Fido
The benefits of being a zombie (insert rigor mortis joke here).

Theatrical Release Date: 03/16/2007 (Canada), 06/15/2007 (USA)
Director: Andrew Currie
Cast: Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Tim Blake Nelson, Henry Czerny

This was another one of those movies that I saw the trailer to online in advance of it’s theatrical release, but it never made it to Indianapolis. Hank could have seen it, but decided to spend his time thinking up names for songs he wished Sarah McLachlan would sing at his tea party.

I love the premise of this movie. Basically it’s pondering the idea that what would have it been like if “Night of the Living Dead” actually happened sometime in the 1950′s. Start there, and add a few more ground rules.

So basically the world is saturated with zombies. There was some kind of war with the zombies, and in the midst of it a scientist invented a device that when placed on a zombie would pacify them and turn them into mindless servants.

There are more details to the plot, but the explaining of them is a nice entertaining part of the movie. It’s like watching a more in-depth duck and cover film from the atomic era. Unfortunately, it’s also the best aspect of the movie.

Fido centers on a single family of three and the process of them purchasing a zombie for their household. The focus of the film goes back and fourth between two characters, but there is a host of secondary characters around for plot and comedic reasons.

The cast is pretty good with the likes of Carrie-Anne Moss, Billy Connolly and Henry Czerny among a few others. While most may only be able to pick out that first name for the obvious reason (or reasons as some may say), you should recognize the other two.

Once you get past the interesting premise and the period piece, the story begins to break down. It’s a lot like a weird, long and twisted episode of “Leave it to Beaver”. Sure it’s in color, but it tries to touch on too many life lessons in it’s own way to really do a good job at answering a single one of the questions it raises.

So in the end it seemed like a movie that was made because someone thought up an interesting premise. The actual story was an after thought. It did a good job of developing the premise and keeping it nicely in period. But the story got away from me quickly… and despite trying, I never got back into it .

I really wanted to like it more because of the premise, cast, and period, but it failed as a movie. But it did succeed at getting a 2 of 5.