Cereval
11-Dec-2007, 07:02 PM
Also posted HERE (http://www.preciousnightmare.com/?p=291) and HERE (http://www.preciousnightmare.com/deadscapes/blog/news_item.asp?NewsID=57).
Perhaps this update should be titled The Good, The Dead, and The Ugly …
I’ve stumbled upon a few more reviews for Deadscapes II. I’ve noticed that coming across reviews is like finding loose change in your car. Underneath your seat, amidst a heap of wrappers and receipts, you might one day find a dirty quarter. Or maybe even a crumpled up dollar bill, stiff and brittle from moisture and subsequent drying out. It’s still money after all. But it’s not quite the eureka-worthy event that you might assume such a finding would be. Once in a while, I’ll poke around and see if any reviews have been made of Deadscapes II. And once in a while, my hands get a little dirty from reaching under the seat.
I wax word-etic not because I have a flare for the dramatic, but just because I feel like being a bit more descriptive in response to reviews in general. I don’t quite know what to make of them most of the time. I don’t read reviews on my favorite movies in the first place because in the end it feels like a futile act reading someone else’s opinion when I can just as well craft mine, either in word or discussion. Reviews can be wordy and lengthy exposition that cleverly masks what essentially is a bias - kind of like this update. My bias is that in commenting on other people’s responses to my work, the automatic supposition is that of defensiveness on my part. But of course, I acknowledge this and use it as preface.
The first review I encountered was at ZombieRama (http://www.zombierama.com/reviews/moviePage.php?type=common&movieID=334). Strange that I seem to remember Broken Road being reviewed there at one point but it doesn’t appear in the listing. I’m not even sure if it constitutes as review seeing as though the entry, with all description combined, is little more than a paragraph (which includes the synopsis). The conclusion of this “review” is a sentence which both reviews the film as whole and dismisses it, as one would after seeing an entertaining commercial. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of patience to actually review the material? 2 out of 4 stars was consolation prize.
“I have to say I was expecting just a straightforward faceoff between serial killer and zombies, but Velasquez takes it in a more interesting direction. He packs a neat idea into a short running time, so it doesn’t get a lot of development, but it does make you think a bit.”
I found another review at HorrorTalk (http://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/DeadscapesII/DeadscapesII.html). The reviewer had actually done a review on Broken Road as well and naturally referred to it in covering the sequel. However, his initial dissection is a continued comparison to the first episode - not what one would expect in a review of a part of a series. The critique to follow was laden with what seemed a disdain for the subgenre itself, referring to the whole zombie thing as “repetitive”. These lackluster thoughts seemed to permeate the well-articulated review but, spread even to his opinion on the Deadscapes series itself. The review is like describing a bad breakup, as if to focus on the bad taste left in one’s mouth afterwards as opposed to the actual component events themselves. Statements seem to start positively (or even objectively) but must untidily contradict themselves with the implied notions of what ultimately is the writer’s final assertion on the entire film. 2.5 out of 5 stars were grudgingly assigned in the end and not without a reference to the first effort, Broken Road.
“Credit goes to Velasquez for trying to mash up Silence of the Lambs and Dawn of the Dead, but this time, it doesn’t quite work. Despite the seemingly original idea, the whole project feels a bit stale. Maybe it’s just the whole zombie thing getting repetitive. Broken Road received two-and-a-half stars — this one will be treated with the same, as there were both steps forwards and backwards to be witnessed.”
In general, I suppose my review of reviews tends to match my less-than-eureka response to finding dirty change on my car floor. Not quite happy. But also not entirely sad at the find. After all, if you gather enough of these finds, it might amount to something more significant than the individual acquisition itself. I suppose in the end, I’ll have to submit to what comes naturally - acceptance. Good, dead, ugly … I’ll take it and brush my hands of the rest.
http://www.preciousnightmare.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/20071211_review_zombierama.gif
http://www.preciousnightmare.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/20071211_review_horrortalk.gif
Perhaps this update should be titled The Good, The Dead, and The Ugly …
I’ve stumbled upon a few more reviews for Deadscapes II. I’ve noticed that coming across reviews is like finding loose change in your car. Underneath your seat, amidst a heap of wrappers and receipts, you might one day find a dirty quarter. Or maybe even a crumpled up dollar bill, stiff and brittle from moisture and subsequent drying out. It’s still money after all. But it’s not quite the eureka-worthy event that you might assume such a finding would be. Once in a while, I’ll poke around and see if any reviews have been made of Deadscapes II. And once in a while, my hands get a little dirty from reaching under the seat.
I wax word-etic not because I have a flare for the dramatic, but just because I feel like being a bit more descriptive in response to reviews in general. I don’t quite know what to make of them most of the time. I don’t read reviews on my favorite movies in the first place because in the end it feels like a futile act reading someone else’s opinion when I can just as well craft mine, either in word or discussion. Reviews can be wordy and lengthy exposition that cleverly masks what essentially is a bias - kind of like this update. My bias is that in commenting on other people’s responses to my work, the automatic supposition is that of defensiveness on my part. But of course, I acknowledge this and use it as preface.
The first review I encountered was at ZombieRama (http://www.zombierama.com/reviews/moviePage.php?type=common&movieID=334). Strange that I seem to remember Broken Road being reviewed there at one point but it doesn’t appear in the listing. I’m not even sure if it constitutes as review seeing as though the entry, with all description combined, is little more than a paragraph (which includes the synopsis). The conclusion of this “review” is a sentence which both reviews the film as whole and dismisses it, as one would after seeing an entertaining commercial. Out of sight, out of mind. Out of patience to actually review the material? 2 out of 4 stars was consolation prize.
“I have to say I was expecting just a straightforward faceoff between serial killer and zombies, but Velasquez takes it in a more interesting direction. He packs a neat idea into a short running time, so it doesn’t get a lot of development, but it does make you think a bit.”
I found another review at HorrorTalk (http://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/DeadscapesII/DeadscapesII.html). The reviewer had actually done a review on Broken Road as well and naturally referred to it in covering the sequel. However, his initial dissection is a continued comparison to the first episode - not what one would expect in a review of a part of a series. The critique to follow was laden with what seemed a disdain for the subgenre itself, referring to the whole zombie thing as “repetitive”. These lackluster thoughts seemed to permeate the well-articulated review but, spread even to his opinion on the Deadscapes series itself. The review is like describing a bad breakup, as if to focus on the bad taste left in one’s mouth afterwards as opposed to the actual component events themselves. Statements seem to start positively (or even objectively) but must untidily contradict themselves with the implied notions of what ultimately is the writer’s final assertion on the entire film. 2.5 out of 5 stars were grudgingly assigned in the end and not without a reference to the first effort, Broken Road.
“Credit goes to Velasquez for trying to mash up Silence of the Lambs and Dawn of the Dead, but this time, it doesn’t quite work. Despite the seemingly original idea, the whole project feels a bit stale. Maybe it’s just the whole zombie thing getting repetitive. Broken Road received two-and-a-half stars — this one will be treated with the same, as there were both steps forwards and backwards to be witnessed.”
In general, I suppose my review of reviews tends to match my less-than-eureka response to finding dirty change on my car floor. Not quite happy. But also not entirely sad at the find. After all, if you gather enough of these finds, it might amount to something more significant than the individual acquisition itself. I suppose in the end, I’ll have to submit to what comes naturally - acceptance. Good, dead, ugly … I’ll take it and brush my hands of the rest.
http://www.preciousnightmare.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/20071211_review_zombierama.gif
http://www.preciousnightmare.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/20071211_review_horrortalk.gif