Book Review: The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks

The Zombie Survival Guide
By Max Brooks

Published: 2003

Synopsis: The Zombie Survival Guide is your key to survival against the hordes of undead who may be stalking you right now. Fully illustrated and exhaustively comprehensive, this book covers everything you need to know, including  how to understand zombie physiology and behavior, the most effective defense tactics and weaponry, ways to outfit your home for a long siege, and how to survive and adapt in any territory or terrain.

My thoughts: With 2012 fast approaching, and the supposed end of the world (in December I believe) it's only right that we're all up to date with our zombie apocalypse training. With that in mind I gave Max Brooks Zombie Survival Guide because people keep assuring me that if anyone knows how to survive the persistent attack of undead foes it's Mr Brooks. A quick perusal of his Survival Guide does suggest a certain readiness on Mr Brooks part as he outlines the best survival options regarding food, transport, weapons, accommodation and future preparations for surviving in a world populated by decaying ex-humans.

I thought the concept for this book was great, and it was obvious Brooks spent a long time researching and conceptualising the idea, but I found the format really, really dry. I was lucky if I could get through more that 15-20 pages at a time, so this book has taken me close to 2 weeks to get through, and I doubt I could have cut that time down. It was a similar experience for me as reading Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, the gimmick wore off quickly and I sat there reading it thinking, "why am I wasting my time reading about barricading houses and head shots when I could be reading True Grit or World War Z?" Bottom line, it just wasn't my cup of tea. I love zombies, I love apocalypse or dystopian fiction, but this book was missing all that meat. It took the fun out of it for me, it reduced it to a school text book for me and...blechhh. That said, I do think there would be people who could enjoy this book (in fact I know some of them), you just have to be open to this format of book.

The final chapter somewhat redeemed the whole experience for me. Quite a bit longer than the others that proceeded it, this chapter was a chronological account of zombie threats and attacks that have happened in the past. Spanning from the earliest account in 60,000 B.C of cave painting depicting a zombie attack (central Africa) to the most recent (at time of publishing) in 2002 of a single zombie in St. Thomas which has spawned a tourist campaign similar to the loch ness monster, the chapter covers attacks from across the globe and is formulated mostly thanks to 'unnamed' informants who were able to take the original files or archived documents from police stations, government agencies and even the Vatican. I think if these accounts had been dotted through the other chapters more (although there already was the occasional anecdote) I would have found it easier to push through the drier content. The tales in this final chapter were full of conspiracies and government cover-ups and some even wound real historical figures (Alexander the Great makes an appearance) or events into the story, and, while still written rather academically, were far more interesting and engaging that the rest of the book put together.

While I found it a tough to read through this entire book, I can't actually fault it in terms of writing or ideas. Max Brooks clearly put a lot of time and energy into it and wrote in accordance with the style of book he was trying to create. The only problem is that I would never otherwise think to crack open a survival guide, perhaps even with an actual apocalypse breathing down my neck! I'd only recommend this to people who are interested with the idea of a survival guide, and are happy to read a book devoid of any plot, characters or action sequences. Definitely a book for specific people only!

3 out of 5 head shots.

Film Review: Pet Sematary (1989)

Directed by: Mary Lambert

Starring: Dale Midkiff,
Fred Gwynne
Denise Crosby
Miko Hughes

Synopsis: The Creeds have just moved into a new house in the countryside. Their house is perfect, except for two things: the semi-trailers that roar past and the mysterious cemetery in the woods behind the house. The Creed's neighbours are reluctant to talk about the cemetery, and for good reason too.

My Thoughts: OK, so I'm perhaps not the best person to go to for an unbiased account of Stephen King films. I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for each and every one of them. Some of them truly are stand out films (Shawshank Redemption is in my top 5 films) but even the dodgiest adaptation has this weird Z-grade charm that I find hard to pass up. Because of my love for all of them, it's a little hard to distinguish with some of these older ones whether it's the quirk I enjoy, or the actual film. Especially in the ones filmed during the 1980s, where even the best are known to garner a little eye-rolling from modern audiences. So I guess this was a fairly roundabout way of saying that this film will get a high rating, but you probably should trust it.

 As I mentioned in my book review of the film, this was my very first bona fide horror film. I loved it, I remember relishing the foreshadowing, the haunting, Hermain Munster without the Hermain Munster gear (Fred Gwynne as the neighbour Jud) and all the other creepy things you expect in a horror film. It must have been weeks before I got sick of saying "First I played with Jud, then I played with mummy, now I want to play with you daddy" in a sing-song children's voice. It never really scared me (not like The Exorcist did a year or two later) but it introduced me to how fun horror can be, and how laughs can mingle with fear and general excitement. If I were to categorise this film it'd be as fun, one of those films where you know what's going to happen and you just can't wait.

Like with many Stephen King adaptations, the film does away with a great deal of the "real" horror, in this case the soul destroying loss of a child. It's still there, obviously, but rather than travel with Louis through his stages of grief, and witness the very upsetting reactions his wife and daughter also have, it fast forwards straight from Gage's death to his "rebirth". As a result there is much less time put into constructing any sort of normal life for the Creeds, or setting up any real characterisation for anyone other than Louis. Instead it chose to focus on the supernatural elements, specifically the warnings Louis received from the recently dead Victor Pascow, the insatiable pull of the Indian burial ground, and most importantly, the psychotic little rugrat that returns to play "stab daddy with a sharp scalpel". I personally found the book superior in introducing the supernatural forces and building the fear incrementally to a mighty crescendo of heart-skipping mind blowing "fuck don't turn out the lights" horror. The film relied on the more obvious methods of scaring audiences, haunting music, spooky tree branches rustling around, a neighbour who looks like Frankenstein...

That said, it wins over many other horror films simply because of the addition of a crazy murderous kid. There is something about children in horror that makes me whimper for my mummy. I guess it's the juxtaposition of precious little cherub faced Gage against precious little cherub faced Gage with a razor sharp scalpel. Mummy and daddy's worst nightmare, rather than wait for their kid to hit puberty and start resenting the parentals, he goes wild at the ripe old age of three. Gage (played by Miko Hughes) really was stupendous in the second half of the film. Not only does he have the best lines (see above), but he managed to wreck havoc and obliterate people four times his size, all with a big toothy smile on his face and not a hair out of place. You gotta hand it to the little demon child, he's got style.

It's not as compelling as the book it was adapted from, but perhaps it's because of the fond history I have with this film... I just...I really can't fault it. It's the perfect mix of creepy kids, cheesy acting, 80s horror clichés and it has a theme song by The Ramones (see below). I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for a serious scare, and again, I'm probably just a tad biassed, but I think it's a film everyone should watch at some point, even if only to poke fun at the hokey effects!

4 out of 5 misguided attempts to bring back a loved one.

Book Review: Night Shift by Stephen King

Night Shift
Written by Stephen King

Published: 1976

Synopsis: A collection of 20 short stories written by the king of horror. Includes some of his extremely well known stories like Children of the Corn and Jerusalem's Lot.

My thoughts: This was my first trip into Stephen King's short stories and I absolutely loved it. I thought that the mix between the stories in terms of genre and structure was fantastic, it slipped so seamlessly from Lovecraft-esque horror to sci-fi, to heart-wrenching tales of regret. I think people tend to forget that King is not simply a horror writer because that is generally what he's famed for, but this collection really showcased his storytelling talents.

One aspect that really interested me with this novel was the insight into where some of the full length books and films started out, the seeds that lead to their making. In that sense it was almost like a sneak peek into his workshop or diary, even though they were published as stand alone stories perhaps with no intention to ever extend upon them. I love The Stand so I found the short story Night Surf extremely interesting. Rather than looking at the overarching tale of good and evil, this short story took place at the time that Captain Trips (the virus that eliminates 99% of the population) was raging through the public. The story captures the fear and desperation that would abound if we were all on the run from an invisible enemy, but juxtaposes it against a group of young people who are struggling to maintain their outward appearance of 'who gives a shit' attitude as they witness the world falling apart.


As with most anthologies of short stories some stories are better than others. At times I felt like a story was a little too childish or rushed or incomplete, but for the most part I found the stories to be of a high quality. The one exception that I really didn't like was Battleground. The story takes place in Renshaw's (paid assassin) apartment when a mysterious package arrives. When he decides to open it a battalion of tiny soldiers pour out and attack Renshaw with a barrage of weapons, guns, cannons, aircraft and nuclear weapons (all teeny tiny).  I think perhaps the crux of my indifference for this story was due to the character of Renshaw. I found him a little flat. I felt like he was too much the archetype of the suave, intelligent killer, and I always find that character extremely annoying and boring. I just didn't care what happened with him, I didn't care if the tiny soldiers killed him and I didn't where they came from. I completely lacked any emotional ties with the guy and since the story was about what was happening to him I just couldn't get into it.

That was the only story out of all 20 that I had to force myself to read, the rest flowed easily and quickly and before long the entire book was finished.  There was a real eclectic mix of stories here, and King really pushed the bar in terms of the wild and wacky with some of them (I'm thinking the animated trucks and cars story in particular, but since there are such a great number of stories in this book I thought I'd list a couple that were my absolute favourites...

*Jerusalem's Lot (very Lovecraftian in feel)
*I am the Doorway (a standout sci-fi)
*Sometimes they come back (a haunting tale of fears returning)
*The last Rung on the Ladder (a beautiful tale of a brother's regret)
*One for the Road (a great bookend for 'Salem's Lot)

I probably wouldn't recommend this to people who haven't read King before, however if you have and you enjoy his work then I think this book will reinforce that love and provide amazing insight into how long some of his stories have been tinkling around in his head. Similarly if you've only read his horror then this book will open up a whole new world of King for you, while still providing the area of his that you're comfortable with to help you through.

 4 out of 5 creepy corn fed children.

Film Review: Salem's Lot (1979)

As a follow up to my Twilight rant the other week, I thought I should review a very different vampire story: Tobe Hooper's adaptation of Stephen King's novel Salem's Lot. I was pretty excited to see this, as we're big fans of both Tobe Hooper and Stephen King here at Hail Horrors, but I have to say, I wasn't blown away by this film.

Since seeing the film, I have begun reading King's fascinating book Danse Macabre about his thoughts on the horror genre. One thing he's made clear so far (I'm about half way through: review to come) is that he has thought A LOT about Bram Stoker's Dracula. He identifies the vampire as one of the three major archetypes that the bulk of horror is built upon, the others being the werewolf and the Thing That Can't be Named (he places Frankenstein's monster in this category). One of the attributes of the vampire which he spends some time discussing is the sexual relationship that they have with their victims, which he likens to a primal rape fantasy. Knowing how conscious King was of this, it was surprising that he intentionally de-sexed vampires in the story. Well, I haven't read the book, but sex and vampires wasn't really a theme in the movie. I don't think the story was hurt by this, it's just an interesting decision.

Instead, the film focuses on vampires as a predator - a silent stalker, hunting from the shadow and surrounding itself with minions. Stephen King understands the myth of the vampire and which of our fears it plays to. King's vampires possess little apparent consciousness, lacking the aptitude for social interaction that vampires are traditionally written with. But as I mentioned before, these vampires are the killing kind, not the flirting kind. There is no reason to be able to make small talk when you can just hypnotise victims with your gaze.

In terms of film-making, it was fairly well directed, with the exception of some freeze frame stings when the vampire claims it's first few victims. They have not aged well and are less than I'd expect from the director of the timeless film the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However, the master vampire's make-up by Jack Young and Ben Lane still looks terrific. Looking back on it, it is probably a good thing Stephen King didn't go for sexy vampires. I don't know how well the Nosferatu-esque bat-guy would have been at pulling chicks, even with supernatural powers of suggestion. This version of Salem's Lot was intended to be two TV-movies, but the DVD we own rolled them into one 3 hour epic, which did get a little tough to sit through towards the end.

The climax follows the classic descent into the hunters into the vampire's lair. The surviving characters and their sub-plots dove tail satisfyingly into the finale - and in true King style, he kills off a few of them for good measure. This was probably my favourite part of the film, followed by the 'window scratching' - an inspired moment of horror genius.

I had high hopes for this movie which weren't met, but it wasn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. King successfully brought Dracula to small-town USA, but the vampires felt a little sterile compared to those in Bram Stoker's story (again, I'm talking about the movie. I have not read the book). Well worth checking out for King/Hooper fans and hardcore horror aficionados.

