Dir. Jess Franco
Oasis of the Zombies is not a good film. But it's not as bad as its
reputation suggests. It probably shows something dead in myself that I can
think of plenty of films worse than this, not including controversial choices,
but this film has virtues in it that just become lost in the final movie. The
oasis is a place in the African Sahara where, during a skirmish in World War
II, a large bullion of Nazi gold was lost in the ground. For anyone who is
going to the oasis however - treasure hunters, the son of a British soldier who
was at the original skirmish - they will encounter the living corpses of the
Nazi soldiers who come up from the sand at night and kill those within the
vicinity. The film still retains virtues of the late director
Jess Franco, and plenty of aspects that
are always there with an auteur, celebrated or a cult one, whose filmography
shuffles between personal work and director of hire films that someone could
still hide their ideas in and blur the lines between the two sides. It does
look great at points visually despite its very low budget and the print quality
of the version I viewed. It shows
Franco
had an exceptional visual eye when he allowed it to be used, reinforced by his
better work like
Succubus (1967),
images of the silhouettes of zombies on top of sand dunes in the dusk and the
sun blazing down upon them standing out for what was said to be an atrocious
film when I was going into viewing it. For a generic zombie premise, it's a
hell of a lot better than some of the ugliest, cheapest looking horror films
I've managed to see, especially as it still had the virtue of actually being
shot on celluloid than a cheap digital camera. I also have to appreciate the
composer, or at least whoever was stuck playing the synth keyboard playing the
same two notes. It'll put off a lot of people, but I have a fathomless passion
for electronic and synth music, including most examples of the tackiest songs
and scores ever made for films, and it felt like the keyboard player was trying
their damndest to bring tension to the visuals onscreen when the film is
dragging its feet. No matter how cheesy the zombie makeup looks, it's clear
they were going to try and get the viewer to react to it in some way, and I
have to applaud their attempt.
It's a typical Euro-horror film,
an acquired taste, whose English dub provided me with the hilarious misheard
quote that titles the review and comes off as incredibly ridiculous. The zombie
makeup - pop eyes zombies who've come from a Guinness World Records attempt to have the furthest out a
dislocated eye can be, a zombie with the head of the mask from George A. Romero's Bruiser (2000) - is silly, the set up for their attacks rudimentary
and all of it coming off as very amusing. It's enjoyable if you can find this
kind of bad horror filmmaking charming, sat from a distance looking at these
actors having to raise out of the sand and lumber about, and engaged seeing the
characters be attacked by the zombies in the tone of a b- or c-movie. It's surprisingly chaste for a Jess Franco admittedly; there is some
sex and violence, but it's very discrete, which is why the film's ended up with
a 15 certificate in Britain. This is not the problem though with the film, very
much adding to the peculiar nature of the movie. No, the problem with Oasis of the Zombies, that has likely
been the reason why its viewed with such hatred justifiably, is because it has
no sense of pace but just slogs along. For a film only eighty minutes long, it
feels much longer. Moments, such as the prelude to the climax as zombies drift
towards the protagonists' camp, show how the film's slow pace can be effective,
but in the middle it's just laborious, with the sense of speed as a comatose
snail. There is still plenty to like about the film around this, but this pace
issue is a mood killer that damages the viewability of Oasis of the Zombies completely, spoiling the joyful moments with
how dull it can be.
This prevents the film from being
a cheesy but fun minor entry in Franco's
filmography. People would still hate it for its failings, but it would have
been schlock with some merit and things to amuse one's self about. The pace
disrupts the final film however and makes it difficult to enjoy it fully. The
result is fascinating as a failure in Franco's
CV, both that is, to be honest, a job for hire that could have still been
entertaining, and a film still containing his distinct voice, but it cannot be
ignored how tiresome it gets when its going nowhere in the middle section. It
would be amusing schlock if it was better, but it's a mess as it is even if
I've subjected myself to worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment