November 20, 2023

House of the Dead.

Review #2144: House of the Dead.

Cast: 
Jonathan Cherry (Rudolph "Rudy" Curien), Ona Grauer (Alicia), Clint Howard (Salish), Ellie Cornell (Casper), Tyron Leitso (Simon), Will Sanderson (Greg), Enuka Okuma (Karma), Kira Clavell (Liberty), Sonya Salomaa (Cynthia), Michael Eklund (Hugh), David Palffy (Castillo), and Jürgen Prochnow (Kirk) Directed by Uwe Boll (#1765 - In the Name of the King and #1924 - Alone in the Dark)

Review: 
Its funny to go backwards when watching an Uwe Boll for the third straight year. This is the film that got people to look upon Boll and say, "What the hell is this doing in so many theaters?" It is loosely based on the video game of the same name that had originally appeared in arcades from Sega in 1996. Apparently, plans for a film first came around in 1998 with the idea that Jesse Dylan would direct from a script that had the involvement of Dylan and Mark Verheiden (most known for scripts such as Timecop). The outline (as provided by a magazine of the time) apparently involved a small college town involving a zombie haven to go with deaths at a rave and "necro-warrior" nerds that rally to fight the walking dead. However, by the time production actually came around, here one is with Boll as director and a script of differing names: the screenplay was done by Dave Parker and Mark Altman (you may recognize him as the co-writer of Free Enterprise (1998), the rom-com involving fans of Star Trek) while the story was done by Dan Bates and Altman. 2002 saw Boll and his production company take charge with said script to make this film, which began production in Vancouver. This was the 8th feature film for Boll as a director, which had seen prior works of horror and dramas such as Heart of America (2002), which most people would probably associate with the DVD markets. A direct-to-video sequel came in 2005 that had Altman serve as writer for screenplay with one returning cast member but, well, no Boll as director (amusingly, Boll would do the sequels to his other video game films of the time). By that time, Boll was ready for his two-pronged 2005 experience of Alone in the Dark and BloodRayne. There apparently is a director's cut that adds in some dialogue and alternative takes to go with pop-ups and you know, I'm just not there for that, man. 

You know that label "so bad it's good"? Sometimes you just want to call that label a crock of crap, and I think you really need to find films like this to really test the theory that a film can be so bad that it could come back to enjoyably goofy to watch. But this is the third straight Boll film to leave me with more irritation than before I pressed play, and I find little redeeming factors beyond the fact that the movie is probably one of few video game adaptations to feature clips from the game that they are adapting (well, technically the film is meant to be a prequel of the first game, which means rather than having an agent name G as the lead, you have the rave stuff here). Someone apparently counted the amount of clips shown at 32! Even the B-movies from the 1960s had something worth following along with in their ambition, this movie just has the turn-table technique for 360-degree shots that make me want to roll my eyes in the same way. Blank slates being spooked by zombies has never felt so lifeless, but by God did Boll accomplish it here. You can predict every movement for 90 minutes but feel so tired when doing so that it doesn't even feel worth it to do so. I know it isn't the worst, because those who have seen Alone in the Dark know what true misery is, but it is up there in the turd mountain. Cherry looks like he would rather be stuck anywhere but here with such a thankless lead role that does him no favors. What's the point of setting up a thing about students looking for a rave if the characters are too damn boring anyway? Even the one shot of nudity just seems to be "okay, next". I swear, if you throw a dart board at a bunch of names of cheapie films, you could land on one with Clint Howard involved in some way with pretty good odds (he also happened to appear in Boll's two previous films). He doesn't exactly rein in a good performance, but I'm sure the checks cleared all the same regardless. Cornell and Prochnow would've been a more interesting pair to really focus on when it comes to scoundrels and people who shoot guns, and yet...you get the idea. If you can remember a single thing about the "villain" in Palffy, you deserve a medal, because the whole thing about "immortality serums" and hordes of zombies under his control is handled with about as much grace as a dirt road with broken glass all over. As a whole, it is a Uwe Boll movie with little to show for its efforts, as it is the kind of thing that looks and feels way cheaper than $12 million. How could anyone approve of this? Well, 20 years have gone by and I certainly can't say that people are going to look upon this film as a lost classic, they just will see it as bland trash to throw onto the pile.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: God help us, Wired. 

No comments:

Post a Comment