Customer Reviews

Clive Barker's The Plague

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

What a great premise and start to the movie as most of the world's children fall into a coma. 10 years later, no children are born that don't fall into the same coma. The stock market crashes, riots, the world is uneasy. Then the children wake up and they are out for blood. Sounds great, and the children first waking up is really scary. Then the story just falls apart, and the ending is just stupid. Nothing is really explained, and you are left empty at the end. No real gore and average acting. Clive Barker's name is attached, but he certainly did not write this.

It's a pretty sad fact, but the association of Clive Barker with any film no longer guarantees quality; heck, it doesn't even guarantee sufficient gore these days. I've been a Barker fan since the very beginning of his career, but I'm not cutting him any slack on this one. No, he didn't write this film's dreadful screenplay or seemingly invest himself significantly in the project (officially, he's listed as a co-producer), but he darn well let these guys put his name in the title and took his share of the cut. The Clive Barker of old would never have let his name be associated with as bland, unoriginal, and boring a horror film as The Plague.

About the best thing I can say about the film is that I found it too boring to truly hate. Anyone but writers Hal Masonberg and Teal Minton could have done a little something with the premise, but it's certainly not original. It's just another variant on the old children take over the world motif. In this case, all the world's children under nine years of age suddenly fall into a coma (interrupted by two daily, synchronized seizure fits). Ten years later, they all suddenly awaken and go on a zombified rampage, leaving our heroes scrambling to stay alive, etc. It's like Twilight Zone meets Children of the Corn meets every zombie movie you've ever seen.

Our main character, Tom Russel (played by James Van Der Beek), wouldn't you know it, has just arrived back in town, and - surprise, surprise - his ex-wife Jean (Ivana Milecivec) just happens to be one of the nurses taking care of all the town's comatose teens when they suddenly awaken. Why we can't have a mindless zombie film without a romantic sub-plot is quite beyond me, but there you go. Tom and Jean eventually team up with a tiny sheriff's posse, Tom's annoying buddy Sam (Brad Hunt), and a couple of weird, suspicious teens who keep blending in and out of the hordes of walking dead. There's something suspicious about these two, but don't count on the filmmakers to pursue anything in that direction. By the way, you also shouldn't look for any explanation as to the cause of the "plague" that caused this whole mess.

Feel free to argue amongst yourselves whether or not these kids, all very much alive, are actually zombies, but this is clearly just another zombie film - except, in this case, the "heroes" never really try to fight back. Part of the problem is that they don't know where to run. When zombies attack, you're supposed to go to the police station and load up on some heavy weaponry suitable for blowing the things' heads off. These guys head for the one place that is guaranteed to house no weapon of any kind. Even when guns are brought to bear, though, the gore is less than satisfying. There's blood, of course - but not enough of it.

If you're a fan of inane dialogue, this is your film; those looking for a halfway decent plot, buckets of blood and gore, and/or anything remotely scary are sure to be disappointed.

I was pretty surprised & wasn't expecting to like "The Plague". I'm a huge Clive Barker fan but knowing he was only on board as a producer still had me a little worried. Lots of times you'll see someone's name attached to something that had nothing else to do with the movie other than to sell it with there name. Well, I'm happy to say this wasn't the case here(or even if it was, the movies still good). While the movie has some what of a slow start (doesn't really get moving 'til probably 30 minutes in or so)you'll be glad you stuck around for the ride. Like most guys, I'm not the biggest Vanderbeak fan, not to say there's anything necessarily wrong with him, he just got his start on "Dawson's Creek"(not exactly the most manly show in the world). Anyway, I didn't mind him here at all, in fact all the acting was pretty well spot on with only one exception. Can everyone in Hollywood please make sure that "Blonde Over Acting Afro Guy" never ever gets to act ever again? This guy almost coulda ruined the movie. Just about every single scene is pretty gut wrenching to watch him in. There is a nice pay off though as he's brutalised & then killed well, making up for his annoying, whiney over acting. Anyway as far as the story goes, I'm never one to give away to much about the plot, but it goes something like this. The worlds (coulda just been this one little town, don't know I missed that) children all fall into a coma for a period of like a little over 10 years. When they awaken chaos ensues. Little did I know, THIS IS A ZOMBIE MOVIE!!! Now I'm sure some will say "these aren't real zombies cause they're not dead". Screw that cause they are, they're just not undead(as were the people in "28 Days"). Anyway, great creepy movie that kinda feels a little like a cross between "Night Of The Living Dead", "The Faculty", & "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers". Good flick all in all, well worth at least a rental, might even be worth putting in your DVD stash for the avid horror collector. Check it out, you won't be dissapointed.

A strange virus affects all children under the age of nine. They suddenly go into foamy mouthed comas and experience seizures at 10 o'clock twice a day. Childbirth is in the process of being banned, because all children are born in comas.

Then, suddenly, 10 or so years later, the children wake up, and they're in really bad moods. Zombie-like, running around and wrecking havoc on their towns. They like to attack and bash people's heads and break necks.

Three friends, Tom, Sam, and Jean, after running from a school to a church, decide they need to make it to an air force base. But wait, the children have developed a "hive mind", and they're disabling all vehicles and learning to use and store guns.

There's only one thing that can stop them. The rambling diary of the church's priest leaves a clue that somebody must sacrifice a soul to these children to set them free.

That's about it, folks. As a lover of cheesy 'B' films, I can barely give this one an 'F'. To be short and to the point, there are no redeeming qualities to this film, very little gore, no suspense, no intrigue, no surprises, no monsters or daemons, no outstanding photography or soundtrack, no remarkable performances - nothing. If your curious, rent, but at your own risk.

Writer/Director Hal Masonberg is fighting to get his film seen; a film he finished AFTER he was removed from the project. Now he's heading an international campaign to get his film released. The film in question is, THE PLAGUE, a thought-provoking, socially relevant horror movie dealing with the subject of kids and violence. THE PLAGUE was taken away from both its writers and director during post production after they'd spent a total of 8 years struggling to get it made. The film was re-cut from scratch by producers who chose to do so without the involvement of the film's creators. The new focus of the producers? To make what they called a "killer-kid film". Stock footage was added, new dialogue recorded, and the film completely restructured. This "new" cut of the film was released to dvd in September of 2006 at a running time of 88 minutes under the title CLIVE BARKER'S THE PLAGUE, though the film was not based on any of Barker's work. It was, in fact, an original screenplay by Masonberg and co-writer Teal Minton.

Not satisfied with having his name, or his writing partner's name, on a film he felt in no way reflected their years of hard work, creative input or artistic intent, Masonberg decided to finish the film on his own with the materials available to him -the dvd dailies and a Macintosh computer. Masonberg would have preferred access to the film's original 35mm negative which was shot by veteran cinematographer, Bill Butler (JAWS, THE CONVERSATION, ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST), but such was not the case. Sadly, even Mr. Butler was not invited by producers to participate in the film's post-production process.

Using Final Cut Pro, Adobe After Effects and a host of other commercially available programs, Masonberg completed his cut of the film from scratch, teaching himself complex sound design and visual effects along the way.

Today, THE PLAGUE: WRITERS & DIRECTOR'S CUT has been seen by only a few, but the response has been through the roof: "It's amazing how people respond to this film," says Masonberg, "It's not a splatter film, not a gore film. We wanted to make a film that harkened back to when horror films were made for adults and were a reflection of our combined social fears. People who never think about going to see horror movies are now asking to see this one again and again because of what the film says and how it says it."

Unfortunately for Masonberg --and the public as well-- the film's current distributor, Screen Gems, has no plans to release this cut. The good news is that there is a web site, growing quickly in popularity, that is devoted to that very cause. On it one will find, not only a link to a petition with an ever-growing number of signatures, but an hour-long documentary titled SPREADING THE PLAGUE: INTERVIEWS ABOUT THE WRITERS & DIRECTOR'S CUT which contains interviews with Masonberg and cast members, including one of the film's stars, Dee Wallace (E.T., CUJO), as well as noted film authors/ journalists. All participants openly voice their desire to see this cut of the film released. There are also written interviews, radio interviews, links to forums and articles all focusing on getting this film out to the public.

[...]

Clive Barker produced but did not write THE PLAGUE...but what a stinko movie.
All the kids in the world under the age of 9 go into some kind of vegetative state; ten years later they awaken and start killing people. Why? We are never told..and the ending is the biggest copout of all.
DAWSON CREEK's James van der Beek frowns throughout the movie, and Ivana Milocevic just looks bored; the movie makes no sense whatsoever, so don't waste your time like I did!

This movie is absolutely a waste of time. The premise is decent enough, but the actual plot is nowhere to be seen. There is no explanation or cause given as to why these events took place. Clive Barker should sue these people for attching his name so blatantly to a film he merely co-produced. He didn't write the horrendous script or direct the the movie. I can't believe he took the job to begin with. I hope it was a favor for someone. If so, I think it could hurt his credibility. I would be mortified to be stuck with this on my resume. The sad part is, the cast was fairly decent, and I don't even like James Van Der Dork. What a waste of money and what a waste of time.

While the concept of the movie is interesting the follow through of the plot leaves much to be desired. The plague itself was interesting but the reasoning behind it was a little farfetched. As far as I understand it the children of the world (below a certain age) fall into a coma, and the only reasoning is that as a collective decided not to live in our barbaric world. Please....I could've made a better explaination. Try this on for size: Aliens were trying to take over through the use of younger generations, because something about their nature prohibits actual aggression. In reagards to the movie don't waste your time.

