Schlock Round Up

OK, so I said that I was going to get back to the pop culture/schlock stuff, didn't I?  Unfortunately, I've just had to spend what felt like hours dealing with a blocked filter on my washing machine (and, of course, the inevitable flooded kitchen when the blocked filter is removed), which took longer than usual because the whatever-it-was blocking it actually jammed the filter as I removed it - in the end it required pliers to pull the filter out completely.  So, rather than giving any detailed analyses of individual films I've recently seen, I thought I'd give a quick round up of some of the stuff I've streamed of late.  First up, low budget contemporary zombie films.  I was pretty disparaging about this sub-genre a while ago, complaining that, in common with most modern low budget horrors, they look as if they have been filmed on a phone, feature atrocious sound quality and worse acting.  Moreover, there's never anything original about them - decent zombie films are actually difficult to make without repeating the same old established formula.  Now, Plan Z, which I saw recently, does indeed look like it was filmed on the star/director/writers phone, but it gets marks for an attempt at originality in its approach.  For one thing, it actually tries to make something of its UK setting, with the country's lack of firearms meaning that the walking dead have to be messily dispatched with cricket bats, knives, tyre irons and the like, putting the living protagonists at considerable peril. Also, the grainy and shaky shot-on-a-phone look makes sense as it is presented as the personal chronicle of the main character's plan to deal with the zombie apocalypse, ('Plan Z'), related in first person voice over.  The performances of the main cast aren't going to win any awards, but are above average for this sort of production.

Battle of the Bones - I'm not sure where to start with this one.  Again, it looks suspiciously like a large scale home movie, with the director's mates and neighbours providing the cast.  The photography is grainy, the sound tinny and dialogue often barely audible.  Not that any of it is particularly memorable.  The film is rated very poorly in many online quarters, yet I'm loathe to lay the boot in.  Not only was it made with obvious enthusiasm, but it does have some original touches.  For one thing, it is made and set in Northern Ireland and clearly wants to make a statement about the sectarian divide there: rival Nationalist and Unionist factions are eventually brought together with the security forces to defeat an outbreak of 'zombies'.   I say 'zombies' because, rather than the traditional living dead, these are the result of experimental drugs stolen from a lab, which turn those who have taken them into blood-thirsty homicidal maniacs.  As well as being zombie movie fans, the makers are clearly also fans of martial arts movies, as everyone in Belfast appears to be well-versed in said fighting techniques.  Indeed, large parts of the film consist of running fights between the trio of heroes and various gangs - nationalist, Unionist and zombie.  Actually, while seemingly incongruous in the context of a zombie film, the fight sequences are actually pretty well staged and choreographed.  So, while Battle of the Bones left me shaking my head in disbelief that such a thing ever got released to a streaming service, I couldn't help but feel a soft spot for its eccentricities and its attempt to do something different with a genre which all too frequently feels as if it is just gong through the motions of turning out pale copies of George Romero films.

As a complete change of pace, a quick look at Blood Bath, not a zombie film but an anthology film from exploitation veteran Joel M Reed (best known for Bloodsucking Freaks).  Despite being made in 1975, the film looks as if it were made at least ten years earlier, (and, indeed, shouldn't be confused with the 1966 Stephanie Rothman horror film Blood Bath).  Obviously shot on a very low budget, Blood Bath really doesn't have the resources to emulate what are clearly its inspiration - the Amicus anthology films of the sixties and seventies.  It doesn't help that it was made just as the whole horror anthology sub-genre was pretty much playing itself out, with the film feeling like a half-hearted addendum to an exhausted format.  Personally, I've never really been a fan of the format - the individual episodes rarely have sufficient running time to develop characters or scenarios, let alone develop any suspense, with their denouements all too often feeling perfunctory.  The better of the Amicus anthologies tended to be written by Robert Bloch, adapting his own short stories, which provided the ideal source material for the individual episodes, with their twist endings.  Unfortunately, none of the four episodes of Blood Bath are particularly strong or memorable, with a couple not even really being horror stories at all, even the couple that feature supernatural elements are neither shocking nor macabre in the way one might expect from this sort of film.  The framing narrative which bookends the stories is initially intriguing, with the cast and director of a low budget horror film discussing the existence of the supernatural, with each story supposedly proving that it either does or doesn't exist.  Of course, the director is a hiding a secret, revealed in the film's final sequences, which calls back to the opening.  The closest thing to a star the film can muster is Harve Presnell as the director, delivering a suitably hammy performance.  The rest of the cast are adequate for what they have to do.  In the final analysis, Blood Bath is one of those films which, in its undemanding way, is actually quite enjoyable while it is on, but which is quickly forgotten - perfect for late night viewing after a few beers.

So, there you have it, a brief round up of some of my recent schlocky viewing.  Hopefully I'll be able to do some more in-depth posts about some individual tittles soon.  Washing machine permitting, obviously.