The October Zombie-Thon! - Day 25: The Quick and the Undead

Posted by Trevor Snyder on 10.25.2007

Sorry, Raimi fans, this ain't the sequel you think it is.

THE QUICK & THE UNDEAD (2006)

Written & Directed by: Gerald Nott
Country: USA


Is it just me, or is the overall lack of zombie-westerns pretty surprising?

C'mon, at this point we've seen zombie comedies, zombie romances, zombie war movies, zombie dramas, zombie porn, kung-fu zombies…hell, we've seen movies about Hot Wax Zombies, for pete's sake! And yet, for whatever reason, we're shockingly short on films with flesh-eating corpses taking a bite out of the Old West. How can this be?

The simple answer, I guess, is that the modern zombie boom didn't begin until well after the heyday of the cinematic western. But that seems a little too easy of an answer, if you ask me. After all, I've seen enough "zombie western" novels, comic books, and RPG's to know there's a definite market for the merging of the two genres. No, I'd venture that the real explanation for the dearth of these films is money (isn't it always?).

The reason so many independent zombie movies flood the marketplace each year is because they are relatively cheap to make (clearly, judging by the some of the movies I watched). But if you suddenly want to dress all your actors up in period costumes and have your story take place in an old western town – well, your budget just jumped up a little, didn't it? And so, because it's just cheaper to set your undead opus in modern times, we've ended up with an unfortunate lack of the living dead in the Wild West.

I suppose it's a good thing, then, that we have filmmakers like Gerald Nott making an attempt to right this wrong. Granted, he could have made a stronger attempt, but hey, at least he's trying. As a fan who'd really like to see a good zombie western, I'd say that counts for something.

Just for the record, Nott's film, The Quick and the Undead, bares absolutely no relation to Sam Raimi's underrated western The Quick and the Dead - which is a shame, because I think we can agree that a zombified Leo Dicaprio might not be a bad thing.

Instead, we get a tale set some 80+ years in the future, after a nuclear war and resultant radiation have all but wiped out the earth's population, leaving the survivors to fend for themselves against the flesh-hungry reanimated corpses of the dead. Needless to say, the planet has become something of a lawless wasteland as a result, but is finally starting to get back on track thanks to the government's decision to pay bounty hunters for any zombie they can kill. These hunters claim their bounty by turning in the pinky fingers of any ghoul they destroy – which of course begs the question: how exactly does just turning in a zombie's finger prove you actually killed the damn thing? Oh well, if the movie didn't find that important enough to address, I guess the government isn't too concerned about it either.

The film's hero is one of the bounty hunters, Ryn Baskin (Clint Glenn), your typical western badass, with a very helpful talent – he can be bitten by zombies, and not succumb to their usually infectious bite. I bet you're wondering why that's so. Believe me, so am I. The movie is pretty vague about the whole thing, although at one point Ryn equates it to how you never get chicken-pox a second time. So, what, he had a case of zombie-pox when he was a child?

Ryn's successful zombie-hunting streak is almost cut short when he is betrayed by a supposed ally and left for dead by a rival gang of bounty hunters. After coming to, Ryn sets off to find the gang and retrieve his stolen bounty, in the process uncovering an evil plot. Turns out the leader of the gang has taken to actually starting zombie outbreaks in populated towns, in order to have more undead to kill. "Not a bad idea," muses Ryn. Still, business is business, and Ryn won't stop till he gets back what's his.

Thanks to its better-than-average script, first-class cinematography, decent gore effects (apart from one pretty-bad computer generated kill), and well-paced tempo, The Quick and the Undead is certainly a notch above many of its direct-to-video peers. Although the dialogue can get a little cliché, and the story has its stumbles (a romantic subplot in the third act comes out of nowhere, and isn't really important enough to justify it), I found myself quite impressed with some of Nott's ideas. For instance, the villain's plot to keep the infection alive and thriving for his own benefit is an intriguing concept. Plus, I liked Ryn's personal motto regarding how to deal with zombies: "never go inside." Zombie films almost always focus on characters cornering themselves into inescapable buildings – this is one of the few to acknowledge that your chances of outmaneuvering the living dead are much better out in the open.

Despite my praise, however, I have a rather large issue with the film, and that is: why isn't it just a full-on western? We have a story and characters that adhere to all the traditional western clichés and stereotypes, and yet the film is set in the future, for no real reason that I could see. In fact, the futuristic setting only makes the overall direction of the movie most confusing. OK, I get that everyone has survived a horrible, near-world-ending plague…but why exactly have they all started to talk and dress like they work at Wild West theme-park? For that matter, why have they all decided to use only ancient six-shooters and shotguns? Doesn't anyone ever stop to think that maybe an Uzi would be a slightly better weapon to take into a zombie-infested town?

I'm assuming Nott would argue that he was going for some cool mash-up of westerns and futuristic sci-fi (a la Serenity), and that would be fine – if that was indeed the case. Here, though, the futuristic element adds absolutely nothing to the movie. This thing is essentially a western, through and through. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the cowboys ride motorcycles instead of horses. Was that the big reason for the time setting? Did Nott figure it would be cheaper to rent some motorcycles than to pay his cast for horse-riding lessons?

You might think I'm nit-picking, or that this is an unnecessary complaint, but I can't lie and say it didn't bother me just a little. I've been waiting for a good zombie western, and here's a film that comes close, yet seems to be too ashamed to just go ahead and officially take the plunge. If you're gonna have your dialogue and set-pieces feel like they're from the Old West, then why not just set it back then (the overall story would have worked exactly the same). Likewise, if you're going to place your story in the future, try to get some mileage out of that decision. By just awkwardly mashing the two ideas together, it ends up feeling like Nott was unsure of what kind of movie he wanted to make.

The film also suffers from the poor lead performance of Glenn. Granted, none of the cast are amazing thespians (Ryn's duplicitous foreign sidekick, played by Nicola Giacobbe, is especially grating), but none of them quite sink the ship like Glenn. I'll admit, with his haggard beard, long hair, and black trench-coat and cowboy hat, Glenn certainly looks the part of the western hero. If this had been a silent movie, he would have been perfect – a theory heavily supported anytime he opens his mouth and delivers his lines in a painful Clint Eastwood impression.

Still, this is a case where the good outweighs the bad – not by much, mind you, but just enough to get by. It might not be the most memorable zombie film you'll encounter, but it is pretty high-up on the DTV food-chain. Given better actors and a higher budget (not to a dialogue-writing workshop), Nott may have delivered an excellent little horror/action movie. As is, Quick and the Undead is mildly enjoyable – which I guess will just have to do until we finally get the all-out zombie-western I've been waiting for.

FINAL SCORE: 2.5 out of 4 Bubs (Mildly Recommended)