3.5 out of 5 (hours to watch this thing)

Horror Film Night

Tom and I have started hosting a horror movie night for our friends once a fortnight or so. The plan is to eventually ramp it up to an actual event held around town for other horror enthusiasts to join, but that's a far way off in the future.


We decided our first night should be an introduction to good, solid horror so we showed The Thing, Rosemary's Baby and The Evil Dead (which we ran out of time to watch). We were pretty conservative with our theming for that night but we want to do something a little more creative with each night's choices. So instead of 'classic horror', 'Asian horror', 'zombie films' we're going to try and raise the bar just a touch.

Not being the over-organised types we'll be choosing the categories in the weeks between showing but I'll be sure to post the latest choice up on here when we come up with it, and will be over-joyed if anyone offers up any tasty horror morsels that would better fit the theme. Our next night will be in a week or so, and will probably have something Asian-y horror-y since our friend's Korean girlfriend will be up for a holiday and we wanted to do something in her honour. I'll repost once we know, but if anyone has any ideas let us know in the comments!

Book Review: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

Synopsis: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, is an expanded edition of the beloved Jane Austen novel featuring all-new scenes of bone-crunching zombie mayhem. As our story opens, a mysterious plague has fallen upon the quiet English village of Meryton and the dead are returning to life! Feisty heroine Elizabeth Bennet is determined to wipe out the zombie menace, but she's soon distracted by the arrival of the haughty and arrogant Mr. Darcy. What ensues is a delightful comedy of manners with plenty of civilized sparring between the two young lovers and even more violent sparring on the blood-soaked battlefield as Elizabeth wages war against hordes of flesh-eating undead.


My Thoughts:  I had absolutely no idea what to expect from this novel, nor how exactly the zombie storyline would be woven into the original tale. For the most part the splicing of the old with the new worked fairly well although there were the occasional zombie reference or alteration of the original text that I found to be a little messy and awkward, but I guess that would be expected from a feat such as this. It did seem to remain fairly true to the original, however I haven't read the original (past chapter 2), I've only seen the BBC adaptation (which I believe to be quite close) and I certainly recognised not only scenes but entire chunks of dialogue from the series in the book.

Before I began reading I had wondered about the author's intention with the zombie plot, whether it'd seem contrived or gimmicky, the result of a guy merely trying to cash in on the zombie trend and make the most out of the freedom of public domain texts. Surprisingly though I thought it worked quite well in reinforcing Austen's original character traits and themes (again this is an assumption made from the BBC series and the general talk I've head). I thought this was so especially regarding Elizabeth, she now has a superior external strength, talent and ruthlessness to her character which I think better exemplifies her qualities of uniqueness, strength and courage that Austen had originally depicted her with.

It was missing some of the subtlety of the original which is to be expected when you chuck zombies into the mix, but overall I thought it quite a charming book. My favourite parts were definitely when the zombie inserts were juxtaposed with some of the more heavily focused aspects of the novel such as propriety and manners which I thought was brilliantly done in the scene at the first ball. An attack from a horde of zombies force the girls into the "pentagram of death" "stepping outward in unison- each thrusting a razor-sharp dagger with one hand, the other hand modestly tucked into the small of their back," (page 14).

Often having seen the movie, or in this case series, before reading the book ruins my ability to visualise the characters how I'd like to, however either it's been long enough since I've seen the series for it not to overshadow, or the slight alterations Seth Grahame-Smith made to the characters were great enough to change them from their depiction in the series. I had no problem letting the book spark my imagination in terms of character appearance and accent etc except in the case of Mr Darcy. Perhaps because of the universal acknowledgement that Colin Firth is Mr Darcy, I couldn't visualise anyone else and it was only his voice I ever heard saying Mr Darcy's lines. This wasn't a problem though, it actually added to the comedy quite substantially to imagine Colin Firth running around in a suit and top hat decapitating zombies with a katana.

I did enjoy this book, but at times I did really have to force myself to keep reading, setting myself page goals I had to reach before I put it down. I think this was close enough for me to grasp the intentions of Austen without having to fall asleep one more trying to read it. I've heard complaints from Austen fans that they found this gimmicky and didn't feel like they needed to read the whole thing and I'd say they'd probably be right. If you know the story and read it often the addition of the zombies might seem quaint and comical at the start but it doesn't alter the plot enough for it to really engage someone who knows the book well, or at least that's how I (the Austen novice) feel.

