Zombie Honeymoon

Zombie Honeymoon (2004) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

"The first truly romantic flesh-eating corpse movie"

John Landis (Director of Animal House and American Werewolf in London)

This film asks the question, "How far would you go for love?", and it does so within a high-concept premise. Suppose, if you will, that we live in a perfectly ordinary world that complies to all the known rules of human existence except one: zombies are real. Now suppose that you are a woman who has absolutely found Mr Right, no question about it. You're both totally in love, and you're on your dream honeymoon at the shore when he gets bitten my a zombie and starts turning into one himself. What do you do? Do you call the police and then run off to hide in Dick Cheney's undisclosed location, or do you stick by the true love of your life through better or worse, till death do you part?

The wife here tries to stand by her man, but that gets increasingly more difficult as his condition deteriorates. For example, when their best friends come to visit, hubby has to promise that eating their flesh is off limits. Eventually the wife realizes that the craving for flesh is so strong that even she is not really off limits.

The IMDb classifies this as horror-drama-comedy, but it isn't really funny. If you consider the premise, you will conclude that it has great comic potential, but the film isn't played out that way. There is some humor in the film, but the husband's zombification is treated exactly the same as if he had AIDS or some other terrifying, degenerative, potentially transmittable disease, and the wife's reactions are fairly similar to what would happen in a parallel real world case of that nature. As the New York Times wrote, "This is, after all, a tragic love story at the core, one that aims to portray how difficult it is to lose a loved one to disease (substitute any affliction for zombieism)."

Some real reviewers took a look at it (it screened at several festivals in 2005), and it scores a 63 overall at Metacritic, with no score below 50. I am not so enthusiastic about it. The concept is intriguing, the script isn't bad, and the lead actress is actually quite good, but it is much stronger as an idea than it is in execution. To me, it's one of those films which might have been good with a little more work and a lot more money. As it stands, the lighting is generally poor, the camera work generally hand-held, some acting moments are uncomfortably poor, and it looks more like a home movie than a professional film. On the other hand, the DVD is not a rip-off if you are curious about the idea. The film does have some laughs, some tears, and a unique take on the zombie genre; and the DVD has two full-length commentaries if you really get into it.

DVD INFO

the widescreen transfer is anamorphically enhanced
two full-length commentary tracks
a "making of" featurette

NUDITY REPORT

Tracy Coogan shows her breasts in a dark sex scene.

The Critics Vote ...

Metacritic.com. 63/100

The People Vote ...

IMDB summary. IMDb voters score it 5.4/10

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Our own guideline:

A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre.
B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. In order to rate at least a B-, a film should be both a critical and commercial success. Exceptions: (1) We will occasionally rate a film B- with good popular acceptance and bad reviews, if we believe the critics have severely underrated a film. (2) We may also assign a B- or better to a film which did not do well at the box office if we feel that the fault lay in the marketing of the film, and that the film might have been a hit if people had known about it. (Like, for example, The Waterdance.)
C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by people who enjoy this kind of movie. If this is your kind of movie, a C+ and an A are indistinguishable to you.
C means it is competent, but uninspired genre fare. People who like this kind of movie will think it satisfactory. Others probably will not.
C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie, but genre addicts find it watchable. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film, but films with this rating should be approached with caution by mainstream audiences, who may find them incompetent or repulsive or both. If this is NOT your kind of movie, a C- and an E are indistinguishable to you.
D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.
E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre.
F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C, I guess. This is a tough one to grade. It is a genre film which critics liked better than genre lovers. The film which was generally praised, at least mildly, by critics, but genre lovers reacted with mixed emotions. For example, some people who love gore films found the film too sappy and too amateurish.