Shatter Dead

When I borrowed a friend's copy of Shatter Dead, I expected to get some thrills of the zombie gore-fest variety. What I received was really really bad. It wasn't even good in a really really bad way. The first thing that upset and disgusted me was not blood or wanton violence but rather that it was shot on video, not film, immediately cheapening the whole experience. The pictures on the DVD case (yes, DVD) misled me into thinking that this would be a professional piece of work. I have seen many low-budget films, but this takes the prize for worst makeup. Some characters, many of which I'm sure were willing locals and student volunteers, donned grey paint on their skin. Others had some some cheap looking gashes about the face. Most, however were not made up at all. It was also very slow paced, a bit confusing and featured both flat staging and acting. It was hard to tell whether it was the poor acting or the poorly written lines ("Don't be scared, I'm scared too") were what made me want to turn it off.

Having ripped in to this movie quite a bit, it's only fair to share some highlights. Indeed writer/director, Scooter McRae puts an interesting spin on the old living dead yarn that discusses "souls" as being un-killable, despite condition of the body. It also receives my thumbs up for explicitly using, one more than one occasion, a hand gun as a phallus. It's also encouraging to any aspiring filmmaker to see the manifestation of McRae's ideas and labor, on DVD no less. I guess it won some sort of award, too. Bottom line, this flick is for hardcore low-budget horror fans only. If, on the other hand, a friend owns it you might want to watch it. If not for a laugh, then at least to broaden your filmic horizons.

Shatter Dead exhibits much weakness within its plot and structural makeup. The story appears to be dreamed up as some kind of twisted fantasy of the director as the filming process progressed. The "blood and guts" effects were possibly the largest downfall of the film. The same effect could have been achieved by merely dumping spaghetti and meatballs on the actors and actresses. A majority of the acting was unprofessional and cheesy.

Sadly, the only scenes which are able to keep an audience awake are the ones which contain nudity. Sound effects are another large problem which adds to the films downfall. The camera crew is able to be heard brushing up against the camera. That is acceptable in a documentary or a film of that caliber but not a "walking dead" movie. In conclusion, Shatter Dead merits a 3 on a scale of 10 for not containing key element of a credible film.

Even the director/producer calls it a "video" instead of a film in the credits, so maybe I should be careful before calling it a "film." But right there, we have an example of honesty that is a rarity among typically egomaniacal filmmakers, and this very terminology is an indication of the inner integrity this -- ahh, film -- possesses.

Now it's not that my fellow reviewers are totally off base. Yes, the plot is full of holes. Yes, the acting and production values aren't so wonderful at times. And, yes, the standard horror elements have been given a back seat. (And the latter was fine with me, because I believe a film has to be taken on its own merit; there are plenty of mindless zombie films out there, many of which tread the same tired ground, and can get pretty boring at times.) But what do you expect? The production has no budget. Given those limitations, one has instead to inspect whether the film has heart. And this is not a by-the-numbers production. I'm not sure I would normally recommend this film to anyone, frankly, but right there -- given its heart -- SHATTER DEAD deserves much credit.

Eyeing a couple of the external reviews, I see the film was "Winner of the Best U.S. Independent Feature Award at the Italian Fantafilm Festival in 1995." That says something, as I doubt the production team held the political sway of a Miramax at Sundance... this award must have been offered "purely." I also see Joe Bob Briggs says "check it out." Fine. These opinions, although more "official," need be no more valid than the one-vote giving ones here who have concluded "Crapper, Crapper," and (from zombie film fans) "Completely Absurd," as well as "Deeply disappointed." Yet, the former still serve as an indication that there is more to this movie, beneath the surface. (Officialdom = 1; Zombie Film Fans = 0.)

Indeed, the lead actress was not a glamourpuss, as could be said for the rest of the female performers. But the fact that her teeth were crooked and her chest was ungenerous only serve to provide a sad commentary of what our brainwashed movie-goers have come to expect. Frankly, I appreciated her form more than the dime-a-dozen plastic robo-hootered variety that permeate the B-movie kingdom. I liked the fact that she wore no make-up. These were touches that made her more "real," given the awful situation where we have been required to suspend our disbelief. And, yes, the delivery of her lines left something to be desired at times. Then again, she exuded a weight-of-the-world on her shoulders weariness that was most fitting for the depressing context. (She was actually quite lovely in the behind-the-scenes DVD extras, where the director gives a tour of his house.) Suspension of disbelief are the magic words for an enterprise such as this, and that goes beyond the fantastic plot. We have to accept the harsh realities of guerilla film-making, and excuse such matters as the ridiculous toy rifle strapped around her neck.

On the other hand, I appreciated what the film has achieved... for example, in the establishing sequence, the crew shot in a small town without permits, and managed to convey a desolate, "last man on earth" type of atmosphere... not an easy task, without a Hollywood machine to grease the wheels. Secondly, there were special effects that were quite well done, from exploding squibs to a man on fire; the make-up wasn't "that" horrible, either, contrary to what some of our more spoiled reviewers have claimed.

I could have done without some of the extreme "shock" scenes, but I guess that's the sort of thing that makes this kind of film more "fun." (One of the IMDb reviewers complained of "gynecological" hardcore close-ups during the "gun" intercourse scene; in the Sub-Rosa DVD I viewed, there were no such close-ups, so perhaps they were edited out.) The film didn't allow me to get bored (well, okay, maybe the scene with the preacher's rantings went on a bit long). Basically, I'm giving SHATTER DEAD a reluctant thumb's up, mainly for the richness of the ideas conveyed within; that's a lot more than we can expect from a cinematic excursion fully belonging in the trash heap.

After hearing much hype about this supposedly graphic yet thoughtful zombie movie I gave it a shot, much to my dismay.

Strait-jacking Romero's infamous 'Dawn of the Dead' line about there being no more room in hell for it's plot, 'Shatter Dead' follows the exploits of a rather unpleasant female as she attempts to get to her boyfriend in a world were the dead don't die. Along the way she meets assorted boring humans, a wack-job preacher, and some living dead just trying to get by.

The film tries for high-concept, but lays limp at low-execution. The locations look like spots near the director's home, the actors don't ever act, the script is thin past the set up, the gore FX aren't convincing, the direction is uninspired, etc, etc. Just nothing about it ever works. The film could have tried to rely upon the strength of the set-up to at least flirt with some existential examination, but instead the filmmakers fall back on dime-novel psycho-babble and pseudo-religious rhetoric.

As far as providing exploitive thrills, yet again the promise is not delivered. There is some violence and blood/gore, but it's cheaply executed and badly edited together. On the sexploitive front, things fare no better. While there is a fair amount of nudity, it is mostly of the lead female who (I am sorry to say) is not very attractive. For the whole movie only one bit, just one, actually stood out; a late movie sex scene where a blood drained zombie male is forced to strap on a hand-gun in order to engage in intercourse. That one blurb of exploitive lunacy accounts for the 2 rating.

Not much of a horror movie, not much of a sexploitive movie...just not much of a movie.

2/10

Hmmm. Where to start with this one. I just watched this flick for the first time last night and it left me a little uneasy. I am not sure if I am upset at myself for paying so much for a camcorder shot looooooooooooooooooooow budget flick, or if the movie actually had an effect on me.........I am still pondering that one.

For those who love extreme gore, action, and excitement.....this movie will probably not suit your fancy. I would not even call this movie a horror movie. There was nothing scary about it, nothing shocking (except for the gun up the muff scene)...I have seen it all before. I would consider this movie a dark comedy, even though I am sure Scooter did not intend for it to be funny. I mean the really bad acting and dialogue just has to be laughed at, especially Stark Raven and the Preacher Man. Some of the dialougue is just hilarious, like "don't be scared, I am scared." You just have to laugh.

Stark Raven is about as talented and sexy as a slab of cardboard (she's as flat as one too). Her gratuitous sex scenes sort of nauseated me because she is not in the least bit attractive....for once a movie would have been better without the female lead getting naked. The only thing that "shattered" in this movie is the mirror everytime Stark Raven looked in it (God, those teeth..........).

The clever storyline and idea behind this movie are strongly overshadowed by the lousy acting, camera work, and dialogue, and get left behind and forgotten quickly.

I mean, any movie with a guy dressed up like Howard Stern as Fartman with a gun cannot be taken seriously.

Worth a rent but not a buy. Nuff said.