That said the book is well written and for the most part I though Seth Grahame-Smith did an amazing job seamlessly combining his words with Austen, although once more I have to remind you I haven't read the original so an Austen fan, like a Trekkie critiquing the latest Star Trek film, might be completely insulted by the additions made in this edition. The zombies gave it that push of action I really needed so that I could get through it because this is a book from an era I tend to steer clear of, in a writing style I tend to dislike on a subject I can't stand, so the fact I got through it (even with the help of zombies) is quite remarkable indeed.

 3.5 out of 5 etiquette trained zombie hunters.

Opinion: The Twilight Phenomenon

"Twilight is about how important it is to have a boyfriend."

- Stephen King

I'm going to make a concession that many horror fans would drive a stake through my heart and shove garlic down my throat for making: there is an acceptable circumstance in which you are allowed to read and enjoy the Twilight series*. This requires you to be a) a girl, and b) between the ages on 12 and 15. It's OK to like crappy things when you're a kid. I used to like the band Korn when I was that age. It's embarrassing but I grew out of it . No one has impeccable taste in their early teens. I send my blessing out to all the 12-15 year old girls in the world to giggle and fart over Edward and Bella and Jacob, role-play their confused, sick, little sexual fantasies with their newly pubescent friends, and create an unrealistic expectation of romance that with follow them through the multiple divorces they will have in their lifetime. Sure, the character of Bella is a shitty role-model for girls this age (feminists can burn all the bras in the world and it won't undo the damage this series has done) but so was Korn's frontman Jonathan Davis, and I like to think I turned out alright despite his influence.

However, you don't become a phenomenon by appealing exclusively to 12-15 year old girls. And this is where I find myself standing stalwartly next to my fellow Twilight haters. Outside of that narrow demographic, there is no excuse to like these stories. And I mean that beyond a 'romance is icky' kind of way. I like plenty of romantic stories. The on-screen romance (probably helped by the off-screen romance) between Jeff Goldblum and Stewart Little's mum in The Fly not only made it the greatest romantic film ever, but one of the greatest films ever. Twilight fans will often praise the dedication of the series' lovers had for each other. Bullshit. Did Bella stick with Edward even after he decayed into the hideous Brundlefly? Would she have pulled the trigger and ended Edward's life after he accidentally spliced himself into a hybrid of man, insect and machine? No, she would have curled up and cried, like she did every time something didn't go exactly the way she wanted it to.

So no, my problem isn't the romance**. It's the wider ramification that the series might have or potentially has had on horror. Some academics argue that Michael Jackson's Thriller can be attributed as the catalyst in the decline of zombie films in the 80s. The logic was that his version of the 'zombie' became the default cultural perception of what a zombie was. This resulted in zombies becoming a gimmick and fading out of popularity until director's learnt how to make them scary again in the early 2000s (just ask Kayleigh. She wrote a thesis on it). And if we are using this little girl as a barometer***, then we are already too late people.

Sex in vampire mythology have been around since Bram Stoker (or John William Polidori if you really want to go back). But the interesting thing to me about the attraction to vampires in fiction is that it happens in spite of the fact that they're an undead creature that sees us as little more than prey. Seduction is one of the weapons of vampires, an allegory of how sexuality can be used to assert power. Succumbing to its charms is to assure yourself a fate worse than death, and something that you fight against as it attacks you on a primal level. It's not about being a hot high school teen forever. And yes, there are plenty of themes about sexuality in Twilight, but they deal with sexual frustration and restraint rather than any of the things that vampires are good at exploring. Bella grinds and gyrates in front of Edward, begging him to feed off her for the best part of three books, taking Count Duckula's title as worst vampire ever. Please no hate mail from Duckula fans, but you have to admit, he wasn't very good at being a vampire. An interesting point of comparison: both Edward Cullen and Count Duckula are vegetarians, but at least Count Duckula was taking the piss.

But these concepts seem to be aloof to Stephanie Meyer. In her own words:

"I don't think my books are going to be really graphic or dark, because of who I am. There's always going to be a lot of light in my stories."

