#109 - King of the Zombies

Oh man, there is a crapload to talk about with this one. Which is kind of odd considering that it's only an hour long. But my plate is full, so I'll get right to it. First and foremost, we have some legal business to discuss. WHAT? It's true. You see, there is a bit of a dilemma involved with this movie. Actually, it's not the movie itself, it's the DVD it came on. This movie was part of a three movie DVD entitled Ghostly Grins. No problem with that, we have run into this before. The problem is that the third movie on this DVD is a sequel, and I have not seen its predecessor. The conflict here is between the well established "no sequel" rule, and the desire to watch all three movies in the DVD, as they have been packaged for sale. After brief deliberation with unofficial consultant, Bubba K, Esq., it was more than time to bring the matter to my legal representation, Fosberg and Chubbs. After much discussion, it was determined that I cannot sacrifice the "no sequel" rule. While willing to go along with whatever ruling was reached, I didn't feel right not watching the last movie. But alas, luck was on my side. There just so happens to be a DVD with the sequel and it's predecessor on it. Therefore, I can rent this DVD in order to see all movies on the DVD, and keep the "no sequel" rule intact. So it's done. The only problem is that blockbuster.com is continuing to deliver its movies in a ridiculously inconsistent manner. So, I'm watching the first two movies on the DVD, and I'll have to wait until the other DVD arrives to watch the other two movies. Kind of a pain in the ass, but this strengthens the "no sequel" rule. Maybe next time I will pay closer attention to what movies are on a DVD compilation, and do something about it ahead of time.

Anyways...King of the Zombies. Sounds good doesn't it? Well, you would be wrong. It's not a very good movie at all. But like many older movies, there is a bit of entertainment to be had by watching them, purely on seeing how bad they are. The good ones reach a level of being so bad that they are good. This one has it's moments, but ultimately it falls short of that status, probably because there is too much talking and not enough zombie action. And lets be real, the zombie action that is there, isn't that great. I mean, how is it possible that an hour long movie about zombies can have moments of tedium? Instead of a movie where they have to fight off zombies and destroy the king of the zombies, we get a bit of a whodunnit on a a tropical island, mixed in with a bit of campy humor. But its all so obvious, from crashing a plane into a graveyard, to the menacing master of the house, and the freaking title of the movie. The problem is, they drag it out over most of the movie. "Something's not right here." "I agree, but I don't know what it is." Gee, what could set you off? Could it be that the master of the house has a striking resemblance to Ardath Bey in The Mummy?(That's the old one people) Could it be that this guy has a wife who is essentially a vegetable? Could it be that every time you enter into a scary house, there is usually a reason for it being so scary? Seriously, you took an hour to tell your story, and most of it was spent on two guys figuring out the most obvious mystery known to man.

And here's the big kicker of it all...the movie is blatantly racist. I'm not talking about anything as blatant as black face, minstrel type of rascist, but it's more than your run of the mill black milkman kind of character who enters the room with something along the lines of a "Yessuh". Let me explain. One of the boneheads who takes to long to figure out what's wrong with the island has a valet, or whatever he was called, and this guy is black. The man is the comic relief because nothing says funny more than a sassy black sidekick. Okay, fine. Whatever. But it gets really rascist with some of the lines they wrote for him. I have examples, and I wrote them down to get them exactly right. First and foremost, the plane they are all in crashes on a strange tropical island. The valet wakes up with his head on a tombstone. He is afraid that he has died and begins to freak out when the other two find him and reassure him. What's his line after that? "I thought I was a little off color to be a ghost." Are you kidding me? I mean, I knew this went on, but I had never seen it with my own eyes, and had no idea how blatant it was. The guy sees a zombie for the first time, and what does he say? "If it was in me, I sure would be pale now." I was shocked. But as bad as it is, you've gotta keep this stuff out there. I know that there are people out there who would be so appalled at this, and they would never want this movie to be seen again. But I say it stays. This kind of thing was the norm back then and we have to know what it was like in order to make sure that we are never like that again. You take this away, as bad as it is, and no one learns from it. All that aside, I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't be watched because its a crappy movie. Forget the rascist part, the movie sucks on its own merit.

#108 - Born to Kill

Well, I didn't have to wait very long. Those of you who read my Dillinger review(the old one), know that I was withholding judgement on Lawrence Tierney until I saw more of his work. I couldn't tell if he was a great actor playing a great part, or a one trick pony that fit perfectly into the kind of movie that was being made. I have reached the conclusion that he is the latter, but I am okay with that. I'm sold. I think he's great. Sure, he's not the best actor, but what he does is so entertaining to watch it doesn't matter. It's not like he's Keanu Reeves doing Shakespeare. This man is stone cold, hard boiled, and all those other descriptions of a classic gangster heavy. His death stare is absolutely perfect. You do not want this guy to give you his death stare. It will turn your blood cold. I realized that I had reservations about him because the movie he was in wasn't that great. Put him into something with a better script and better director, and his talents come shining right through. While writing this I also realized that for some dumb reason, I called him Gene instead of Lawrence in my review of Warren Oates' Dillinger. I fixed it, so all of you who noticed...(stunning silence)...can withhold your comments.

Now that I have said all of that, I will tell you that I think this movie actually belongs to Claire Trevor. It's all about that no good dirty dame. She gets caught up into Tierney's world of murder, and is somehow attracted to it all. She starts playing the game. Not the murder game, but the deception and backstabbing game. I gotta tell you, she is a worthy adversary for Tierney and at many times proves herself to be on equal standing with him in the department of being stone cold nasty. I can't say that I understand the reason for having them be in love with each other, except for danger attracting danger, but it is what it is, and the interaction between the two of them is so tremendously compelling that I can look past it. Major kudos to Claire Trevor for sticking it to the king of hard cases.

This movie forces me to specify another sub-category in this film genre. I wouldn't say that it's a film noir like White Heat because it doesn't have that stylized grit to it that noir reminds me of. It's not a gangster movie because none of these people are gangsters. Sure, Tierney is a criminal and has some underworld type things going on, but were aren't dealing with organized crime or anything like that. I guess the only label I can put on it is Crime Drama, but that's kind of by default. I don't really have a good label for this kind of movie. I guess it could be a pulp kind of thing, but I don't really have a good definition for what is pulp, so I can't go with that. I guess the main thing is not what it is, it's what it isn't, and that's a noir film or gangster flick.

#107 - Dillinger

A few weeks back, I review another movie by the same title starring Lawrence Tierney. While I enjoyed the movie, I found myself wanting more out of the story and portrayal of John Dillinger. Soon after posting, I got a message from my friend Boog. On his own movie page(It's under My Peeps...figure it out shmuck), he had recently talked about watching this movie back in the day, and in his message, he suggested that I watch this version of Dillinger. I was interested in this movie after reading what he had written, but I was more excited that I was actually going to be able to watch a movie that someone had recommended to me. Boog has recommended movies before, and while I make note of them, I can't bring myself to put them in my queue because it would break up the anal retentive nature of my movie placement process. This does aggravate some, and they have refused to recommend movies to me anymore. All I can say is that it's not personal, I just have a thing going and I don't wanna break up one of the most important aspects of it, the randomness. Having said all that, I actually had this DVD out and ready to watch the same day that Boog sent his message. And I did watch it that day, which was in late February. This goes to show you how behind I am in writing my reviews. I have just been a bit lazy about writing them. I have still been watching movies, just not reviewing them. Do not fret, they will be reviewed, and in the order of viewing. I have about six to do, and believe me, the schizophrenia is ridiculous. But that's not why you came here today.

Everything that I wanted out of the Tierney version of Dillinger, I found in this one. The story starts off a bit differently in this one. Dillinger has already established himself as one of the nations top bank robbers, and thankfully so because we are able to start off with a truly wonderful scene. In this scene, we see Dillinger robbing a bank, but it is shot from the perspective of a held up bank teller. Dillinger, who is masterfully played by Warren Oates, looks through the bars of the teller window and exudes confidence, charm, and a restrained ruthlessness. It was completely captivating and in a matter of moments, established the kind of person that Dillinger is. There are movies than can't establish a convincing main character at all, and this one does it in the first five minutes. Not to mention the symbolism of the iron bars.

I found the story to be pretty good as well. It's less plot driven than the Tierney Dillinger, and this left room for a look at what makes Dillinger tick. This is not to say that we are witnesses to an epiphany about the mindset of a notorious bank robber. Instead, we are shown a hint of humanity, as opposed to Tierney's stone faced ruthlessness. It might not be fair to compare the two movies since it's clear that there were different reasons for making them, but since I have seen them so recently, I can't help but do it. Warren Oates is just phenomenal. He has a great supporting cast, but he commands full attention, and delivers on every account. I particularly like the scene where he is parked on the border of Mexico. He could easily drive on over and be done with it all, but he's a bank robber, and doesn't know anything else. He's trapped by his own devices, and even with the opportunity to escape, he can't break free from it. This depth of character is completely missing in Tierney's performance, but he was in a different kind of movie. His performance actually fit into the film, it's just that his lack of depth made his movie good, while Oates' performance makes his movie great.

Another thing that appealed to me was the look of the movie. The picture quality has a grainy texture to it, and I find this to be a crucial aspect to the mood of the film. It doesn't have bright colors, and it doesn't have sharp lines. From what I can tell, this was a trend in the 70's and may have something to do with technology allowing filmmakers to do more location shots, but in this case, it was clearly done for a reason. I also have a feeling that this movie was overshadowed by the popularity of Bonnie and Clyde, but I think it has it's own wonderful merit. I haven't seen Bonnie and Clyde, so I can't get into that discussion, but it is in my queue, and someday, we will come back to it. For now, I have to consider this the best of the genre in that time period. I reserve the ability to retract that statement in the future.

#106 - Comic Book Confidential

Now this is what I am talking about. Where Comic Book: The Movie failed, this documentary succeeds. What we have here is a history of comic books that is told in a way that the fanboys can appreciate, and that the not so hardcore fans, like myself, can get interested in. Why, I might even go so far as to say that someone who isn't really a fan of comic books might enjoy this movie. This is largely due to the fact that the director of this documentary treats comic books as a legitimate art form, and gives them the respect that they are due. Add to that a little bit of being well made, and you have the ingredients for a good documentary.

I will admit that I am probably biased. Well, maybe not biased so much as I was bought off early. The first person we see interviewed in this documentary is none other than William M. Gaines. This man's father is responsible for the creation of comic books and Gaines took that creation and ran with it. He created some memorable comics, most notably Tales from the Crypt and one of my all time favorite things ever, MAD Magazine. Don't worry, it was a comic book first. Having him and Harvey Kurtzman in this movie was a treat for me because I read a TON of MAD Magazine growing up. While I didn't always understand all of the humor related to current events, or much of the references to historical moments or personalities, I recognized the sarcasm and satire that was contained within. My parents didn't let me watch rated R movies, but they had no problems getting me a copy of MAD. Little did they know that MAD would rot my brains in more ways than a movie could ever do. But it was a comic book, and comic books are for kids, right? Needless to say, MAD is directly related to my humoristic tendencies, as well as my cynical outlook towards many of the things that make up this world as we know it. That's why I was bought off early. Seeing Bill Gaines in his office, which I am presuming was at MAD headquarters, was enough to suck me in. Good thing the rest of it was worth watching.

So we get a history of comic books, which is nice because like all art forms, it went through periods of struggle, misunderstanding, and adaptation. What makes this documentary good is that it talks to some of the men who laid the foundation for the industry. And to top it off, they read segments of their comic books. Jack Kirby reading the origin of Captain America. Will Eisner reading from The Spirit. In fact, most of the comic book creators featured in this movie read from their work, but it's the old timers that really stand out in my mind. They brought a great historical perspective about how they began writing comics as well as the struggles they faced, especially the Comic Book Code.

I felt as though this documentary had three parts to it. The first being the origination of the medium. The second being the evolution of the medium through the years, as well as the simultaneous explosion of underground comics. There was a lot said about the underground comics that came out of San Francisco in the late 60's, but there wasn't quite the level of historical perspective that you got from the earlier artists. There was definately a sense of what and why, but I didn't quite get the same feeling of impact they had on the comic book world. I have a feeling that this may be due to the fact that this documentary was made in the 80's, and the impact, from a strictly historical perspective, wasn't completely understood. It was clear why they were an important part of the world of comic books, but I didn't get a feeling of the complete social impact, I could be completely wrong, but that's the feeling I got. Finally, there is a segment on current comic books. No historical perspective at all, but a good understanding of what has evolved from the layers of comic book history. It's unfortunate that this movie was made in the 80's because I wanted them to keep going. There's fifteen more years to talk about. But if that movie wasmade today, they wouldn't have gotten to talk to Bill Gaines, and that was the highlight for me personally. So I take it as it is. I have no choice.

#105 - Comic Book: The Movie

There are times when I am forced to admit that what I am watching was just not made for me. What I am talking about are things that are probably well loved by people who are great fans of the subject matter, but since I am not one of those people, I end up being completely un-entertained. But for some reason, I have this ability to see why these things are enjoyed by those fans. My biggest example of this phenomenon is The Vagina Monologues. For those who don't know, this is a play that is performed all across the country, every year on Valentine's Day. A few year back I worked on one of these performances and it was there that I realized that while it is a hugely celebrated event, I was clearly not the target audience. This is not a criticism, but at the same time, I don't feel that I can completely praise the work. Now is the point in the review where I relate a play that is a celebration and a liberation of womanhood with a mockumentary staring and directed by Mark Hamill and set at a comic book convention. Hey, the phenomenon is the same, be it liberated women or hardcore comic book fans.

I like comic books. I'm much more of a cartoon fan, but I enjoy comic books also. Much of my humor was formed in my youth by reading every issue of MAD magazine available and it's obvious rip-off Cracked. Hey, you gotta get your Don Martin fix somehow. While hanging out on the periphery at times, I have never been too deeply immersed in the comic book culture. I enjoy the artwork and storytelling talents involved in their production. I would also enjoy attending a Comic Con convention. I'm just not fully absorbed into it on the level that I think the target audience for this movie is.

First of all, there's the cameos. Most of this movie was shot on location at Comic Con when they held it in San Diego a few years ago. Needless to say, there were a ton of comic book people on hand to take part in the movie. Some of them were obvious and pointed out as such. Matt Groening, Ron Perlman, and Ray Herryhausen are some that were on the floor while they filmed. But there were many moments that were obvious cameo moments, but I had no freaking clue who the hell they were. There was a list of the cameos in the credits. I knew some names, recognized others, but most I had no idea who they were. But I guarantee you that serious comic book fans would have not only known those names, but they would have recognized those people when they were shown in the movie. These were the moments where I didn't think this was a movie for me. Comic book fans probably LOVED the cameos. It had no effect on me.

Having said all that, let's talk about it as a movie. There are some things I enjoyed, but there are things that I didn't that may have been responsible for not being able to overcome the fanboy element. I think the most important thing is that as far a mockumentaries go, it's just not very good at it. There were too many scenes that were obviously scripted. The point of a mockumentary is to tell a story, but in a documentary style. Documentaries don't have narrative scenes in them. The climactic scene itself belongs in a narrative film, not this one, at least not how they presented it here. And the thing is, the truly mockumentary moments were the best parts. The interviews with Stan Lee, Kevin Smith, and Bruce Campbell are great, but the best is when Mark Hamill is wandering around the convention floor interacting with attendees. He is playing a hardcore idealistic comic book fan with a tendency towards the golden age, and it's quite entertaining to see him roam the floor. Another great thing is that most of the other principle actors are cartoon voice over performers. of course, I didn't know all that until looking at the special features. And get this, former Baywatch babe, Donna D'Errico was in the movie playing the actress hired to play Liberty Lass, and she was quite good. She played her part very well and at times was quite humorous. I was shocked. She was also pretty damn hot, but nothing was as hot as the brief shot of the chick dressed up as Hawkgirl. But that's a different story for a different time.