The problem is when you have a film that's sort of realistic but doesn't go all the way there, or vice versa- it's much safer to either suspend reality altogether and go with it, or go for credible and stick with it. There's a sort of uncomfortable middle ground at times, which these kind of films can fall into, where it doesn't make its mind up.
If you want to mix the two, it's much better to have a setting which is basically realistic and then throw in one element that's fantastical, as a neat "what if" exploration.
It's a bit of a leap from this to what I'm about to suggest, I know, but take a look at a film like Carpenter's The Thing. The setting, characters, plot and all the trappings are totally credible and believable, yet you have a shape-shifting alien creature as the central threat.
Where do we put that in the scheme of realism? I think that's the perfect example of how to mix reality and fantasy together. I would say, for all intents and purposes, it's a realistic film, not a fantastical one. It would have been totally ruined by unlikely coincidences, mythical weapons and so forth.
That's the uncanny valley that has to be avoided at all costs.
Although, to be honest, my major gripe with this film- as with so many others like it- is the overall premise: that someone who is an individual, has their own style, their own spirit and their own character, can really only be truly happy when they've had all of that personality erased and joined the beige-coloured world of average meathead drones and unthinking good girls. What the heck kind of message is this to be constantly sending out? "Don't be the lone survivor in the shopping mall; come out and let the zombies turn you into one of them, you know it makes sense."
Great.
reply
share