Then why did she use vampires? It's the exact opposite what she would have used if she didn't want to explore dark or graphic themes. How would she feel if I wanted to explore the theme of domestic violence in a novel using characters from Mormon bible stories?

My book store doesn't have a horror section any more. It has a 'Paranormal Romance' section. I struggle to track down novels by Clive Barker or Richard Matheson, yet am overwhelmed by Twilight rip-offs trying to cash in on the fad, devoid of all originality and value. Perusing this wall, the only two authors I recognise are Stephanie Meyers and Anne Rice. The only exposure I've had to Anne Rice's work is the film Queen of the Damned, the score of which was written by Korn's Jonathan Davis. See a pattern?

* Many people opt to call Twilight a 'saga' rather than a 'series', but I find this disingenuous. Google defines 'saga' as 'A long story of heroic achievement.' While it is very true that the Twilight saga is long, it's hardly fair to describe crying yourself into a catatonic state because you were dumped and getting knocked up as 'heroic'

** OK, so I don't have a traditional sense of romance, but there is usually a tenderness to Cronenberg movies

*** We shouldn't. It's probably illegal

Film Review: The Exorcist (1973)

Director: William Friendkin.

Synopsis: When a child is possessed by a mysterious entity, her mother seeks the help of two priests to save her daughter.

My Thoughts: When I reviewed the book version of The Exorcist the other week I kept making rather vague references to what I remembered of the film. It seems I perhaps should have re-watched the film before I shared some of those perspectives because it seems like I misremembered much of the film!

Watching the film as a 13 year old what really stood out to me was the girl descending into deeper levels of creepy possessed demon-ness. Her transformation from loveable, happy child into a creature hell-bent on destroying the lives of everyone it comes into contact with was a stark shock for little me, and the images of Regan's head spinning, and the "help me" formed on her stomach haunted me for nights after I first saw the film. Because the poignant transformation had such an impact on the young impressionable me, when I read the book and found an abundance of conflict between psychology and religion and how religion can survive alongside the sciences in the modern world, it felt like a new addition to the story. What I  found upon rewatching it though, is that this conflict is indeed present in the film, and like the book actually takes prescendence over much of the exorcism/possession stuff.

Not being particularly religious (read: stone-cold atheist) the conflict isn't something I've come into contact with, but the representation of it on film with the character of Father Karras makes it painfully clear that religion is much harder to sell, shall we say, and also much harder to swallow. Though he seems clear that there is a god, his psychology background makes it impossible to believe that Regan could possibly be possessed. Though it's explained more within the book, he's clearly more confident with saying she's suffering from some undiagnosable mental disorder than a mystical being possessing her body. It's an interesting predicament, because as an atheist/agnostic I really can't see the difference between demons and god, but for Karras there is a definite difference between them and his scientific background doesn't allow him to suspend his disbelief quite that far. It makes for a possession narrative that's much better equipped for modern audiences and modern society, far more accessible and believable.

For anyone who hasn't seen the film (shame on you) the special effects are hardly of the standard that we're used to today, but I still found them realistic enough to have me hugging  my legs to my chest. To be honest, I find it much more effective to use the physical special effects, as used in The Exorcist, than the CGI ones favoured today. They don't always pass as more realistic, but they have a tangibility that you simply can't get from CGI, regardless of the studio designing them. This is definitely true in this film. The shaking bed and possessed puppetry does border on laughable from time to time, but you can get a real sense of why this film had people in hysterics when it was released. In fact, I think it's one of the few old films where you're completely excused for still feeling fear during. Night of the Living Dead, though a favourite of mine, is decidedly unscary, even though I recognise where the fear would be for older audiences.

The atmosphere is fantastic in this film, and the soundtrack further amplifies the overall feeling of the movie. Perhaps the best example of this film's dark and moody atmosphere is the shot used on most DVD covers of the film. Father Merrin standing underneath the streetlight as light shines down on him in the dark from the open window of Regan's bedroom. Stunning. While the rest of the film doesn't quite meet the same high standard of this image, it does reflect the general cinematic style of the film.

All of this adds up to create a phenomenal, and understandably classic, horror film. One that I implore you all watch, and even if you've seen it before, watch it again. No more discussion, just do it. Now.

4.5 out of 5 pints of pea soup vomit