(Honorable Mention, The Year's Best Science Fiction 21st Annual Edition)
(Honorable Mention, The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror, 17th Annual Edition)
(Honorable Mention, The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror, 17th Annual Edition)
|
: : : : |
ISSUE FIVE FICTION
POETRY
NONFICTION
POETRY
the one-(of him)-in-control I asked if each one inside him had a name "I haven’t gotten that clever yet" he said Who’s the one that giggles when he kisses me? he glances a flash of eyes from the side yes, I said simply "I’ll tell him" he said So I asked if he talked to them all he said "yes" pressing things forward I knew it was true of this one EINSTEIN'S GIFT SHOP by Christopher Hivner I find no waiting PINS by Aurelio Rico Lopez III The hurt you’ve caused, There’s a rattling and a dull clank MAD SCIENTIST'S LAMENT by Jon Hodges Despite your reports, THE LONGEST CAR RIDE by Jonathan Brandt Rocket borne ashtrays:
REVIEWS
ATTIC SPACE
28 Days Later... Too little, too late...or right on time? What exactly can be said about this movie? More importantly,
what should be said about this movie? I could start by explaining that
it's a new release. It's quite obviously a low budget movie without all
the hype. The story is pretty straightforward, predictable and without
the prerequisite twists and turns. The actors are relatively unknown.
The director can lay claim to such features as Trainspotting and The Beach;
which were entertaining, but not much more than that. The screenwriter
is most certainly influenced by the great George A. Romero. And the
theater was practically empty upon my initial viewing. So why then
would I waste my time, and yours, discussing what to this point may be
considered a real dog of a movie? In my opinion, quite possibly the most well written story of Stephen King's expansive career, I was first upset that a director could be so blatantly obvious when presenting a transitional piece of the movie. But then I began to understand that the entertainment business has simply run out of fresh new ideas at least 10 years ago. I was happy, to say the least, that Danny Boyle, had he knowingly used this scene from The Stand, did it solely with the intention of adding to the movie's already tense chain of events. Unfortunately, this was not the only scene in the movie that carried distinct memories of what has been done in the past. To be blunt about it, the entire second half of the movie could have been nothing more than a remake of George A. Romero's Day of the Dead (probably my favorite of the Romero trifecta). For those fans of the Romero undead lets just say that the military/scientific fortitude wasn't housed underground this time. The final destination of our little band of survivors takes place in what can only be described as a military enforced mansion. Of course, the end result is the same. Those evil, power hungry military monsters lose all control and eventually are the cause of their own hellish demise. It's been years since Day of the Dead. Hasn't the army been able to figure it out yet. You just can't fight amongst yourselves when you've got hordes of the living dead trying to beat down your front door. I suppose it's a just end to those men in camouflage. They were probably (although, never confirmed) the ones who got those poor English into this deadly situation in the first place; what with their chemical warfare and all. Yet, the film begs to ask the question. Is George Romero openly weeping for the future of the horror movie? Has Stephen King gotten his attorney on the phone yet? I think not. For what my opinion is worth, I feel that this movie could easily be conceived as a tribute to those creative geniuses, George Romero and Stephen King. Danny Boyle and Alex Garland took an idea that has, without question, been done over and over again, and simply went to the next level with it. There were plenty of familiar scenes throughout their movie, yet unlike George Romero's masterpieces, the mood of the film did not rely solely on the gruesome details that revolutionized special make-up effects. You didn't find yourself patiently waiting for the next disemboweled victim to lay splattered across the screen (although, that's always fun). In 28 Days Later, you actually began to care for those people that have been left behind. For those helpless men, women and children that have had to deal with the burden of knowing that their loved ones are dead and that they may very well be the last surviving members of the human race. Keep in mind that this outbreak of "the rage" takes place on an island, albeit a rather large one. For all we know, and for all the characters in the movie know, the entire world population may be in similar dire straights. And this is where Danny Boyle and Alex Garland break away from the typical gore infested horror movie. With one simple word, placed ingeniously into the movie's procession, a sudden ray of hope is granted the characters and audience. Hope for the rest of the potentially infected world. "Quarantine!" "A state of enforced isolation," per the 50th anniversary edition of The Merriam Webster Dictionary. Suddenly this movie has taken on a whole new feel. Suddenly, what was once fictitious becomes an all too real possibility for the future that the world has to offer. Suddenly, news headlines begin to flash before your eyes. Headlines of Mad Cow Disease and more recently, SARS. Is this what the writer and director were attempting to achieve? Have they placed the question to their audience? Could this happen? Obviously they have taken it to the extreme, but are they really straying that far from the truth? What would, or could, the military and scientific communities do in order to contain an outbreak of epidemic proportions? Now, all of a sudden I am no longer concerned with the plagiarized versions of the same old story. Now I begin thinking in terms of what real horror is all about. What would it have been like to be left behind? To have been shut off from the rest of the world, with no help from the outside? Left to die. Which story is more terrifying? As luck may have it (though whose luck I still haven't figured out) your average moviegoer isn't satisfied unless there is somewhat of a happy ending. Now, that's not to say that Danny Boyle took an entertainingly good scary movie and turned it into garbage during the remaining minutes of the movie. How many times has that been done just because some test group of viewers who wouldn't know a good movie if it bit their head off complained that the ending was just not happy enough? God help us all! What Danny Boyle and Alex Garland did do was get creative with the title, again. As I mentioned earlier, all hell broke lose at the beginning of the movie after the initial 28 days of infection. What the remaining minutes of the film interpret after the final conflict of the story is that the remaining survivors have continued living, 28 days longer. And it just so happens that it takes approximately 28 days for the rage infected to die of starvation. For whatever reason, they never fed on each other (I guess that would just be too weird) and their living human banquet had run dry. Therefore, the rage had run out of time, the evil military died horribly because they deserved to and the innocent few that have stared death in the eye and walked away are granted their wish from a shooting star that takes the form of an airplane, flying overhead. The nightmare has ended, life moves on and the worst is over. Or is it? Apparently, as this article is being completed, word has already gotten out to the general public that the movie to see this year is 28 Days Later. As I bring this article to its conclusion, I hear off in the background a commercial for 28 Days Later flash onto the television screen. And what's this? The commercial wants me to go see the movie again because they are now playing two separate endings? The newest having more horrific intentions? Damn those movie test subjects. Damn them all to hell!
|
||
|
|