Content
This film has a rather odd opening, that was clearly trying to pay homage to Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino's Grindhouse films. It starts out with several trailers for other films, none of which were very well defined, so it was difficult to tell when the actual movie starts. In addition, there was an old advertisement for an old 50s-style drive-in’s snack bar (“There’s still time to visit our snack bar!” and so forth.) This footage also made a re-appearance in the middle of the movie, along with an old intermission title card. While this makes perfect sense in the campy experience of Grindhouse, it doesn't work nearly so well in this film, especially since this film tries to be so serious in nature.
Obviously, this movie is a sequel to Living Dead Lockup, which is also being critiqued in this issue of the magazine, and a prequel to a yet-to-be released third film. As these two films were released a couple of years apart, I’m assuming they were shot at different times. If this is the case, however, it appears that the filmmakers made a lot of the same mistakes as they did in the first movie. The film’s structure was still the same haphazard style that was sadly lacking in logic. There were scenes out of sequence, shots inserted that didn’t make a lot of sense, and flashbacks that weren’t clearly defined. To give just a few examples: At one point, Jared leaves a hospital he is in, but doesn’t explain why. I assumed it was just to go out and kill zombies, but he ends up finding and rescuing one of his friends instead by somehow turning him from zombie back into human – something that also is not explained at all. At one point, Miguel makes mention of the necessity of getting to another part of the hospital to retrieve a helicopter, but it’s never made clear who is going after it, how far they have to go, why it’s needed, and who can even fly it. At the end of the movie, Jared talks in very vague terms about a plan to destroy as many of the zombies as possible by somehow luring them into the hospital, but there were no visuals such as a map or diagram to clearly illustrate what he was planning.
There are some good ideas to this particular story, but the problem is that they’re just not told very well. I’d encourage the filmmakers to take a step back for a while and re-evaluate their ideas. It might be beneficial to find a writer who wasn’t involved in the process of making these films and ask them to hash out a more cohesive story line. Sometimes it’s easy to get so caught up in all the great ideas one has for a story that it’s hard to see the larger picture, plus there can be great benefit to an unbiased opinion. If this isn’t possible, I’d still encourage those involved to take a good study of the three-act structure, then compose a better-structured treatment of the story – this time by combining everything into one movie instead of three.
Then run this treatment by everyone you meet – seriously!
Treatments can be kept relatively short, and just about anyone can be convinced to read one, especially when waiting for things like the bus or laundry in the dryer. Just be aware – you might have to be a bit ruthless. A writer often comes to think of a cherished script as their “baby,” so it can be gut-wrenching to take away your favorite pieces, but sometimes it just has to be done. Just keep the good of the finished product in mind.
