 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
BIOHAZARDOUS
With so many video labels popping up that specialize in straight-to-video micro-budget horror, it's easy to picture BIOHAZARDOUS ending up on rental shelves sometime soon. It's not a balls-out blood and guts vomit-fest, but it's not for sissies either. Most of today's "underground" horror efforts seem to fall into one of those two categories. They also seem to forget that it's the story that needs to come first, a notion that BIOHAZARDOUS takes to heart.
Produced by Howard Hein
Written and Directed by Michael J. Hein
Edited by Jimmy Boyd
Director of Photography - Bud GardnerLaura - Sprague Grayden
Steve - David Garver
Hank - Gary Ray
Super Zombie - David PolneUpon first viewing, BIOHAZARDOUS might come across as a dimestore knock-off of RESIDENT EVIL. There's that same trapped-in-a-corporate-medical-facility-while-being-hunted-by-zombies vibe flowing through both, but rest assured that this egg definitely came before that mega-budget chicken. I first heard about the completed film over a year ago in Hacker's Source magazine, about the time pre-production was starting up for RE.
It's not only the premise of each film that sounds similar, there are elements and plot points in BIOHAZARDOUS that mirror RE almost down to the detail. Consider the genetically engineered uber-creature that plays a part in each film's climax. With BIOHAZARDOUS' completion so close to the start of RE, one has to wonder if someone in Hollywood might have gotten their hands on this baby early on.
What separates the two films is their respective goals. One is an action piece designed to cash in on a video game about flesh eating corpses that were created out of corporate greed, the other is a thriller designed to examine corporate greed, and just happens to be about flesh eating corpses. To put it even more basically, RESIDENT EVIL is concerned about the action taking place within the frame, where BIOHAZARDOUS is concerned about the character interaction within the story.
That's what's so great about smaller movies, they can take chances and focus more on the people involved and how they relate to one another rather than how they kick each other's ass. Which is really the bigger risk? Corporate investors spending $50 million on a shoot-em-up that is masquerading as a horror film, or a newcomer maxing out $5000 on his credit cards with a character study that is masquerading as a horror film? Big money and target demographics will usually turn a dime into a dollar when it comes to action, but MY DINNER WITH THE LIVING DEAD isn't exactly a proven genre.
Before any die hard horror fans stop reading and dismiss BIOHAZARDOUS as the next BLOODY MURDER (talk about your misnomers), please note that there's plenty of carnage to satisfy your cravings. My point is that the gore is not the focus of BIOHAZARDOUS. CGI is not the focus. A naked Milla Jovovich is not the focus (but who in their right mind would have a problem with that one). There should be more present to the story than what the audience desires, and depth of character and story is something that should never be shortchanged for something as common place as gore effects - something I can't stress enough. Then again, if you can't deliver even the basest of exploitation elements, you've also shortchanged your audience. BIOHARZARDOUS is smart enough to deliver the good and then some.