Hey everyone,
One of the oddest, most fucked-up, controversial and long-awaited original releases of the year, Bruce LaBruce's L.A. Zombie Hardcore is determined to get tongues wagging one way or the other. And now it's ready for pre-orders.
Superstar François Sagat plays an alien zombie... or a homeless man suffering from deep schizophrenia. It's never made quite clear, but in some ways that's the point. It received quite a bit of notoriety earlier this year when the edited film festival version (this version contains all the hardcore sex) was slapped with an "Oi! Fuck, no!" from the Australian Classification Board, thus denying its previously booked screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival. (The film screened in Locarno without a problem; I guess the Swiss and Italians are more open-minded regarding black semen and orifice fucking.)
But L.A. Zombie is really a showcase for Mr. Sagat, whose face actually conveys quite a bit of emotion, to the point of it almost being heartbreaking. (The scene in the coffee-shop where he merely stumbles around before sitting looks fantastic.) I'm not sure this is the break-out role he needs to further his non-porn career, but his mere presence - as anyone whose ever met him or seen him on-screen can attest to - is undeniably great.
There's no question that L.A. Zombie is going to divide audiences - you're either going to find it completely fascinating and sick-as-shit fun (everyone I've shown it to thinks it's a blast) or you're going to hate it (as Variety did) and want to pluck out your eyeballs. I watched the film several times. The first time I was like "WTF?" and wasn't quite sure I "got it." Upon a second viewing however, I found it a very interesting experiment; I think the term "art porn" sums it up best. Now before you start rolling your eyes, isn't it better to give something new and different a chance before dismissing it outright? Sure, if you don't know LaBruce's work and aren't open to it, you'll find the film a crashing and/or laughable bore. That would be a shame because although L.A. Zombie is not the director's best, I found it a bent, erotic, occasionally nauseating, and even melancholy trip I'm glad I took.
Superstar appearances by Matthew Rush, Erik Rhodes, Adam Killian Francesco DMacho, Eddie Diaz and even me, Wolf Hudson, is thrown into the mix. Also special appearances by Santino Rice and Toy Ward.
But L.A. Zombie is really a showcase for Mr. Sagat, whose face actually conveys quite a bit of emotion, to the point of it almost being heartbreaking. (The scene in the coffee-shop where he merely stumbles around before sitting looks fantastic.) I'm not sure this is the break-out role he needs to further his non-porn career, but his mere presence - as anyone whose ever met him or seen him on-screen can attest to - is undeniably great.
There's no question that L.A. Zombie is going to divide audiences - you're either going to find it completely fascinating and sick-as-shit fun (everyone I've shown it to thinks it's a blast) or you're going to hate it (as Variety did) and want to pluck out your eyeballs. I watched the film several times. The first time I was like "WTF?" and wasn't quite sure I "got it." Upon a second viewing however, I found it a very interesting experiment; I think the term "art porn" sums it up best. Now before you start rolling your eyes, isn't it better to give something new and different a chance before dismissing it outright? Sure, if you don't know LaBruce's work and aren't open to it, you'll find the film a crashing and/or laughable bore. That would be a shame because although L.A. Zombie is not the director's best, I found it a bent, erotic, occasionally nauseating, and even melancholy trip I'm glad I took.
Wolf Hudson
