Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: For the life of me, why did this film receive an R rating?! While it IS about flesh-eating zombies, believe it or not, it's actually a pretty good family-friendly film--at least if your kids are age 10 and older. Unlike the traditional zombie films, this one has an excellent sense of humor as well as a traditional values--albeit a bit twisted! The language isn't a serious problem, there is no nudity and the film style is definitely geared towards kids (much like the old TV show "Eerie, Indiana")--yet some knucklehead slapped an R rating one it! Believe me, most kids have seen worse violence than this and it just seems silly to make audiences think this is an adults only film.

The story is set in a parallel-type world. While the fashions, cars and mores appear circa 1953, in this bizarro world there has been a fierce recent zombie plague that resulted in the "zombie war" and massive changes in everyday life. At school, kids are trained in armed combat and there's a cute scene late in the film where the father gives his son a handgun and tells him to keep it in his backpack "just in case"! As for life outside of school, it's pretty weird as well, as people now have learned that zombies AREN'T such a bad thing! Heck, using shock collars and training, they can be made into slaves who can do your housework, clean streets, deliver milk or, in the case of a really sick guy, be your "special friend".

This film deals with one particular family that finally buys their first zombie slave (played by Billy Connally). Mom is thrilled and her son slowly becomes the zombie's friend. Dad, on the other hand, isn't convinced--as he was forced years early to kill his own zombie father and he hasn't yet gotten over this!! Funny, irreverent and unique--this film needs to be seen by a much wider audience.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The 1960's TV series Bewitched owes it's idea from this movie. This is the movie that Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak made right after they were cast together in Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock. This one is not as obsessive as that one but Novak is just as captivating.

This was Jack Lemmons 10th movie and he is good in support here as well as Ernie Kovacs. The movie has a lot of good things about it. Hermine Gingold is very good in this movie, almost as good in support here as she was in The Music Man. The cast is very solid.

This movie has a late 1950's New York City feel & a cat that is as hexing as any feline in any movie. It is well worth watching as it is a love story with all the emotion of any, & a little magic too boot.

It is not Vertigo but I think because it followed that movie, viewers then did not rate it as good as it deserved - sure am glad that William Asher saw it, so that the 1960's series got created. I am not so glad about what Will Ferrell did to it on the big screen, this movie is much better than that.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":

Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.

Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.

Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.

I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:

"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."

It's English Jim, but not as we know it.

The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).

The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.

Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon...