Vampires vs. Zombies…who would win?


So, we finally have hit the goal of 500th post for the site’s first year.

I had thought to commemorate this achievement by writing up a film review or maybe one of the other writers post something appropriate, but I thought what better way to do this than post something about zombies.

Zombies have been big again of late. The recent premiere season of the TV adaptation of The Walking Dead and the continuation of the original comic book series it’s based on. The TV series’ success has brought the topic of zombies back to the forefront with fans and non-fans sharing a common appreciation for this horror sub-genre which has remained the dirty, stepchild cousin to the more glamorous and fantasy-fulfilling monsters calling themselves vampires.

Vampires have been in the general public’s consciousness due to the popularity of the Twilight book and film series not to mention the TV shows True Blood and The Vampire Diaries. These three franchises have made the vampires sexy and popular once again. While they’re not the silk and lace types popularized by author Anne Rice during the 80’s they still portray the vampires as dangerous, but also conflicted and over-emotional creatures who curse their lot as much as embrace it.

Zombies on the other hand have began their inevitable decline after the market was flooded by legion of sub-par books and films. For every Dawn of the Dead (remake) and Shaun of the Dead we got stuff like Day of the Dead (remake) and direct-to-DVD titles such as Zombie Wars and Last Rites. But thanks to the Robert Kirkman’s critically-acclaimed and very popular zombie comic book series and it’s subsequent TV adaptation by showrunner Frank Darabont the zombies have had a major resurgence that brought the question of which was better: zombies or vampires.

These two monsters have their histories both in entertainment and in folklore. The vampire legend and myth could trace itself back to the beginning of human history as early human civilizations always had in their stories and own legends creatures risen from the grave to drink the lifeblood of those still living. There’s Lilith of the Judeo-Christian faiths who some attribute to being the mother of all vampires. There’s also Cain himself who many thought was the progenitor of the original vampire myth. Every major religion both past and present have had their version of the vampire, but while they’ve remained as stories told to warn children of the dangers of the night they were never truly told as part of entertainment. Only in the past hundred or so years have vampires begun to make their mark on the realm of entertainment.

Zombies on the other hand have always been the younger sibling. It’s history has it’s basis on local religious folklore from African slaves brought over to work the plantations of Imperial colonies in the West. The zombies of these West Indies folklore were not the flesh-eating creatures we now know, but just another form of slavery. The flesh-eating aspect of the zombies would not make it’s appearance until a filmmaker from Pittsburgh decided to make his recently risen dead to become flesh-eaters. Night of the Living Dead gave birth to the zombies that’s turned legions of readers and monster aficionados into fans of the monster. A monster who wasn’t as strong or as sexy as the vampire, but much scarier and quite more apocalyptic in its nature. It’s this apocalyptic aspect of the zombie monster which keeps this younger monster from becoming fully eclipsed by it’s more older sibling the vampire.

Now, a question was brought up by the websites Zombie Ammo and Vampybit.Me about the topic on vampires and zombies. With the current popularity of these two monsters there was bound to be a debate on who would win in a match-up between the two monsters for domination of the world.

In one corner we have vampires who retain their intellect and have increased all their senses and even given supernatural abilities. They also remain living dead who need the blood of the living to survive with their faculties intact. No blood means having to waste away into a sort of limbo where death doesn’t truly come but also living death becomes a paralyzing curse only to be lifted with infusion of this life giving blood.

In the other corner we have zombies who are literally mindless with only the primal instinct to feed the only motivation for their existence. But feed on living flesh they must and their hunger has no limit. Their literally a locust on a global scale which would scour the planet of all living things. It doesn’t matter whether the flesh is human or animal but it has to be the warm, living flesh that feeds them. In the end, zombies would become the extinction-level event for humanity.

So, who would win in such a battle for domination.

Vampires need humans. While their appetites ultimately kills their human victims they do try to keep their feeding in moderation. While there are stories and films that paints a world where vampires rule the planet openly they still maintain slave-colonies and/or human farms where they allow their human cattle to breed and multiply thus  their food source remains constant. Human extinction is not what vampires want, but control of humanity instead. Controlling their food and harvesting them in an efficient manner. Only a select few would be turned into vampires. Humans who are willing to serve their undead lords would protect them during the daytime and become Renfield overseers over those humans who do not feel the same.

Zombies on the other hand do not care whether their appetites have been sated by a recent feeding. They will continue to feed as long as a living human and/or animal is in their reach. They would gorge themselves to the infinite for that’s what their instinct drives them to do. Human won’t be able to reason or subjugate themselves upon these monsters. These monsters do not have the wherewithal to ration their food source. The fact that death itself (any death whether through zombie, accident or natural) would just add to their geometrically increasing numbers.

How can humanity find a way to stave off extinction in the face of such a surge of death?

The answer to that is the answer to who would win between vampires and zombies. An answer that some may not agree with (being a zombie fan I’m actually surprised I came to this conclusion), but is the correct one when the question was logically looked at.

Vampires would win over zombies.

I say this because despite the vampires having lesser numbers they would have the intellect and know-how to defeat the legions of walking dead. They do this not out of the goodness of their unbeating hearts, but out of necessity. A necessity that ties their existence with the continued existence of humanity. A humanity that becomes extinct due to a zombie apocalypse would inexorably lead to the very downfall of the vampires themselves.

Vampires on skill alone would be able to destroy any zombies they come across. The fact that their flesh are cold and they’re not living makes them invisible to the zombies. They don’t want to feed on dead flesh because if they did then they would turn on each other instead. This aspect of the vampire keeps them upright and ready to fight.

With their food source endangered by this upstart monster the vampire would have no choice but to protect this valuable resource. As we’ve seen with the more popular types of vampire stories and film it is that vampires are small in numbers, global and ruled over by a council of elders who governed clans of vampires. They impose rule of vampiric law to make sure that their kind remain secret from the world at-large and/or keep their numbers down to better keep the vampiric plague from becoming a wildfire that would scour the planet of life.

It would be up to these governing bodies of vampires to make sure humanity doesn’t succumb to any form of zombie apocalypse. The level of survival for humanity from such an apocalypse will depend on how quickly vampires marshall their meager, but powerfu forces to stave off the inevitable tide of walking dead. They could respond right away and stop the tide before it becomes a global pandemic or their response would be slow and bring humanity to the brink.

In the end, vampires would do whatever it takes to keep humanity from joining the likes of the dinosaurs and mammoth. Whether it’s using their own supernatural-given abilities to destroy zombies by the score and hundreds. Or they could reveal themselves to humanity as vampiric saviors and giving them a choice: become extinct by way of an unchecked zombie apocalypse or allowed to be ruled by a vampiric elite who would protect them from this tide.

It’s a lousy choice for humanity, but one that I think they would choose for the latter (until they find a way to defeat both and keep themselves whole). The prospect extinction is a powerful motivator for a species and choosing to continue one’s species even under the rule of a parasitic race is a better choice than dying out under the teeth and clawed nails of the walking dead.

As you can tell I’m a huge fan of both (though I lean more towards zombies) and have thought about this topic on more than one occasion. This site has seen many posts about zombies though not enough about vampires which would need to be remedied. There’s the ongoing reviews of The Walking Dead in both it’s comic book and TV series form. There was also the reviews of this past summer’s anime series hit which also dealt with the zombie apocalypse but with a level of T&A involved to spice things up a bit. I speak of Highschool of the Dead.

Feel free to leave comments about what you think the conclusion I arrived at. Who do you think will win out between vampires and zombies? Which of the two do you like to read and watch more of? If there was a zombie apocalypse would you try to survive on your own or submit yourself to a vampiric protector and hope they don’t run out of their own supply of blood?

Red Riding Hood Trailer


I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part One earlier today and, before the film started, I saw the trailer for the upcoming Red Riding Hood.  The trailer itself gives off a definite Twilight vibe, which isn’t surprising since both films were directed by Catherine Hardwicke and, regardless of what we may think of them, the Twilight films have made a lot of money.  So, it makes sense that the trailer would be designed to bring in as many Twilight fans as possible…

Still, I’m looking forward (though admittedly, with a certain amount of caution) to Red Riding Hood.  Why?  Well, first off, Gary Oldman’s in it and Gary Oldman would have made Twilight a lot better as well.  Plus, both of the leads are pretty to look at.  (And, it should be noted, if Amanda Seyfried could give a good performance in a terrible film like Chloe than she can probably give a good performance in anything.)  And finally — Catherine Hardwicke made her debut with Thirteen back in 2003 and I love that film so much that I can even forgive her for a hundred Twilights.

Anyway, here’s the trailer.

Film Review: Welcome To The Rileys (dir. by Jake Scott)


Last weekend, I went down to one of my favorite movie theaters, the wonderful Plano Angelika, and I saw one of the best — if unheralded — independent films of 2010, Welcome To The Rileys.

Kristen Stewart plays Alison, a 16 year-old runaway who, as the movie opens, is working as a stripper and prostitute in New Orleans.  One day, while at work, she meets a middle-aged businessman named Doug Riley (James Gandolfini).  Doug is in New Orleans attending a convention and he reluctantly accepts Alison’s offer of a private dance.  As soon as they’re alone together, Alison immediately offers to have sex with Doug for money.  Doug turns her down, Alison angrily accuses him of being an undercover cop, and a flustered Doug leaves the club.  Later that night, Doug happens to run into Alison again and, looking to make amends with her, he gives her a ride back to her “home,” which turns out to be an apparently abandoned and condemned row house.  Doug ends up sleeping over at the house (though again, he refuses to have sex with Alison).  The next day, Doug offers to pay Alison a hundred dollars a day if he can stay in her house while he’s in New Orleans.  Alison, who is always on the look out for extra money, agrees.  After a rough start, Doug and Alison settle into a bizarre sort of domesticity with the paternalistic Doug teaching Alison how to make a bed and Alison calling on Doug when one of her clients refuses to pay her for her services.

What Alison doesn’t know is that Doug has a wife in Indiana.  Lois Riley (played by Melissa Leo) hasn’t stepped outside of their suburban home in years.  Ever since the tragic death of their 16 year-old daughter, Lois has cut herself off from the world and her husband (even to the extent of tolerating Doug’s affair with a local waitress).  However, when Doug calls her from New Orleans and announces that he won’t be coming home for a while, Lois forces herself to leave the house.  While Doug is busy trying to escape from reality, Lois is driving down to New Orleans to try to bring him back.

When Lois reaches New Orleans, Doug introduces her to Alison and, to his surprise, the two of them almost immediately start to bond.  Lois tells Alison about how their daughter and Alison responds by telling the story (which, the film hints, might not be true) of how her own mother also died in a car accident.  Soon, both Doug and Lois have — for all intents and purposes — adopted Lois as their own daughter.  However, what neither has considered is that Alison might not want to a part of the Riley family…

Welcome To The Rileys is ultimately a touching and low-key exploration of grief, guilt, and the struggle to accept the occasionally unpleasant realities of life.  It’s also a portrait of three lost souls struggling to connect with the existence around them.  Jake (son of Ridley) Scott’s direction is properly low-key and manages to be affecting without indulging in any of the obvious tricks that one might expect to see in a film like this.  However, what makes this film ultimately work is a strong trio of lead performances from Gandolfini, Leo, and Stewart.

Playing Doug (a character that both I and the film had mixed feelings about), James Gandolfini gives a performance that’s so good that I never once found myself tempted to make any “Soproano”-related asides under my breath.  Though his Southern accent comes and goes, Gandolfini brings the perfect combination of warmth, concern, self-pity, and stubbornness to his role and he makes Doug an understandable and sympathetic — if not always likable — character.  A part of me feels that the film’s screenplay is a bit too quick to let Doug off the hook for some of his actions but, as an actor, Gandolfini never makes the same mistake.

Playing Alison, Kristen Stewart proves that it’s time to forgive her for starring in Twilight.  Her performances in Into The Wild and The Runaways provided hints that she’s actually a very talented actress but her performance here proves it.  She not only captures Alison’s sadness but, even more importantly, she doesn’t shy away from the anger that feeds off that sadness.  She never sentimentalizes her performance, there’s no moment where she pauses to let the audience know that she’s a good girl at heart.  Instead, she dares us to reject her while revealing just enough of her inner pain to make it impossible for us to do so.

However, for me, the film really belongs to Melissa Leo.  Whether she’s struggling to figure out how to drive her husband’s car or primly introducing herself to Alison (who, at the time, is dressed for work), Leo is simply amazing.  When Lois first appeared in the film, I was worried because it felt as if the filmmakers were using her agorophobia to justify Doug’s adultery.  However, Melissa Leo subtly and surely starts to peel away the layers of Lois’ outward repression until, by the end of the movie, Lois is the most vibrant character in the film.  Just check out the scene where Lois responds to a flirtatious man in a truck stop with a combination of pride, amusement, and surprise and you’ll see what great acting is all about. 

When Lois finally ends up in New Orleans, she seems to bring a whole new life to the movie.  What previously seemed to simply be a meditation on loss and sadness is instead revealed to be a celebration of life and love.  For a film that originally seemed to be about an errant husband and an angry runaway, Welcome To The Rileys eventually turns out to be a tribute to one woman who turns out to be far stronger than anyone gave her credit for.

With all the current Oscar hype surrounding films like The Social Network and The Kids Are All Right, Welcome To The Rileys is the type of low-key, subtle movie that will probably be forgotten in the rush to jump on all the more obvious bandwagons.  That’s a shame because it’s one of the best films of 2010 and one that deserves to be seen over the years to come.

 

Let Me In Red Band Trailer and SDCC Exclusive Posters


In 2008 a Swedish film called Let the Right One In stormed through the film festival circuit and became one of the most critically-acclaimed film of that year. The film was an adaptation the a novel by the same name by Swedish author John Ajvide Lindqvist. It took the vampire genre which has started to gain a sort of resurgence in the past 5 years due to the teen-pop vampire-romance franchise Twilight.

Tomas Alfredson’s film was definitely the anti-Twilight of this resurgence. It was a beautifully-shot and framed film with a dark, poignant story to match the visuals. While arthouse film fans and horror fans with discerning taste praised the film the rest of the general public either ignored it or never even heard about it. This is always the case when it comes to foreign films which tries to make a bridgehead onto the U.S. film market.

The film has since been discovered by the general public through home video sales and through Netflix, but not before an American film studio has bought the rights to produce an American remake for the American market. It fell onto the shoulders of Cloverfield director Matt Reeves to film this remake and try to dampen any advance outrage by the original film’s fans. While there will remain a very vocal group denouncing this “Americanized” remake of Let the Right One In (renamed Let Me In for the remake) I think casting decisions and certain stylistic choices by Reeves has me hoping that this remake will not fail but actually stand on it’s own while still letting the original keep it’s status as one of the best horror films of the past decade.

Above is the newly released Red Band Trailer for the film and below are two posters for the remake which were unveiled over at San Diego Comic-Con 2010. Both posters definitely take on a very stylized look. The second one looks too similar to Park Chan-wook’s poster for Thirst. The first one I like better as it combines the film’s innocence with the darker underlying story really well.