This movie begins with a very promising premise, a slow wasting apocolypse as the world's children, those under 9 that is, have lapsed into a coma for 10 years then the 'all hell breaks loose' scenario is enacted when they all wake up in a murderously foul mood. Yes, the dialogue is ridiculousy cliched but if you're interested in watching this, dialogue is probably a secondary concern but this movie lacks in all other areas as well, no gore, barely even any dribbling blood even with shots to the guts and head! The action of gun fights, as late rhte kids get weapons and learn to use them by 'sucking souls'; yea I thought that was stupid too, is nill, they stand in one place and fire one or two shots, a blasto-rama did happen, off-screen, the annoying friend of James' Vander Der Beek's character gets creamed with a deputy, they were armed, the kids were armed, WHERE THE HELL WAS THE GUNFIRE AND SPATTERING BLOOD?! The characers are inane and repeatedly make decisions that do eventually get them killed, it at least made me take comfort in the fact that they got killed no matter how boring (or off camera) their deaths were. The cause is never revealed and the finale well, became psuedo-religious dribble and really made no sense and utterly failed to close out the story.
My final word on this crap, avoid it; if they show it on the sci-fi channel catch it if you're curious other than that don't you dare pay a penny for this, Clive Barker deserves to lose money on this garbage! His name's on it but he didn't write it.

I am posting this review just to warn people off of this film. I agree with the posters here who have panned this movie and I won't recount the plot. But, because I am a writer, I can say that I was amazed that anyone (anyone!) would have put up the money to make this movie. The script starts off well enough (in premise, if not in dialogue) but when the characters started talking (i.e., before the kids wake up) there were warning signs. Almost nothing said by anyone in this script is logical, reasonable, or noteworthy. I kept waiting for the characters to at least follow the stereotypes for this "kind" of movie. But, in almost every scene, the characters say nothing (they just look at each other) or what they do say does nothing to move the story along. I kept talking back to the characters in the movie (a really bad sign for me) in a vain attempt to "encourage" the characters to start acting in a sensible way. I thought several times how the premise of this movie could have been used so powerfully had the producers bothered to actually read the script and then, seeing it was so senseless and bad, had the good financial sense to get a good scriptwriter to fix it. I won't go into how sad it is that the actors involved were wasted on it or, more pathetically, exploited by it (I refer to the actress who plays the mother of the girl who is tied up in the church and who eventually releases here just to be killed by her). I think it's sad when an older actor/actress takes a role in a crappy film just for the money. They deserve so much better.

I do want to mention one scene which was both needlessly offensive and revealing about the quality of the script. I refer to the short scene in the church when the deputy is waiting with the guy whose leg was broken (very easily broken by a young girl) for the others to come back with a vehicle. I was shocked when the deputy entered the room and asked if the guy with the broken leg wanted to eat "the Body of Christ". Come on guys, that line was stupid (it was a box of unconsecrated wafers) and needlessly offensive _unless_ it moved the story along. It didn't. The scene was more interesting a bit later when the two men are talking about what might "explain" the events they were witnessing (aliens, etc.). I laughed because I thought that even the characters were saying how dumb this script was...they were wondering aloud what it was all "about". Sadly, the fact that the two men are shortly gunned down had no meaning even if we take into account that the deputy suddenly is praying the "Our Father" prayer as he waits to be killed. I'm all for a story that looks into the nuances of religion or science or horror or aliens or _whatever_. But this story had no story at all because we (the viewers) never get to learn what the story is really "about", just like those two dead men who were never enlightened. By the final scene (where the camera zooms in on the copy of "The Grapes of Wrath" in the back pocket of the boy who killed the "survivor's" boyfriend) this viewer was left slack-jawed by a script that finally expects its audience to accept some sort of vague metaphysical (i.e., religious) allegory. The script plays around with the idea of a "soul" but builds no basis for the final 10 minutes of the script. Oh, well, I know I'm just rambling now. Sorry. I guess I hoped that by explaining things I might make sense of the senseless. I can't.

As I've just explained, the "the message" in a script is the important thing and is especially important in a bad script (because sometimes the message redeems other failings). I have to say that this script had no real message at all. Just what was this movie about? Zombies? Religious allegory? Teenage angst? Moral sacrifice? Adults "ruining" the world for children and they get pissed and decide to nap for 10 years then wake up and start killing unless someone is smart enough to sacrifice a "soul"? Huh? Maybe it was about nothing? Nothing at all. That's it: it was nothing.

The only "good" thing I can say is that I didn't pay to see this crap. I had a free rental coupon and in an impulse (it was a Clive Barker film, after all), I used the coupon to rent it. I should have checked the reviews here on Amazon as I usually do before renting something. In most cases, the people who are compelled to write a review here do so because they feel strongly (positive or negative) so although the reviewers are a self-selected group, usually the guidance here is useful. I say don't buy or even rent this dumb movie.

Oh, and I agree: Clive Barker should be ashamed. How the mighty have fallen....