Zombies vs. Strippers

I was searching through the new movie releases when I came across the following title: Zombies vs. Strippers. Intrigued, I read the full description:

The local strip club has seen better days. But tonight it's gonna see a whole lot worse. Spider has been losing money on his business for years. Now it's finally getting the traffic he's always wanted, unfortunately most of his patrons are undead. With a sudden outbreak of the zombie virus, Vanilla, Bambi, and Sugar Hills deal with the disaster the way only a stripper can, as blood and braziers [sic] go flying.

Rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America for bloody horror violence, sexuality/nudity, language, and some drug use.

Excusing the several grammatical problems, I can’t say that this description holds any allure. I suppose there must be a market out there for zombie-stripper movies that promise “bloody horror violence, sexuality/nudity, language, and some drug use,” not to mention protagonists name “Vanilla, Bambi, and Sugar Hills,” but that market doesn’t include 63-year-old retirees living (as yet not undead) in Iowa. There seem to be more and more movies released each week, but at the same time fewer and fewer worth viewing. The problem with a market-driven media (film, TV, books, whatever) is that the market doing the driving is 16 to 28 years old and can’t get enough sex and gore, separately or preferably mashed together, “blood and braziers [sic] . . . flying.” Hence, someone was able to conceive of, finance, produce, and distribute something called Zombies vs. Strippers. It would be nice to think that it is a neo-theater-of-the-absurd comedy in the manner of Ionesco, Genet, or Beckett, or even Mel Brooks. But I’m not going to bet the $1.20 rental fee to find out.