfectly captures the uninhibitedly gruesome tone of the film.

Also included at the end is an article in which Romano discusses the backstory of how this adaptation came to be in the first place, which is in and of itself is an interesting read. All in all a great adaptation and an excellent first issue that does justice to the film and kicks the series off right!