focus1753

Zombi 3 has absolutely nothing in common with the Zombi 2 (Or Zombie Flesh Eaters in the UK) which was a slow burning masterwork of suspense, mystery and zombie horror which is what made it so good. Zombi 3 takes a different approach, seemingly aspiring to be more of a zombie action film and in the process losing everything that made the original a classic. What makes this film so poor can be broken down into several areas.

Acting: The acting in Zombi 2 while not Oscar worthy was better than expected from a low budget Italian horror film and helped add to the film's creepy atmosphere and likability. However, the acting in Zombi 3 is nothing short of painful. The intonation of the actors is often bizarre and unbelievable and brings the realism and horror of the film down drastically. The actor for the doctor is particularly poor causing me to wince every time his character had dialogue. Overall, the acting basically devalues the film massively.

Direction and cinematography: One of the most appealing aspects of Zombi 2 was that it featured some amazing shots of the Island that were framed beautifully, especially for a low budget film, and served to improve the film's production value drastically. Camera movement and angles were also carefully planned to create maximum impact. Zombi 3 has lost this entirely with the direction being uninspired and unimaginative. There are also no stand out shots like the film's predecessor.

Diversion from the original: This film is not linked to the original in any way except for the title and the appearance of zombies.This is a massive error considering how successful the original film was and leads to some bizarre new ideas in this film that do not work at all. For example, changing the cause from voodooism to an epidemic seems pointless and random, having zombies that move quickly and run is even more bizarre and nonsensical and worst of all a scene featuring a flying severed zombie head is just simply kitschy and awful.

Overall: Shoddy acting, boring direction and strange deviations from the original formula make for a truly inferior sequel to a really high quality horror classic.

What was it that made the original two Jurassic Park Movies so good? For me it was the winning combination of memorable characters, amazing special effects and a darker tone than most family movies as especially shown in the second movie which is personally my preferred of the two. The one of these qualities that Jurassic World can claim is the special effects which aren't particularly great if that's all a film can offer. But I'll try and be objective for a moment so you can understand why I didn't like this film. The first thing that put me off about Jurassic world is how the main characters are a 14 year old boy and his 20 year old brother. I assume this has been done in order to try and appeal to the family audience more and as a result the entire tone of the film is brightened. Now as I said before the dark tone of the original two Jurassic park films were a huge part of why they were successful and the same goes for the original book so when I saw that these two children were going to be the main characters I was rather annoyed. My annoyance was well deserved as well as a lot of time in the film is devoted to exploring the brotherly relationship which is neither new or interesting which is also a good way to sum up the two brothers as they are as stereotypical as it gets for a family adventure movie. Talking of non-interesting characters this film suffers a severe lack of truly amazing characters that film did so well. Instead we are stuck with a movie of stereotypes with the two annoying kids, a workaholic family member and a no-nonsense Chris Pratt, all of which are utterly uninspiring. I was especially disappointed by Chris Pratt who I thought I could rely on after his performances in Parks and Recreation and Guardians of the Galaxy but his character was maybe even the most boring being a slightly funnier version of Muldoon from the first film with equal cynicism and less death. The only actually interesting character was Masrani (the new parks owner) played by Irrfan Khan who provides a fresh, comedic and interesting character who I really loved compared to the rest of the boring cast. However, he is so underused in the film appearing for very little of the run time and therefore not making enough impact on the movie. The plots boring as well with the whole story being Chris Pratt and the children's Auntie trying to find them after a dinosaur breaks out. Tis film is everything that's bad about Hollywood its unoriginal, boring and not worthy of the Jurassic name.