RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3
by The Phantom
(sbb@panix.com)
It's been a while since the Phantom has seen a good, solid horror film, and to be honest he went into RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 with a certain amount of trepidation. After all, although the first installment in this series was a top-notch horror/comedy, well directed by Dan O'Bannon (of DARK STAR fame and one of the creative forces behind ALIEN), its sequel was a complete botch--an utterly forgettable, poorly-made rip-off of its popular and successful predecessor. Sadly, that's often the way with sequels; although on occasion a TERMINATOR will pave the way for a T2, an ALIEN for an ALIENS, more often than not we go from the pinnacle of happiness with the witty and original ROBOCOP to the depths of despair with the stupid and mean-spirited ROBOCOP 2.
Bad sequels are even worse than bad original films, since not only do they disappoint us while we're watching them--they also cheapen their fine predecessors and perhaps even make us forget why we ever liked them in the first place. (Most of the recent NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequels are like this; ever since DREAM CHILD, it's been difficult for the Phantom to remember what was so fresh and original about Wes Craven's take on the sometimes porous barrier between our nightmares and reality.)
So RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 turned out to be a nice surprise indeed, a well-made and literate film, balancing its obligatory zombie effects and gore with interesting characters and a thoughtful screenplay. And enhancing the theater-going experience still further: the Criterion theater, conveniently located in the heart of Times Square and currently quite ably defending its reputation as the premiere palace of sleazy cinema in midtown Manhattan. Although United Artists has spent a considerable sum of money on the Criterion over the past few years (in order to differentiate it from the true slime-pits on 42nd Street), the gentrification really hasn't taken hold--although the basement theaters are somewhat nicer than they used to be (seeing a film in one of the Criterion's fine basement theaters used to be a lot like watching TV underneath a subway platform--rats, garbage and all), most have almost entirely reverted to their former extremely sleazy state: lots of people smoking (and not all King Tobacco); people tending to amble in about 15 minutes into the film with their whole families and a bucket of KFC; and of course, lots of unsolicited advice from the audience to help the fictional characters on the screen guide their next move. No previews for the latest Merchant/Ivory snoozer, THE REMAINS OF THE DAY; instead, we got MAN'S BEST FRIEND, the Robo-Dog pic. From the response in the theater, we're all looking forward to it with great anticipation. You just don't get this kind of experience watching a video....
So the environment was right for true horror film enjoyment. Yet the Phantom suspects that he would have enjoyed this film even had he seen it in the worst possible environment for cinematic horror (any theater on the Upper East Side, surrounded by Eurotrash who couldn't get into whatever that week's hip Spanish sex farce happened to be); perhaps it was just the chronic lack of good cinematic horror that did it, but the Phantom found RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 to be standout entertainment.
The success of this film can be directly attributed to both its screenplay and its director, Brian Yuzna, a veteran director of quality horror films. In fact Yuzna, who directed BRIDE OF REANIMATOR, SOCIETY, and the best of the SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT series (part 4), is one of our best horror film directors, right up there with Frank Henenlotter, Sam Raimi and Stuart Gordon. He has an eye for the shocking, and there's nothing he loves more than gore. Yet his films don't shortchange the characters by relegating them to two-dimensional bystander status; in particular, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 is one of the more literate and serious horror films in a while, reminiscent in many ways of Romero's thoughtful DAY OF THE DEAD. The point being that while anyone with a sufficient budget can do gore, not everyone can sustain an audience's interest with nothing more than good characterization and dialogue (not to mention snappy editing, which is very much in evidence here). Yuzna is the director that Clive Barker wishes he could be.
But although he had to labor mightily against the constraints of a very low budget, Brian Yuzna handles the well-written screenplay with his usual flair and has produced a winner. In fact, he shows real courage by inviting comparisons to both Clive Barker and George Romero's best films and succeeding in paying homage to them while still delivering an original horror film of his own.
The screenplay uses the original RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD as a starting point and then expands on it in two different directions, both of which come together by the end of the film. The story focuses on two teenagers (Curt and Julie, both ably portrayed here by talented unknowns) who stumble upon strange goings-on in the military installation supervised by Curt's father. It seems the military is interested in using the recently dead as weapons--not a completely outlandish thought, considering what unstoppable killing machines they were in the first two installments in the series. Naturally a way to control them is needed, and Curt's father believes he's found it; of course, things don't work out quite as planned, and the recently reanimated find themselves less interested in being all they can be, and more interested in wreaking zombie havoc.
Things with Curt and Julie don't go as planned, either; Curt finds that a motorcycle accident has rendered Julie a prime candidate for reanimation herself, and since this is a horror film, we all know that no good opportunity for reanimation is ever wasted. What happens after Curt brings his girlfriend back to life comprises the bulk of the film, though the screenplay does swing back around to the military angle in time for a truly horrific denouement.
Although much of this territory has been covered by Stuart Gordon's classic over-the-top horror/comedy REANIMATOR, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 deals with it in a more serious fashion: Julie is brought back to life, yes, but at what cost? And if Curt really loves her, how can he stand to see what she must go through to stay "alive"; yet how can he let her die once again? It would have been nice had Coppola dealt with these issues in DRACULA with the same degree of subtlety, rather than wasting his time and ours producing a dopey, special effects-laden costume drama; in some ways, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 is a better DRACULA than DRACULA, and a REANIMATOR that takes itself seriously. It's that rare example of what can be done within a genre that does not normally lend itself to thoughtfulness and insight, one in which special effects often overwhelm whatever thin screenplay has been used as an excuse for generic mayhem and gore.
When RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 does falter, it's generally because of the most important constraint under which it was made (besides the R-rating it needed to get to get any sort of theatrical release at all): its very limited budget. With only so much money available for creature effects, we miss out on the one or two more "incidents" (shall we say) that probably should have been added to keep the film well on the right side of becoming too talky. It's a difficult juggling act, of course, since Yuzna obviously intended to make something more than just a zombie-fest. Yet the film does drag at times, and there's nothing wrong with keeping the living dead at the forefront of the action--especially if the title of the film implies that they're going to be returning from somewhere. Yuzna redeems himself by the time we reach the last act--all hell breaks loose, just as we knew it would, and it's at this point that we get a feeling for how all the money in this film was (well) spent. Until then, though, we can do little but sit tight and listen to the dialogue, which is happily well above the Camp Crystal Lake level one expects from horror films these days. No one says "Darn! The basement light just blew--let me just pop down there and change it." Or "I'm *sure* he's dead--no need to check." Or even "Hello? Anyone here? Hel--hey! What's wrong with the lights!?" Very satisfying to be able to enjoy a solid screenplay backing solid special effects--it's just too bad that this is the exception to the rule that all but requires horror filmmakers to insult the intelligence of their audiences.
All in all, a quite satisfying film, and another winner from Trimark, the tiny independent distributor that's fast becoming the New Line of the nineties. RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 and the two WARLOCK films are almost enough for the Phantom to forgive Trimark for the unending pain of LEPRECHAUN, incredibly enough their most successful film to date. RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3 is currently enjoying Trimark's investment of zero dollars in advertising, so it's not likely to do better box office than LEPRECHAUN; let's just hope that phans starved for good horror descend upon it in droves once it hits the video stores in a couple of months. For those who will have no chance to see it in the superior ambience of the Criterion, it will be worth the wait.
: The Phantom : sbb@panix.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews